Feeds:
Posts
Comments

BREXIT PEOPLE BAD PEOPLE. NOT GOOD.  DISHONEST. DEMOCRATIC. NOT. DEMIGOGS. SAD!

Boris Johnson has got a nerve claiming that Tony Blair’s call to arms to oppose Brexit is undemocratic. He is an Oxford classicist by training. Has he forgotten that Athenian democracy was destroyed by people like himself exploiting popular fears and prejudices, deceiving people with false promises and shamelessly buying their allegiance? Has he forgotten that demagoguery – leading people by the nose – is the inseparable twin of democracy?

Can he or any other Brexiteer cite a single law the people of this country live under that was imposed on us against our will? Can they produce any evidence that this country will be more prosperous and in any way freer after Brexit? What exactly is it that we want to do  that we are prevented from  doing at the moment? Where is that 365 million pounds a week that was going to enrich the NHS?

Policing, education, the health service, planning controls, business rates…Which of these has been determined these last forty-three years by the EU? Not one.

Which British political party applauded asset-stripping? Introduced the Big Bang in financial regulation? Advocated every kind of de-regulation? Encouraged mergers and the growth of massive multi-nationals that have no local roots and do not give a damn about the people the daily detail of whose lives is blighted by their activities, justified always, of course, as inescapable economic necessity? Wrecked the mining industry, even if it were ultimately doomed, without the slightest regard for the suffering of those it threw out of work? Pursuing a relentless policy of austerity whose repercussions are felt most keenly by the poor, when it was essentially the rich and powerful who brought about the 2008 crash by their shameless ambition and greed? Who has been selling the family silver, as the Tories’ own erstwhile leader once put it?

We know the answer. The party of Duncan Smith, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Lilly, Lamont, Lawson, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Edward Leigh (what the hell did they ever do that deserved such titles?), Theresa May and Boris Johnson. They created the conditions which have led to the disaffection of the huddled masses who are too ill-informed and blinded by their own prejudices to see through the lies and deception they have been fed. And is it surprising they are ill-informed when three quarters of the British press – the most widely read titles at that – have done nothing but rubbish the EU from its inception? Has any other newspaper in Europe stooped to the depths of Murdoch’s Sun when it tried to marshal its readers into dropping their trousers and mooning in the direction of the Continent?

The EU was founded to make war between European states impossible by gradually linking their economies and bringing them together so closely that war would be unthinkable. It has succeeded in that. It has succeeded in making all of Europe more prosperous. It has brought goods to our shelves that had never been seen on them before. It has rescued the countries of eastern Europe from the misery of Russian communist oppression. It has created a sense of togetherness and shared destiny among peoples, whose cultures have been formed by the same influences: Greece, Rome and Judaeo-Christianity. It has made Europe a block of nations to be reckoned with in the world’s councils and given us a collective strength in the face of other big powers, in a dangerous world. There is strength in numbers. These are things that in the long term are far more important than whether we are three pence richer or four pence poorer.

Since when was the Tory party in favour of factory-gate politics, a vote by show of hands following a rabble-rousing speech? “The bosses are locking us out, the bosses are cutting our wages, the bosses are banning tea breaks…The only course is to withdraw our labour. All in favour, show!” That in effect is what the referendum was. Rabble-rousing: no concrete proposals, just wishful thinking and playing on people’s disquiet and resentment – if not, naked racism – at the scale of immigration, in particular, I strongly suspect, inspired by the bloody-minded refusal of Muslims to make any concession to the fact that they live in someone else’s system. None of which has anything to do with the EU.

For democracy to function without becoming merely a tyranny of the majority, certain necessary conditions must obtain. Aside from the vote of course, one must be that society is sufficiently equal and mobile for voting choices to be made on the merits of the case and not according to sectarian or tribal loyalties and the promise of rewards, as happens under clientelist regimes like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Another must be that the electorate has a sufficient level of education to understand the issues and has unrestricted access to unbiased information on which to base its choices.

