It’s not often that a visit to the library encourages reflection on matters of political philosophy – unless, I suppose, one happens to have strayed across a stray volume of Hegel in amongst the Stephen Gerrard biographies and romance novels about billionaire vampires. But a conversation with a librarian in the children’s section at my local library this morning gave me the opportunity to think through the shameful events at Parliament this week and their wider import.
I had come to return some books my eldest child had borrowed some six months ago and which I had failed to remind her to bring back, and I had my tail between my legs as a result. Growing up as a bookish kid in the 80s and 90s with no money, I practically lived in my local library, and still retain great respect for the social importance of these institutions. So I was fully prepared to drop to my knees and offer to commit seppeku right there on the carpet for my terrible crime – or, at least, cough up a considerable amount of money in fines.
But I was astonished to learn from the nice lady behind the counter that the library in fact hasn’t been charging fines since the first lockdown of March 2020, and has no intention of reintroducing them. ‘We’re honestly just glad to get the books back at all,’ she said. ‘We really don’t want to stress people out with fines. Not at a time like this when there are so many other things to worry about.’
‘Are you sure?’ I said. ‘Aren’t fines a good incentive to get people to bring books back on time?’
‘Maybe,’ she conceded, but she stuck to her guns: ‘We really just don’t want to stress people out.’
I didn’t press the point, because she was obviously a perfectly decent person, so I just smiled and sidled away. But I was struck by the strange meekness with which I had been treated. When I was a kid, library fines were taken seriously (I still distinctly remember the figure – 6p per book per day – that I would have to pay for a late return). And this sent a message: ‘Yes, we might “just” be a library, but we still don’t expect you to take the proverbial. In some small way, what we are doing here matters. So treat us with respect.’ So we did.
I had my youngest child with me, and I commented to her as we left the building that times had really changed. Being two years old, she pointed at the sky and said, ‘Blue!’ But I think she understood what I meant. In the course of my lifetime, the values of public institutions have quite radically shifted. In 1994, they stuck up for themselves. If you returned a book late to the library, you had to pay a fine and you were made to feel ashamed. In 2024, libraries worry about whether the mere act of requiring you to return something you have borrowed is ‘stressing you out’. And what is true of libraries seems true more widely. Schools, universities, local councils, the Home Office – they all seem to be infected with the same malaise. Standards? Rules? They just stress us all out; better for us all to simply relax and coast along until retirement.
There are many explanations that could be offered for this transformation, but I think a central factor is a basic lack of confidence in the value of the institution itself. I thought it remarkable, for example, that the librarian I encountered prefaced our exchange by saying that the library were just glad if books were returned at all. It spoke of quiet desperation: libraries are almost everywhere under threat of closure, and the very practice of reading books itself sometimes appears to be dying out. So it seems that libraries need footfall so badly that they’re prepared to tolerate almost any level of abuse so long as somebody is reading something.
But it also speaks to a loss of vocation. If what libraries do is important, then it should be treated as such. If people are allowed to get away with behaving as if it is not important – by flouting the rules and returning books whenever they feel like it, if at all – then what does that say about the faith that people who run libraries have in the entire enterprise? It rather suggests they think the whole thing is basically a sham and that they are just going through the motions.
During the lockdowns, the extent to which this mentality – the toxic mixture of loss of confidence and vocation – had permeated our institutions was revealed in shocking starkness. And it was particularly noticeable in three fields: education, religion, and politics. I was stunned in March 2020 at the rapidity with which schools, churches and Parliament closed, and at the timidity with which the people who staff those institutions retreated, mouse-like, into their little burrows. It spoke of fear and panic, yes, but it also spoke of a total lack of faith in what they were doing in the first place. Does education really matter when the chips are down? Nah. Is your God bigger or smaller than a virus? Smaller. Is representative democracy more or less important than the threat of a disease? Less. In the end, those who were supposed to believe the most in the overarching values of the institutions they represented were revealed to have an interest chiefly in avoiding the rocking of boats. What – protest about lockdown? Suggest that the futures of our children or our dearly held religious beliefs might be even more important than stopping the spread of a virus? Mention that proper Parliamentary debate and scrutiny might be worth taking a few fairly low-level risks? Stop stressing us out!
And this brings us of course to the latest nail that has been driven into the coffin of our public life: the farrago surrounding the Speaker’s behaviour at opposition day debate last Wednesday.
Let us first be fair: the threat of political violence, and particularly the threat of political violence against MPs’ families, is obviously not to be discussed in the same breath as library fines. But we see, at root, a similar pervasive malaise here as I encountered in my local library. In the parliament of a representative democracy that had faith in itself, in the importance of its work, and in the meaning behind its procedures, the response to the bullying tactics of extremists and protestors would have been obvious. First and foremost, it would have been not to back down. And second, it would have been to take immediate and urgent steps to robustly protect its parliamentarians, in coordination with the police and security services. The position would have been, and should have been, plain: what happens in Parliament matters, and the outside world is going to respect it. And this would have derived from the basic self-respect of the people with custody of the institution itself – a sense of faith in its overarching purpose and importance.
