Tuesday, 30 May 2023

Was there enough space to commit sodomy in a hansom cab?

This post first appeared at the Radix website...

Back in 1884, British law was like the new Ugandan law about homosexuality – it still rewarded proven sodomy with a death sentence.

It had done so back to the days of Henry VIII. Unfortunately for the prosecuting authorities, there was a limit to how you could prove something like that had actually taken place.

During the great and largely forgotten Dublin Scandal that year – when nationalists deliberately inflamed public opinion, trying to identify the ascendancy with homosexuality.

In the subsequent trial, many of those who had been leant on to give evidence – by a disgraced former Metropolitan Police detective employed by the nationalists as a fixer – found that they could not provide enough evidence that sodomy had actually occurred.

Was it possible to commit that kind of activity in a hansom cab? After considerable discussion, and some expert medical evidence, the lawyers decided that there really wasn’t enough space.

All those who had pleaded not guilty were acquitted, but the nationalist campaign had its effects.

The following year, at night, maverick backbench MP Henry Labouch̬re inserted a clause into the new Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, that criminalised al sexual acts between men Рin public or in private Рand in such a way that, over the next eight decades, tens of thousands of young men would be pursued, imprisoned, and harassed.

Many – like Alan Turing (book just 99p on kindle this week!) – would take their own lives after years of threats.

It is worth remembering the Dublin Scandal when we think about Uganda today, now that they have passed a similarly grotesque law, which also lays down that death follows sodomy and life imprisonment for more minor homosexual episodes – and unlike the 1885 Act in the UK – it includes lesbians too.

I don’t know what will happen with the new law in Uganda. I suspect that it will bring with it intense international scrutiny, which – if it doesn’t cause it to be abandoned directly – it will defuse the sharpest edges in the way it is implemented and policed.

I certainly hope so.

Also, it reminds us just what happens in politicised moral panics where everyone is supposed to toe the line – only two Ugandan MPs voted against the new law.

I know about the Dublin Scandal and its role in forcing through the new Criminal Law Amendment Act in the UK because my great-great-grandfather, Richard Boyle – a former chair of the Dublin stock exchange – was one of those accused, and the only one to flee the country, wearing a false nose, in July 1884.

He eventually made his way to Denmark Hill in London where he lived with a young man until his death in the poor London air in the polluted winter of 1900. They are buried together.

It’s all there in my book Scandal (free on Amazon kindle)…

Monday, 15 May 2023

Oppenheimer's ordeal shows that Americans can claw back some mainstream sanity

This post first appeared at the Radix blog.

Thanks to the film Oppenheimer, by Christopher Nolan which comes out in July, we will all know the full story of how the USA went a little crazy and turned on its own heroes after World War II.

Robert Oppenheimer was one of those who was hauled before a tribunal which lasted three weeks in 1954 - which decided, two-votes-to-one, to strip him of his security clearance.

He never quite recovered from his ordeal - until that point, he had been a leading advocate of talking to the Russians - even perhaps, under Truman, putting all the nuclear weapons he had developed under international control.

But in the fraught atmosphere in Washington in those days - when the Soviets appeared to be fast catching up with nuclear technology - this kind of talk seemed deeply suspicious.

He had also made an enemy of Lewis Strauss (pronounced ‘Straws’) - a Washington insider and chair of the Atomic Energy Commission. And it was he who, under Eisenhower, worked successfully to end Oppenheimer’s career.

Strauss is played by Robert Downey Jr in  the film - Oppenheimer by Cillian Murphy from Peaky Blinders - so it seemed sensible to me to write about Oppenheimer and to show the parallels between his life and the two men most responsible for his downfall: Strauss and  Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb. you can read about it in my new book.

It was Teller whose evidence at the hearing - not because Oppenheimer he was linked to the Soviets - but because of his enlightened and effective work in Washington since 1945:

“If it is a question of wisdom and judgement, as understood by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance,” he said. “I must say that I am myself a little bit confused on this issue, particularly as it refers to a person of Dr Oppenheimer’s prestige and influence. May I limit myself to these comments?”

The hearing ignored the legal rules of evidence, because it wasn’t a court. So secret documents were not shared with Oppenheimer’s defence team, which had to leave when any of them were discussed. These included an undisclosed transcript of an interview with him from 1943 - when he was directing the Los Alamos research station - by a security man, worried about his visit to California to see a communist ex-lover.