It is highly questionable whether this last condition was present where the Brexit referendum was concerned, something which should surprise no one, considering that the Brexit ringleaders themselves had not and have not the faintest idea about what the consequences might be. Their antagonism to the EU is visceral, a peculiar mix of John Bullery, little England-ism, lingering disdain for Johnny Foreigner and the ultra-Right Wing ideological head-bangery of people like my old classmate, Patrick Minford. When anyway did this splendid golden age of Free Trade that made us all so rich exist? Unless, as seems to be the case, you include the days when half the globe was pink. And would the Malays accept that they had any say in the matter of where their rubber went and at what price? Did the Indians consider themselves free to buy their railway engines wherever they chose? As for the native English working class who were lucky if they earned £2 a week in the 1940s, where were the benefits of this golden age for them?

The British people have spoken, we are told ad nauseam. Well, some of them have, although it is hard to see that their voice tells us much more than a collective fart would have. And their “voice” is being exploited by a bunch of Right-Wing headbangers or fools and knaves, as Ken Clark and Will Hutton call them, who can’t believe their unhoped-for luck in having the opportunity to implement some of their destructive hare-brained schemes. And why? All because of domestic disputes within the Tory party. Calling the results of such a farcical process democracy at work and any opposition to it undemocratic… It is not very edifying and likely to give democracy a bad name.

I’m with Tony Blair. Johnson tries to dismiss his arguments on the grounds that he is not to be trusted because of his involvement in the war in Iraq? Hardly relevant to any judgement about Brexit. But is it so clear that it was a disaster? Of course it was in a sense, like all wars. But what might have happened if there had been no war in Iraq? Is it so clear that Saddam would not have brought about some equally calamitous situation, as he had already done in invading Kuwait and in fighting Iran? Is it so clear that the egregious level of misgovernment throughout north Africa and the Middle East, indeed throughout the Muslim world, would not have led to the whole region erupting in chaos and destruction sooner or later without any US or British hand in the matter?

 

 

 

 

That old chestnut is back in the fire, as always happens when a Greek government finds itself up the creek (when was a Greek government last not up the creek?). Let’s find something to rouse our sense of national unity, re-animate that spirit of dogged courage and resistance to the hostile world that always surrounds us, the ingrates, ever eager to destroy our brave and noble little country that gave the world art, science, literature, philosophy: in short, the whole of civilization.

And rather as the Arab countries have that oh-so-convenient running sore of Israel’s existence in “Palestinian” territory to distract attention from their own numerous failings, so Greeks can always turn on the unspeakable Germans (war reparations – though not too politic to make too much of that at the moment when we might need a pile of their tax-payers’ euros), the Americans (the 1940s defeat of the Left; the Colonels’ regime; the Turkish grab of northern Cyprus) or the wicked imperialist British and – horror of horrors – that arrogant, bullying milord Elgin who stole our greatest national treasure, the Parthenon sculptures, and gave them to the British Museum.

Enter the Clooneys or rather the Haven’t-a-Clooneys. For what do they know about the hornets’ nest they are stirring up? But what a wonderful windfall: a glamorous Hollywood star and his beautiful lawyer wife take up the cause. A human rights lawyer, en plus. Justice and human rights: an undreamed of piece of luck for a beleaguered and incompetent government and its died-in-the-wool old lefty minister of culture.

Greek claims based on  narrow nationalism

But is Greece’s claim to the Elgin Marbles any stronger than that of any other modern state to objects or artefacts once found on what is now its territory and housed, for whatever reasons, in a museum on the territory of some other state. Are we to unravel the great international museum collections for this sort of petty cultural chauvinism? For that is what it is.

Greece does not NEED the Parthenon marbles, rather fewer than half of which survive anywhere in any form. It is absolutely stuffed with glorious monuments of the classical age. You would think they might be able to find it in themselves to leave these wonderful sculptures, which have arguably been far more influential in the subsequent intellectual and artistic development of countries other than their own, where they are: in one of the world’s great international collections. For the BM’s collection is INTER-national; that is half the point of it – it is not a matter of narrow nationalist pride. And one thing is very clear: if Elgin had not removed the marbles when he did, modern Greek administrative incompetence and corruption would have seen to it that none of them would have been around today, at least in anything like a recognizable condition, because of the appalling air pollution in Athens throughout the latter half of the twentieth century.

And why a fuss just about the Elgin marbles? Why not the Winged Victory of Samothrace in the Louvre in Paris or the sculptures from the temple of Aphaia on Aegina in Munich? Or indeed countless other Greek artefacts in various museum collections around the world? Or, come to that and closer to Mr Hasn’t-A-Clooney’s own home, the “iconic” Cycladic Harp-player in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, famously identified by my now dead friend, the artist John Craxton, as a fake. John had met its maker, a shepherd and self-taught sculptor, on the Greek island of Ios in the 1940s.