But we don’t really live in a representative democracy that has faith in itself, as anyone with eyes can see, and the depth and extent of the rot is now becoming evident. In recent years, the House of Commons has been reduced to something little better than a talking shop. On the one hand, its constitutional role is turning into a kind of rubber-stamping exercise for government, with the practice of legislating being reduced to the passing of wide-ranging ‘enabling acts’ which simply delegate actual regulatory power to government ministers and quangos like the Financial Conduct Authority. And on the other, MPs seem increasingly to see their main function as being to virtue-signal to their respective tribes so as to secure more likes on their social media posts (and possibly lay the foundations for a lucrative career in punditry, lobbying or consultancy after their time as an MP is over). Is it any wonder then that when the chips are down and something real is at stake the response is to meekly follow the path of least resistance – so as to avoid getting too ‘stressed out’?
The comparison with the Brexit era throws all of this into particularly stark relief. British readers will remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth among MPs when Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament in the summer of 2019. A gaggle of opposition MPs even staged an asinine, sixth-form style protest in the Commons, claiming that the future of British democracy itself was at stake. That they were prepared to do that for the cameras when there were absolutely no consequences for doing so, but are unprepared now to tackle the current crisis because it would all be a bit too difficult and confrontational, speaks volumes. When virtue-signalling is cost free, they’re all for it. When there are genuine risks associated with it, they’re nowhere to be seen.
How will we get out of this mire? Milton Friedman was fond of saying that when it comes to politics and the economy, the one argument that you are not allowed to make is that we just need better people. ‘We need better people’ is the last resort of somebody who has run out of ideas. In many circumstances, Friedman’s observation was accurate. But we find ourselves I think in a situation in which a rare exception can be made: we actually do need better people in charge of our institutions. When the current crop don’t have faith in what they are doing, don’t think it particularly matters, and don’t think it is worth sticking up for, then the only solution is for people who actually do care to step up and take the reins. This is true of libraries and it is true of Parliament, and in every other arena of our public life. Serious people who love the country and its institutions are going to have to step up and be counted if we’re going to reverse the journey of decline on which we have embarked – and they’re going to have to do it soon.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Let’s hear it for ambition and ruthlessness in politics and for their latest alpha exponent – Robert Jenrick”
What a pity that the Tories were so busy delivering manifesto promises while in office, that they didn’t have time to do this too.
What we have lost
We have gained a great deal more than we have lost
And the losing is, in my view, simply part of the inexorable, inevitable march of human history.
That so many wish to come to this country is a clear demonstration that what we have is still well worth having.
The more things change etc etc
Britain in the fifties, the seventies, was dire. The thirties must have been dire, and the nineteenth century, for the vast majority, does not even bear thinking about.
We are in the doldrums again, it is true. But, thanks to technology, we can see this now with greater clarity.
That does not make things worse.
It makes it a great deal easier to do something about it.
Simply read, for example, the IEA paper ‘Universal Healthcare without the NHS’.
One of the country’s major problems addressed head on; a clear exposition as to how to solve it.
We know what the massive elephant etc is: a bloated and over-mighty public sector.
There is very little wrong with this country that cannot be righted by the simple expedient of downsizing the state.
We know what to do. We have done it before. It works.
Unless we deal with the elephant in the room all other reforms will fail.
Elephants, multiple…
Just completely ludicrous. Presumably this is all a ploy and his wife is in on this. Funny how he only ‘came out’ after his first claim was rejected. Europe is so doomed as long as we have imbeciles like these officials in charge of who is allowed in.
So does this mean the floodgates open for men with families to suddenly claim they’re gay in order to get asylum?
”The case of a father-of-five Muslim who has been granted asylum in Austria, claiming persecution in his home country due to his homosexuality, has stirred significant public debate in the country with political figures expressing outrage over the ruling.
The Russian-Tajik dual citizen entered Austria illegally via Turkey and Saudi Arabia on Sept. 22, 2023, seeking asylum for himself and his family, news outlet Heute reports.
Initially, he cited better job prospects and fear of Russian military service as his reasons for fleeing. His first asylum application was rejected in April 2023. However, during an appeal at the Federal Administrative Court in Vienna, the man introduced a new claim that he faced discrimination, stigmatization, and violence in both Russia and Tajikistan due to his newfound homosexuality.
Despite being a devout Muslim and having recently completed a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, the man stated during the court hearing that he is homosexual and sought refuge in Austria to live openly and meet men without fear.
The court ruled in his favor, noting that his marriage and fatherhood did not contradict his sexual orientation. The man’s previous work in his home country as a butcher, car painter, and construction worker, and his ongoing communication with his wife and children in Turkey via WhatsApp, were also considered in the case.
The asylum decision allows the man to remain in Austria, and he is now eligible to bring his immediate family to join him through the family reunification process.
The individual in this case is not alone in using the protected characteristic of sexual orientation to overturn rejected asylum claims across Europe.