It is difficult to imagine what it must have been like to go through an ordeal like that – the physical strain – without knowing, as we do now, that the world would escape annihilation, anyway for a while, and that the stifling atmosphere of treason and suspicion would lift – slowly, but that sanity was going to prevail again. Harry Dexter White, the US Treasury negotiator at Bretton Woods had, after all, collapsed after giving evidence at his hearing in Congress in 1948, and died two days later.

To some, Oppie seemed his old self afterwards, but occasionally the full horror was clear – his hair had gone white during the hearing. “Much of his previous spirit and liveliness left him,” said the physicist Hans Bethe.

“I think to a certain extent it actually almost killed him, spiritually, yes,” said the nuclear pioneer Isidore Rabi. “It achieved what his opponents wanted to achieve; it destroyed him.”

His security clearance was never given back to him. Yet he had exhausted himself running Los Alamos, the heart of the Manhattan Project. It included physicists from most of the world, and especially most of Europe - who were terrified of the prospects of Hitler getting the Bomb first.

After Hitler died, many of the scientists left - but most of them stayed on for the first test, in July 1945. Whatever happened later, it was an extraordinary achievement.

Now, 70 years after the events of 1954, it is worth remembering that - although the the US political establishment occasionally goes insane - it does recover itself. In the end.

Find out more in my new book, Oppenheimer: A world destroyed.

Monday, 24 April 2023

When the Daily Mail starts talking about 'threats to wipe out humanity'...

This post first appeared on the Radix UK blog...

It wasn’t until I suddenly looked at my phone yesterday, and realised it was 3.30pm, that I knew I was not going to get the government’s emergency alert. My phone was working at the time too.

Neither did Sarah.

Now I don’t believe the allegation on Twitter that this means we have been singled out to die by the government. But still, it is a bit of a peculiarity.

But then our children both got theirs. I didn’t hear them – and it spooked my son, though he knew it was coming and knew what it was when it arrived.

I don’t quite know what to make of the whole idea. I note that Jacob Rees-Mogg has said that it was a waste of time and that he was turning off the relevant icon on his phone.

I also read the column by Sarah Vine – formerly Mrs Gove – in the Daily Mail called: ‘why are ministers invading our phones with a tiresome emergency alert – yet ignoring the threat that could wipe out humanity?’

Many countries are now organising emergency alerts – and the right clearly feels differently about the whole idea in the USA. In Ron De Santis’ Florida, they accidentally tested their system at 4.45am!

But Sarah Vine’s question was a good one and it deserves an answer. So is her other one: “Can we – or for that matter, the government – realistically do anything about any of these emergencies they will be ‘warning’ us about.”

I know there are useful elements to these alerts. If there was a nuclear leak or floods, like for example those that hit the east coast on the night of 21 January 1953 – just before the last coronation, in fact.

This was the unprecedented event that sank the British Rail ferry Princess Victoria, which foundered off the Scottish coast, on its way between Stranraer and Larne.

Strangely, for such an overwhelming event, the memories of six decades ago have faded. Very few people would remember the events if it had not been for the fascinating and moving article that the architectural critic Ken Worpole wrote for the Open Democracy website to remember the sixtieth anniversary.

These days, there would be warnings about spectacularly high tides. The Thames Barrier would be raised. The Environment Agency spokespeople would fan out to the TV studios and epeople in danger would have been warned via text message – but not then. Back in 1953, the first that anyone knew of what was about to happen was when the 7.27pm train from Hunstanton to King’s Lynn ran into a wall of water and was hit by “a bungalow floating on the crest of the wave”.

The North Sea tide that night was the highest ever recorded and many of those who died simply awoke trapped in bed by water rising too fast to escape. Worpole paid tribute to the meticulous account published in 1959 by Essex County Council, and hails it as one of the great works of twentieth-century English social history: Hilda Grieve’s narrative, The Great Tide. He wrote:

“So vulnerable to disruption were communications at this time that many were already dead and their communities destroyed further up the coast, whilst along the Thames people slept soundly unaware of what was about to hit them.”

It is extraordinary that there are so few memories of a disaster that involved families and children dying of cold as they clutched onto their roofs.

That is clearly the kind of event when it would be useful to have a means of contacting people nearby.

There are three possible crises that really worry me now, and which the UK government remains silent about.