 Would any of Greece’s classical monuments have survived without the money, dedication and expertise, indeed sacrifice, of other Europeans?

How often have Greek builders, finding something suspiciously “archaeological” in the foundations of a new house, simply poured concrete as quickly as possible in order to avoid the nosey, time-c0nsuming interest of the archaeological services? I don’t know. I simply ask the question.

Here is a list of major sites largely excavated by foreigners: Delphi and Delos, by the French; Aegina and Olympia, by the Germans; Knossos, by the English; Mycenae, by the Germans and the English; the Athens Agora and Corinth, by the Americans; Phaistos, by the Italians.

Any payments forthcoming from the Greek government? Or any thanks?

And what about all those scholarly works, editions of texts, histories, commentaries, all of which have contributed to bringing billions of tourist dollars to the Greek economy over the years?

Who deciphered Linear B, the oldest version of the Greek language?

And what about John Pendlebury, the archaeologist at Knossos and organizer of Cretan wartime resistance, captured and executed by the Germans, happy to die for the country that he loved? Like many other Englishmen, many of them classicists.

And while we are talking about what might count as claims for reparation of a sort or at least sympathetic acknowledgement: has the Greek government ever considered what it might owe the English, French and Russians for defeating the Turkish navy at Navarino in 1827, in a battle which largely secured the establishment of the infant modern Greek state?

By way of an aside: Codrington, the British admiral of that fleet, is a hero in Greece, with many streets named in his honour. In Britain his family’s name is dragged in the mud because its wealth came from slave-worked plantations in the West Indies which it used to endow the beautiful All Souls College Library in Oxford, now the target of students with similarly arse-over-tip, let’s-rewrite-history views as the Haven’t-a-Clooneys.

Some further ideas for Clooney intervention

Now that gives me an idea. Hey, Mrs Clooney, you could track down Achilles’ descendants and have them up before the beak on a war crimes charge for dragging the body of Hector round the walls of Troy? Or maybe arraign the Athenians for their wholesale destruction of brave little Milos?

But that would not please the Greeks. How about going for the restitution of Constantinople, capital of Orthodox Christianity, so wrongfully stolen by the Muslim Turks in 1453? Or the whole of modern Turkey, come to that, which had been Greek for a couple of millennia before the first Turkish boot ever trod its soil? Now that would be a good use of your celebrity and expertise. And we are coming up to May 29th, the 563rd anniversary of the Fall of that great city.

Greek whingeing and celebrity virtue-signalling

My heart is basically with the Greeks. But sympathy for their plight would be a lot easier if they could occasionally resist the temptation to play the victim and not blame someone else, especially when sporting such spectacular beams in their own eyes. Unfortunately for their own moral good, they can count on a large residue of sentimental sympathy in the western world’s many categories of haven’t-a-clue-nies; the celebrity ones, the politicians and economists like our own Goves and Masons with their own anti-EU or anti-austerity axes to grind and the general public, who knowing no history either ancient or modern naturally tell the pollsters yes when asked if they think the BM should return the “stolen” marbles.

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewed on the Andrew Marr Show this morning Michael Gove again showed scant regard for the truth where his own interests are at stake. The EU, he claimed, was to blame for high youth unemployment in Greece.

First, he is clearly unaware that Greece has frequently been taken to task for the unreliability of its employment and other statistics. Secondly, youth under-employment has been a feature of the Greek economy since long before its current economic woes, as indeed is likely to be the case in patriarchal, agrarian societies where a sizeable sector of the economy consists of small family-run enterprises. Are the children involved in one way or another in looking after the family flocks or newspaper kiosk counted officially as employed or unemployed, especially when they do not receive any formal wage? And, thirdly, at his age Mr Gove should know that, like all unreformed clientelist states, Greece has been heading for its present comeuppance since before he was born, even if, as things have turned out, the pain may have been exacerbated by joining a club of rather more sophisticated governments – and that was a matter of what the Greeks call filotimo, family honour, and geopolitics rather than cool-headed calculation.