The first is the climate crisis – which obviously Sarah Vine needs to ignore if she is going to keep her job at the Mail.

And by the way, tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Westminster on Friday and Saturday, peacefully and happily, as part of the Extinction Rebellion demonstration, and were rewarded for it by virtually no mention in press or on TV.

There was also absolutely no mention by her or by anyone else of the second scary issue that now faces us – that Putin is now insane enough to be capable of pressing the nuclear button, which would plunge us all into a nightmare of heat and destruction.

He is certainly threatening to single out the UK for that.

Thank goodness we have Sunak, rather than either of his two predecessors as PM, to face this threat. But since nothing is being done about it by anyone, it seems to me – no plans for regional seats of government, no ‘Protect and Survive’ pamphlets, no deep shelters for the population – I am unsure what advantage that is.

We just get a blithe version of Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s “The British people are prepared if necessary to be blown to atomic dust”. So Boris Johnsonian in its establishment enochlophobia.

So I searched in vain for mention of either of these threats in Sarah Vine’s article. Instead, she mentions the third issue – the threat of takeover by AI.

It worried her – as it does me – that the Google AI system Bard has taught itself Bengali apparently on its own initiative.

“Time to wake up and smell the lithium, guys,” she writes. “Before it’s too late.”

It is peculiar for the Mail to use language like this, but – in the end – I reckon that the threat from AI is very much less than the other two.

Thursday, 9 March 2023

Why can't I imagine Boris or Liz thinking up the green lane idea?

This post first appeared on the Radix UK site.

There is a line in James Graham's play This House, about the Tory and Labour whips offices from 1974 to 1979. 

Graham puts it into the mouth of David Steel.

Maybe Steel actually said it - i don't know. Nor can I remember it exactly (I've only see the play twice - give me a chance!) But it suggested that Conservative governments collapse because they think they are destined to rule, and with Labour governments, it's the other way around - they collapse because they no longer feel they deserve it.

I keep on thinking about that over recent days when there are signs of the Conservative government unravelling - with two ex-prime ministers putting their heads back above the parapet. But really because they believe they have a divine right to run the nation. 

That is how I understand the complaints from Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries about Sue Gray's agreeing to be chief of staff to a Labour prime minister.

It really is extraordinary that wwe have become so used to the idea that they are somehow members of our only natural party of government.

There are dangers inherent in all this, of course - and especially perhaps for Keir Starmer - that they might delude themselves that, in order to be elected, you had to be very careful to sound like competent Conservatives. 

Or as former members of the SDP used to say in the eraly days of the Lib Dems - they have to be "serious about power".

It is also extraordinary how we have become martyred to the same divisions that have pulled the Tory party apart. it is horribly like the divided Conservative Party in 1905/6 - so cross with each other about 'imperial preference' that one senior minister described himself as "nailing his colours firmly to the fence" - that they let n the reforming Liberal government of Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George and Churchill.

Yet somehow the decision by Rishi Sunak to replace the Northern Ireland protocol with a simple red and green lane was an unusual example of pragmatic common sense and compromise that has become sadly rare from British government recently. I imagine people thinking - why didn't we think of that?

But then, if an idea gets 'owned', it does tend to stop most governments from adopting it - so perhaps it was a good thing that its sprung ready made into the head of Sunak at the right moment. For some reason I can't imagine either Boris or Liz doing anything nearly as sensible.

Thursday, 15 December 2022

The valuable resources the NHS misses

This post first appeared at the Radiixuk blog...

Now that both paramedics and nurses are set to strike over the Christmas period, it is at least worth asking the question – can the NHS survive?

Especially when you understand where all the extra money came from over the past three decades (it was the ‘peace dividend’).

But don’t forget two other vital resources that are available to us all in healthcare – which could be mined and then put to use.The first is our natural ability to support friends, families and neighbours as part and parcel of our own recovery.

The second is our willingness and determination to get well again.

I will write about the first of these this time, and the second I will have a go at covering next week.

The main problem is that – despite their official commitment to ‘co-production’ – there are no official mechanisms to give a chance of this happening. I have suggested a few in my chapter for Henry Tam’s book, Tomorrow’s Communities.

The basic underlying issue is that Beveridge assumed that an NHS would cost less to run over time, because need would be reduced. That was the assumption on which the new welfare state rested and it was wrong – in fact it has been wrong everywhere, not just in Britain.

Beveridge set out to slay what he called the Five Giants – Ignorance, Want, Squalor, Disease, Idleness. The problem is not that he failed to vanquish them. He killed them stone dead, but something he never expected happened. They come back to life again every generation and have to be slain all over again and, every time, it gets more expensive.

Through 75 years of peace and plenty, Beveridge’s legacy has not managed significantly to narrow inequalities of income or health or to strengthen mutual support. Neither, in general, has the welfare state successfully tackled the underlying reasons why problems emerge in the first place.

What went wrong? This is such an important question that we hardly dare ask it, in case it is taken as a political excuse to wind up the Beveridge experiment altogether, and because the failure of the welfare state to create a sustainable improvement in social welfare threatens to overwhelm the public finances.

It is true that Beveridge was in some ways a victim of his own success – the welfare settlement led to longer lives, which sometimes (though not always) led to higher costs. It led to different diseases and to disabled children surviving into adulthood. These are partial explanations, but they don’t really cover everything. Why has health spending risen so fast for all generations, not just the old? Why is 70 per cent of NHS time dealing with chronic health problems? Why has crime risen so much in the same period? It isn’t just that people are living longer.

But Beveridge himself was more aware of this conundrum than his reputation suggests. He was aware that the NHS was being rolled out by the Attlee government on lines very different to those he had suggested.

His overlooked third report, Voluntary Action, crystallised his thinking and his warnings about what might happen if the welfare state became too paternalist, and if people’s instincts for self-help, and their ability to find solutions, were allowed to atrophy.

He wrote that the state had an important role but equally important were what he called: “Room, opportunity and encouragement for voluntary action in seeking new ways of social advance … services of a kind which often money cannot buy”.

He was afraid that his reforms were encouraging people to focus passively on their needs.

We need to take the decline in voluntary action seriously, especially as rationed public services increasingly use ‘need’ as their currency of access. The only assets people have then are their own needs, which must be maximised if they are to access help. It is hardly surprising that needs seem to grow.

But there is another problem as well, as the needs increase: the over-professionalisation which Beveridge warned against seems to have widened the basic divide in all public services – between an exhausted, remote professional class and their clients, who are expected to remain passive and easy to process.

This is not just disempowering, it can also be corrosive.

The co-production critique follows Beveridge’s third report. It suggests that the reason our current services are so badly equipped to respond to a changing society is that they have largely overlooked the underlying operating system they depend on: the social economy of family and neighbourhood, also known as the ‘core economy’.

We can no longer rely on continuing economic growth to provide enough finance for public services, and we find that our services have also become constrained by the New Public Management of centralised targets, deliverables, standards and customer relationship management software, which has narrowed the focus of many services and often undermined the relationships between professionals and patients, or between teachers and pupils.

The difficulty is that, although you can point to highly successful small examples of co-production in action in almost every service, very little has been written that sets out what taking these ideas to scale might mean.

From my experience setting up time banks in health settings, where people are encouraged and enabled to support each other in human ways – using the skills that everyone possesses – gives back some value to those skills, which have been slowly excised from our public services.

I know from this that this kind of co-production is effective – especially when it is applied to excluded communities.

It allows surgeries and hospitals to reach out into their surrounding neighbourhoods and to start the urgent process of healing.

And near the anniversary of the first vaccines against Covid being delivered so effectively with the help of ordinary people – that is worth its weight in public spending.

Monday, 10 October 2022

What will happen when the Red Wall MPs realise they won't be 'levelled up'?

This post first appeared in the RadixUK blog...

I tend to agree with Ben Rich last week, in his assessment of the new government, that – however much we may worry about the robotic speaking style of our new prime minister – the politics will not change.

That is all true, except for one consideration. The electoral system, which has kept Conservatives in power for most of the past ha;f century, has a habit of sometimes wiping out parties being punished by the electorate completely – as the Canadian Conservatives were a generation ago, and as everyone else was by the SNP in Scotland in 2015.

That seems an unlikely prospect, but it is one to consider. It would put the Labour Party into power with such a boosted Commons presence that we could not be quiet sure who would lead them, with the Lib Dems as official opposition. That would be exquisitely uncomfortable – and would require a swing to the right from my former Liberal colleagues which they might feel unable to make.