It is not many weeks since, in a Sunday Times interview, he also blamed the Eurozone for the existence of Greece’s far-Right party, Golden Dawn, apparently ignorant of the fact that in 1936 General Metaxas staged a military coup that set up an explicitly Axis-type fascist dictatorship that was only overthrown by the advent of WWII; that a similarly fascistic kind of police state came into being in the late ‘forties during a civil war and continued in power through most of the ‘fifties, to reappear in the Colonels’ Dictatorship from 1967 (the year of Mr Gove’s birth) to 1974; and Michaloliakos, the current leader of Golden Dawn, has been involved in far-Right politics since the 1960s. All of this long before Greece’s membership of the EEC (in 1981), let alone the Eurozone, was ever thought of.

And why do I put him into bed with Paul Mason? Because he too likes to distort the Greek situation – economic and other – to suit his wishful thinking. I recently heard him on BBC 3’s Private Passions compare attending a performance of Corpus Christi,  a play that portrays Jesus and the Apostles as gays – an act about as shocking in Greece as producing cartoons of the Prophet in Iran – that was booed and jeered, unsurprisingly, by Golden Dawn supporters to being subjected to the kind of repression prosecuted by the Nazis against all that they disapproved of in 1930s Germany.

These people have got an agenda which they are determined to promote irrespective of whether or not it fits the facts.

I think I might almost recommend Aristophanes’s punishment for illicit bedfellows: a radish up the fundament and depilation by hot ash.

Gove gets it wrong

In an interview with the Sunday Times on March 6th Michael Gove tried to invoke Tolstoy’s name and renown to back the Brexit case. He was reading War and Peace, he told us, and was “irresistibly reminded” of the EU by Napoleon’s “grotesque imperial overreach” in wanting “to impose a single unified bureaucratic model on Europe.” “And in the end it did not work out so well for him,” he concluded with obvious satisfaction.

I wrote to the Sunday Times, pointing out that this was a rather tendentious reading of the novel. (A letter incidentally that the Sunday Times edited in such a way as to make me appear to be saying the exact opposite of what I had actually said: an error for which, it has to be said, they apologized.) Mr Gove could just as well have found support – in the very first pages of the novel, as it happens – for a rather unflattering view of the UK’s role in the EU. At the aristocratic soirée hosted by Anna Pavlovna, with which the novel opens, conversation turns to what can be done to stop the advance of the dreadful vulgarian Napoleon. “Russia alone must save Europe… Whom…can we rely on…? England with her commercial spirit will not and cannot understand the Emperor Alexander’s loftiness of soul…The English…cannot understand the self-abnegation of our Emperor who…only desires the good of mankind. And what have they promised? Nothing. And what little they have promised they will not perform…”

English objections mean-spirited and penny-pinching

Tolstoy’s characters’ words remind me irresistibly of the reasons why Britain decided not to join the European Coal and Steel Community, forerunner of the EU (minutes of the Cabinet meeting, June 6th 1950). The first, never quite made explicit, is that it was a French initiative. The second strongly echoes Anna Pavlovna’s strictures: we were not going to sign up to some ‘lofty’ statement of principle, like the good of mankind or the unity of Europe, without knowing exactly what was in it for us: would we be one pound richer or one pound poorer? Loftiness of soul, self-abnegation, the good of mankind…this kind of talk cuts no ice with our “commercial spirit.”

We like to think of it as pragmatism. Others see it as a kind of unadventurous, small-minded and selfish stolidity. “What have they promised? Nothing. And what little they have promised they will not perform…” We are not to be trusted; our word is not our bond. The French call us perfide Albion; the Greeks find us hypocritical. We do not like it, but clearly they see something in the way we habitually behave. Who was it called us a nation of shopkeepers? That is not to deny what is good about us; but we nonetheless have habits and character traits, just like everybody else, and they are not always particularly admirable or attractive.

Significantly, much of the current debate about IN or OUT of Europe is being conducted in just such book-keeping terms. Of course it matters whether or not membership is an economic disaster. But very clearly it is not and never has been.

EU has broken barriers, brought prosperity and reunited a divided Europe

Anyone old enough to remember how it was before our membership of the EEC remembers how much duller and more limited was the range of products available in our shops, how far more limited were the opportunities for working abroad, travelling abroad, doing business abroad, owning property abroad. Of course far fewer people did either work or travel abroad, even in Europe. You had to have work permits, resident permits, certificates to show you had paid your taxes before you could leave to return home, Customs to go through, even when shipping your own used possessions. The Goves and Borises of this world are too young to have experienced this.