The main point of this is that Liz Truss and her government now have to choose between producing an economic plan that satisfies the global  markets and one which they can also get through the Commons.

The Guardian was even speculating that – with 30 Tory MPs unlikely to support them, Liz Truss might need to make another U-turn on increasing benefits in line with wages, rather than with inflation.

According to the Daily Mail, Michael Gove is plotting to bring back Boris Johnson.

This seems unlikely, but where in all this dispute has the Big Idea gone to that Boris brought to the table: Levelling Up?

Because if that idea has gone – as it appears to have – then the Red Wall Conservative MPs who were elected on that basis will be in serious trouble.

It would make sense for them qucily to start meeting as a group and to whip themselves, as far as possible as a coherent group, rather like Labour’s relationship with the Co-operative Party.

Yet also with a view to going their own way if necessary.

Think tanks like Radix have always had an interest in new political groupings. And it would be enormously worthwhile to advise the Red Wall Tories about policy – about how to encapsulate the new approach to regeneration – if only they would ask us!

In fact, if anyone ever asked my advice about what to do and how to apply it, it would be to stay completely  ambiguous about your intentions as long as you possibly can…

Monday, 3 October 2022

America may finally be turning against monopoly power

This post first appeared on the Radix UK blog,,,

It is now more than a century since Teddy Roosevelt ushered in age of American anti-trust – eventually breaking up Standard Oil and other symptoms of what they called ‘robber baron capitalism’.

These events mainly took place during his presidency and that of his successor William Howard Taft - they brought over 130 cases against trusts and monopolies – yet the two key pieces of anti-trust legislation were passed outside their periods of office - the Sherman Act in 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914.

Both are still on the statute book, including the Sherman Act’s invocation that:

“Every person who shall monopolise, or attempt to monopolise, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolise any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ....”

It just goes to show how what really matters when it comes to enforcement of anti-monopoly is what the prevailing attitudes are – especially in Congress.

This is why the American anti-monopoly movement is so excited by the events there last week. Because unusually, the miserably divided House of Representatives managed to pass legislation on anti-trust. This is how Matt Stoller in the newsletter Big saw it:

“I’ve been focused on the problem of monopoly since Too Big to Fail banks crashed the economy during the financial crisis in 2008, so I have a pretty good sense of when there are political inflection points. And I will say with reasonable confidence that this week, the opponents of monopoly power took a big step forward. Against fierce opposition from dominant firms, the US House of Representatives voted for the Merger Filing Fee Modernisation Act, which is first time I can remember that we’ve won a floor vote to explicitly roll back monopoly power.”

The law doesn’t go terribly far. It simply increases the costs of mergers – also making sure that companies that want to merge to disclose subsidies from the Chinese government, and pay higher filing fees for big mergers, and it makes it easier to direct the extra revenue to the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The bill makes it easier for state anti-trust enforcers to bring cases by letting them have those cases heard in local courts.

But what is most important is that the lobbyists for the big tech monopolies were boasting about how they would stop the new law in its tracks – and they failed to. It shows that there is in fact a majority now in favour of anti-trust.

Why didn’t all the Republicans support it? Because they were caught between those who hate the big tech companies and those who can’t bear the idea of supporting British-born lawyer Lina Khan, Biden’s nominee to run the FTC and a protege of Barry Lynn of the Open Markets Institute .

Regular readers of these blogs (if there are any) will know that I used to run an anti-trust newsletter for a couple years, via Radix, but Matt is doing such a good job with his Big newsletter that I hardly needed to carry on.

Also you can wait for years to see any glimmer of interest in monopolies in this country.

Because we have lost the centre ground in the UK – and neither the right nor the left are very interested in monopoly power. Neither think that real free, open markets are important.

The left has no track record of interest in issues of scale and consolidation, because they believe free trade is effective.

The right has a simplistic view – similar to Robert Bork and Milton Friedman under Ronald Reagan in the USA – that there is no such thing as monopoly power.

Anti-trust is a liberal approach to economics – and unfortunately the Lib Dems in the UK have forgotten this too.

Because of this, I believe, we have no interest in the way corporations behave towards us. We are obsessed by the old touchstones - inflation or public spending - but we don't normally see how these issues of scale are connected to both.

We appear to be like frogs in the frying pan, slowly cooking away, while the dwindling number of corporates in the UK laugh all the way to Wall Street and back,