People gripe about the money paid out to build roads in Greece, bridges in Romania…but in the long run it is in all our interests that every member state should be helped to reach the same sort of level of economic development and competence. Not to mention the fact that the UK has itself been the recipient of large amounts of money. Not that anybody anywhere ever advertises the fact or – you could say– shows the slightest gratitude. In eastern Europe, in Greece, in Ireland, you see billboards proudly advertising the EU’s contribution to infrastructure projects. We pay out millions of pounds a day, we are told ad nauseam, and get nothing back. The real figure is around £17 million a day, which works out at about 26 pence per person (Hugo Dixon, IN FACTS), which, even if it were remotely true that we gained nothing in return, is scarcely daylight robbery!

Unremitting denigration by the British press

Have you ever seen an EU flag on display in England? In France every public building flies the tricolour, the EU flag and the regional flag. What is the matter with us? Surly, reluctant, unappreciative, always trying to pull the bedclothes over to our side, as a Frenchman put it to me once: never the slightest acknowledgement that we have ever received the slightest benefit. And no wonder, in a way: from the very beginning three quarters of the British press have consistently rubbished the EU and its precursors, always representing the UK as victim, having one injustice after another imposed upon it, without ever trying to explain how its institutions work or how our relative weight and influence have played out within it. Has a newspaper in any other member state descended to the base vulgarity of Murdoch’s papers: appointing a date and time for a general mooning at the Continent and running headlines like Up Yours, Delors?

There is more to Europe than nationalistic penny-pinching

David Milliband, in an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme earlier this week, made the point that it is actually other factors, not economics, that constitute the most important arguments for the existence of the EU and for our remaining in it. Some of them are pretty down-t0-earth, tangible factors. Our security, most obviously: our remaining free to live, act, think, debate, explore, question, without going in fear of our lives, of being sat upon and repressed by some violent and intolerant force beyond the reach of reason and debate, like Putin’s Russia, for instance, with its long tradition of arbitrary rule and violent repression of all and everything its ruler(s) disapprove of; or obscurantist, authoritarian and equally lawless regimes like those favoured by the followers of Islam – both of them much too close to our borders for comfort.

The EU owes its foundation to the universal desire in Europe to tie neighbouring states together – the big powers, France and Germany in particular – in such a way as to make it well-nigh impossible for them to go to war against each other ever again. An objective which it has been signally effective in achieving: in fact it has done even better than hoped, in roping in and securing the countries of eastern, central and south-eastern Europe most exposed to the dangers of Russian imperialist bullying.

All of these countries, us included, belong broadly to the same cultural family: our ways of thinking and being have been shaped by the legacy of Roman rule in our formative years, by the intellectual achievements of the ancient Greeks and the influence of Christianity. We may have fought each other, but by and large our histories have run in parallel: the gradual progress towards democracy, wars of religion, struggles for greater social justice and equality as for education and freedom of speech. Some have had their progress interrupted and impeded by Ottoman Muslim rule, in the case of the Balkans, and by the blinkered, mind-numbing brutality of Soviet Communism further to the north. But essentially we are cousins: family. What lunacy to repulse the few friends and kin you have in this uncertain and dangerous world!

I strongly suspect that if people in England still learnt foreign languages in school as a matter of course, attitudes to “foreign” Europe might be rather different. How easy it is today to find thousands of youngsters in other European countries quite able to conduct conversations in English at an early age. Much harder to find English children with any kind of linguistic competence. How many times have French teachers complained to me that it is impossible to find English schools to exchange pupils with, because none of them do French any more. Does Gove speak French? Tebbit? Carswell? Farage? Redwood? Lamont? Lilly? I don’t mean mumble a few words. Can any of them go on French – or on any other EU country’s, for that matter – TV and conduct an interview in French or Greek or German? You get a rather different view of things when you can speak to people in their own language; their points of view do not seem so different from your own, you are much less likely to see them as adversaries, as Timothy Garton Ash pointed out in The Spectator the other week.

Migration

Immigration probably has depressed wages in some sectors, especially where the unskilled are concerned. But then one might ask, were the unemployed young English queueing up to go and pick strawberries in Herefordshire polytunnels? Not that I recall. And who would not rather employ a smiling, well-mannered, accommodating Polish plumber with a PhD? Come to think of it, I cannot remember encountering too many smiling, accommodating Bangladeshis, who after a couple of years or three have become more or less indistinguishable from the native English. EU migrants do not blow up people in the name of religion. If Trevor Phillips were to make a documentary about attitudes to England among EU migrants, I am pretty sure it would look very different from what he has discovered in What Muslims Really Think.

Yesterday’s men

That is how Mr Gove apparently sees those in favour of EU membership (his March 6th Sunday Times interview): yesterday’s men and yesterday’s ideas. But when you look at his fellow Brexiteers: Rees-Mogg, Tebbitt, Farage, Lilly, Lawson…Is a dazzling future of new ideas, innovation, reaching out across the world, the vision that first springs to mind?

Project Fear is how they see the arguments for remaining in the EU. I would suggest anyone fearful of giving up so many obvious advantages, to say nothing of the company of one’s peers and kin, is absolutely right. And for what? Anyone who thinks, for example, that there will be less government interference, fewer regulations, more freedom, if things are left to Whitehall, needs his head examining. There is nothing more English than that propensity for – indeed delight in – sticking your nose into other people’s business, wagging a moralistic finger and informing them that they are infringing some pettifogging regulation or other. My guess is that free of the mitigating influence of other Europeans like the Greeks and Italians, who are much less uptight about dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’, our government will look more and more like a combination of Camden Council and the no-platforming brigade: free rein to the thought police!

‘No Man is an Island’

Mr Gove tried to enlist Tolstoy in support of his position. I am enlisting John Donne in support of mine.

‘No man is an island entire of itself; every man

is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;

if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe

is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as

well as any manner of thy friends or of thine

own were…’

Exactly! And the anti’s would do well to remember that. We will be diminished and Europe as a whole will be diminished, if we leave. And, besides, it would be entirely understandable if the rest of Europe felt pretty pissed off at us for causing this loss.

We are in the club. We are used to each other. We are good for each other, with our different strengths. The newcomers will learn, just as it has taken us centuries to arrive at the relatively good and comfortable place where we find ourselves today. If there are things that members do not like, think can be improved upon, then work to bring about those changes with other like-minded members. VOTE TO STAY.

As a postscript:

In that same Sunday Times interview, Mr Gove attributed the existence of the Greek fascist party, Golden Dawn, to the European single currency. That is a shameful slur which could only be perpetrated by someone quite ignorant of the last hundred years of Greek political history. General Metaxas, for instance, came to power by coup d’état as long ago as August 1936; he was an open admirer of Hitler and Mussolini. Colonel Papadopoulos, who was prominent in the 1967-74 Dictatorship, had already made a name for himself as a scourge of Leftists in the 1946-49 Civil War. Michaloliakos, founder of Golden Dawn, has been prominent in far Right politics since the early 1960s. All of this long before Greece came anywhere near joining the EU, let alone the Eurozone.

 

 

Dear Mr Farmer,

You have just been awarded a CBE. You have just been voted most admired charity leader of the year and seen the findings of the task force you led adopted by the NHS as grounds for hugely increased investment in mental health care. Your career as a charity bureaucrat is beginning to look rather spectacularly successful.

I remember the beginning of your rise to prominence. In the early 2000s you were recruited as director of public affairs by the then National Schizophrenia Fellowship, an organization founded by one, John Pringle, in 1971 to campaign on behalf of people afflicted with schizophrenia. It had formerly been run largely by parents and volunteers. In 2001 you and Cliff Prior, your boss (also since awarded a CBE), staged a palace coup, railroading a change of name to Rethink on the grounds that the presence of the word schizophrenia in the original title attracted stigma and deterred both potential funders and people who might actually benefit from the organisation’s help. I use the expression “coup” because only 14% of the total membership voted; those who favoured change amounted to only 9%. A majority of members did not like either of your proposed alternatives, Reason and Rethink, and only 5% of total membership approved of Rethink, the name chosen by the Board of Trustees. A member of NSF staff at the time told me that “the balance of power within the organization had shifted: the professionals had gained the upper hand.”

I mention this because it does not seem to fit very comfortably with your standard rhetoric about consulting the people most concerned, carers and those they care for: the sick, now known, I notice with horror, as “experts in lived experience.” But right from the beginning you have adopted the woolly and evasive jargon of political correctness with gusto. “The ethos of optimistic realism” was the empty slogan you coined in your campaign to change the National Schizophrenia Fellowship’s name. And there were many other semi-literate horrors you perpetrated in your campaign literature, which I kept for many years but have now, unfortunately, thrown away.

You are not alone of course in your enthusiasm for the new sub-Orwellian mentalhealthspeak. Doctor the language and all that is disorderly, unsavoury, difficult, embarrassing: all that tends to suggest that anyone might belong to a category of being that might be perceived as inescapably inferior must be eliminated. Thus, illness has been abolished; we are all on “journeys of recovery,” as the CEO of our local mental health trust wrote to me à propos of my son’s schizophrenia some ten years ago now. Now we are all more well or less well, just as we are less able to stand rather than unable to stand or just older rather than old or elderly. And if you query the sense of talking about recovering from afflictions from which recovery in the normal sense is not possible, you will be told that actually recovery does not mean what you thought it meant: it means rather whatever you want it to mean. In effect, if I say I have recovered or you say I have recovered, then I have.

Suspiciously convenient, one might think: sort of useful for bureaucrats who love positive outcomes and ticking boxes. Is this perhaps what you meant by the “ethos of optimistic realism”?

The losers in all this: the people like my son who suffer from schizophrenia and other serious mental illness. You of course do not talk about mental illness any more. Your talk is all about mental health problems: how one in four people in the population will suffer from a mental health problem in the course of a year, which is a statistic that only makes sense if taken to include Monday morning blues, disappointment in love, missed job opportunities, bereavement and many of the things which through most of human history have been regarded as routine life experiences. You talk endlessly about psychological services, about making talking therapies more widely available. Very likely these things help with the kind of existential problems life throws in our paths… But, even in France, where talking therapies have been in regular use with schizophrenia, psychiatrists will tell you they rarely work in psychotic illness.

You wheel out Stephen Fry and Jonny Benjamin as examples of how people can recover from psychotic illness. I do not in any way underestimate Stephen Fry’s suffering when he is ill, but there is plenty of evidence that people with bi-polar disorder can function very well between bouts of illness. Even Jonny Benjamin – admirably courageous young man that he is – is very much the exception rather than the rule where schizophrenia is concerned.

Your achievement in changing the name of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship to Rethink has ensured that for ten years and more the staff have scarcely allowed the word schizophrenia to pass the barrier of their teeth. Terry Hammond, one of the organisation’s trustees, has himself written: “Schizophrenia is fast becoming the neglected illness and all this is happening in the name of recovery – empowerment – independence…I believe there is no comparison between the life-changing effects caused by schizophrenia and other forms of mental illness…Most people who develop schizophrenia do not go on to live ‘normal lives.’ Most are unable to work. Few get married or successfully socially integrate nor do they become prime ministers, spin doctors, comic geniuses or award-winning actors…too many policy makers and politicians have been taken in by the ideological claptrap which has been preached over the years by the mental health extremists…empowerment, independence, normalisation, recovery: all worthy aspirations, yes, but in the hands of politicians and Primary Care Trusts, they are simply excuses for delivering community care on the cheap…most of those who are campaigning at this level are individuals with depressive and anxiety disorders – not schizophrenia.”

John Pringle in the 1971 letter to The Times that led to the foundation of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship wrote that, while some people may make a partial recovery from schizophrenia, thousands “level off like my son at a low level of adaptation, physically fit and normal-looking to a casual outsider, but without application or anything that can be called will-power, and finding most inter-personal relations almost impossibly difficult… they are incapable of looking after themselves without special guidelines and supervision…”

They need help even with the daily routines of life and they are not getting it.

When are you going to acknowledge your debt? Your career has been founded in a sense on schizophrenia, but through your uncritical espousal of the fashionable discourse of the care services you have contributed in no small degree to silencing the few voices that once spoke out for schizophrenia.

 

If I were a Greek watching the coverage of the Greek crisis by the British media I would be inclined to believe that someone in Britain was orchestrating a massive campaign to ensure a No vote in our own referendum on EU membership by blackening its name for causing the ruin of Greece. Its accusers range from The Spectator‘s Charles Moore (poor little Greece, July 4) to David Davis MP (he would, wouldn’t he), Paul Mason of Channel 4 News, who sees pro-Syriza demonstrators as “ordinary Greeks” and pro-EU ones as “cashmere-wearing nouveaux riches, “ and Jenni Russell in The Times (July 2) who thinks that Syriza, “not yet corrupted…is the country’s best hope for genuine change.”

Or is it Putin, who wants a warm sea port and free supplies of feta cheese? Remember Encounter!

Jenni Russell does at least have the wisdom to see that the real problem is Greece’s political culture: in effect, bad habits learnt as the only available means of protection against the arbitrary and despotic rule of the Ottoman sultans under whose yoke they lived, along with much of the Balkans and the Middle East, for several centuries. The state is used as a mechanism for enriching “your” people, through dispensing patronage, in the form of jobs, contracts and so on. Samaras, the last PM, visited by a proud schoolfriend when first elected in 1981, was found to be going through lists of constituents to whom he had promised jobs: something that all MPs have done. A regional police commander, for example, will receive “sweeteners” (a lamb at Easter and Aug 15th perhaps) from shepherds who twice a year pass through his territory on their transhumant journey, as an insurance against trouble he might otherwise cause them for trespassing on other farmers’ land.

Since the state is not to be trusted you learn to rely on family and long-established networks of favours given and received or on outright bribery. If you want a favourable outcome in a lawsuit you pay the judge. If you want your tax bill reduced you pay the tax man…if you pay tax at all. Out of 800,000 registered freelance professionals (this includes doctors, lawyers, language school owners), 500,000 claim not to earn more than €8,000, the threshold for income tax. If you want to pass an exam you buy the questions in advance. I was investigated twice by London University’s chief exam security officer on suspicion of selling A-level questions.

There is a finely calibrated vocabulary to describe all these gradations of what we think of as dishonesty. We know we are doing wrong, in a sense, but volevòmaste. We make a sort of accommodation with our conscience; after all everyone else is doing it too. But people, like foreign journalists who cannot speak Greek, do not see any of this and therefore fail to understand what the Greeks themselves call the “Greek reality,” the ellinikì pragmatikòtita . Yet this is what has brought about Greece’s undoing. It is no fault of the Germans, who also, let us not forget, have voters to think about before lavishly disbursing their money.

As for the idea that Syriza “is the country’s best hope for genuine change,” well, that is a bit of a teaser. Schauble, Germany’s economics minister, found that negotiating with Tsipras and co was like dealing with student activists, which is exactly what Tsipras has been – all his life. In fact his government has just reinstated a law that allows student organisations to control universities and students to remain students for years without passing their exams, while himself personally intervening to prevent the introduction of electronic voting at elections. So much harder, after all, to intimidate the reluctant than it is when having a show of hands at the factory gate.

The Kathimerini newspaper recently carried an article about tsapatsoulià, that characteristic Greek way of doing business: botch it up, make it up, improvise something at the last minute. It is a word of Turkish origin. Once, trying to replace a spark plug, I showed the old one to the spare parts man. He returned with one plainly not the same. When I demurred, he replied, “It’s a spark plug, isn’t it?” A friend trying to get noticed by the post office clerk leaned over the counter to see what she was doing. She had a bowl of lentils on her lap which she was cleaning. She held it out. “Do you have a family?” she said belligerently.

I suspect Tsipras went into those negotiations in rather the same way, with ill-thought out proposals written on the back of a cigarette packet. No wonder the Troika lost patience with him, especially when the minute he left room he accused them of blackmail and criminality. And why would they trust him when he comes from a political tradition that has been resolutely anti-US, anti-NATO and, latterly, anti-EU? Indeed, why should one believe that he went into the negotiations with any kind of sincerity when failure allows him to preserve the “purity” of his ideological commitments, which seems to be closer to his heart than the long-term interest of the nation? And you would think that his ideological references might give his English fans some pause: the Communist Party of the 1940s with its kangaroo People’s Courts and summary executions of class enemies and its incessant attacks on other Resistance groups of different political persuasion.

People are suffering, that is for sure – though let us not examine the veracity of the statistics too closely – and you can certainly argue about the wisdom of the Troika’s proposed solutions to the Greek problem, but to suggest they caused it is both absurd and extraordinarily irresponsible. Six months with Tsipras’s hand on the till have made matters very much worse.