In November last year, a Nigerian man who was granted asylum in Britain after telling authorities he faced persecution by the Boko Haram terrorist organization for being gay went on to father three children and marry a woman in the U.K. He was subsequently found guilty of masterminding a €252,000 Facebook and eBay parcel fraud scam.”
https://rmx.news/article/gay-father-of-five-granted-asylum-in-austria-sparking-heated-political-debate/
The naivety of people who’s only interest is ‘being kind’
He could have sought asylum in Saudi Arabia.
This is a misquote – I heard her describing their actions as “prison-type bad” which is subtly different.
Now everyone can see Iran is the aggressor
But there will still be a few on here that ‘cannot’, in fact will not, for reasons they choose not to divulge.
That also applies to Putin’s barbaric and criminal invasion of Ukraine.
This is why some choose not to acknowledge what is staring them in the face:
‘Russian opposition outlet Astra reported on September 30 that the 2025-2027 (Russian) draft budget allocates 4.5 billion rubles ($47 million) and 49 million rubles ($511,000) in state funding towards the Solovyov Live Telegram channel and Readovka online news aggregator, respectively.
A 2023 joint investigation by Russian opposition outlets Meduza and The Bell found that Readovka posed itself as a semi-opposition outlet prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but then actively started voicing pro-Kremlin views and working with the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) after March 2022.
The joint investigation noted that Readovka founder Alexei Kostylev “always wanted to be in the center,” suggesting that the Kremlin viewed Kostylev’s personal ambitions and affiliations as exploitable factors and co-opted Readovka to further the Kremlin rhetorical line following the full-scale invasion.
Solovyov Live is a Telegram channel run by Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovyov and has been a major platform through which the Kremlin has sustained its information narratives and dispelled the information space’s criticism since the start of the war.
Solovyov has been using the Solovyov Live Telegram channel to amplify his other online initiatives, such as podcasts, and most recently used the platform to defend the commander of a Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) unit who disbanded a specialized drone unit and sent specialized drone operators to their deaths while conducting an infantry assault.
Both Readovka and Solovyov Live have a decidedly pro-Kremlin bent, and the Kremlin’s sponsorship of these online platforms and initiatives suggests that the Kremlin is increasingly adapting its state-run propaganda machine, which previously focused on traditional TV and print media, to emerging social media platforms.’
Follow the money…..
‘The trolls with Western education may be considered the highest caste of Iranian trolls. American Universities’ alumni are fluent in English and constitute the elite of Iranian Government-backed trolls. They are small in number, but are far beyond their Russian counterparts in terms of quality. Almost 80 percent of these trolls are English-speaking.
They are used for “pinpoint attacks” on particular persons, foreign or Iranian dissidents and activists outside Iran. Comments they post are usually voluminous, distinguished by correct punctuation, competent questions, which attests to proficiency in English and in a subject matter.
Sometimes, an Iranian troll from the highest caste is on the payroll in a prestigious State institution, and acts as an expert in the Western mass media. At the same moment, media outlets, which publish these trolls, do not even know that their “Iranian expert” moonlights as a “pro-government troll” in his country.
There are also trolls among Iranian students studying abroad and secular in appearance Iranians, who have been residing in the West for a long time. The majority of these trolls “work for free”.
That is why they are not the subject of my study.
Creation of fake “persons” is a separate topic. It is widespread in Iran. These fake accounts are, usually, created in social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Linkedin. Fake accounts are mainly used for espionage and trolling.
Iranian activists in a conversation with me mentioned a few times that since the beginning of 2017 the Iranian Government’s need for Arabic-speaking trolls has increased dramatically.
I think Iran needs them to use in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon, as well as in the Syrian issue and mainly against Saudi Arabia, and also to strengthen Iran’s authority among internet-audience of these countries.
The number of Iranian pro-Government trolls is an important issue.
Putting aside voluntary trolls working for free, we may narrow it down. Iranian activists said there may be about 4-5 thousand government-affiliated trolls.
In their opinion, this number can include trolls from various categories, including those who work in State institutions.’
Ali Hajizade, Al Arabiya
Typical condescending government mouthpiece RTE telling you how to keep warm in the winter FFS!
https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2024/1001/1472978-ways-to-keep-warm-at-home-without-cranking-up-the-central-heating/
With gems like “wear slippers” and “clothing”
Re VAT on university fees.
I cannot see any reason to exempt them if schools are to be subject to VAT. It seems books will have to be VATable too as otherwise the use of VAT free books in a Library would be at odds with paying VAT for tuition by their authors.
On extracurricular activities the DT says these are not exempt. Private schools will need to pay VAT on any additional education. I am not sure why state schools would not have to charge VAT on these additional non-educational services and perhaps they always should have done.
Of interest, I reviewed the accounts of a local school’s PTA a few years ago. I learned the PTA, which is s aseparate legal entity from the school, was buying larger VATable items through the school’s suppliers and the school recovered the VAT before selling the item, VAT-free, to the PTA. My management letter naturally referred to possible breaches of the VAT regulations. Similarly with entertaining costs in excess of HMRC rules as the officers of the PTA could be held to be quasi-workers and subject to the PYE regulations.
I wonder if anyone at HMRC/HMT has thought all this through.
Excellent work.
Welcome to the Daily Zionist Parrotting..
Full of debating “Sceptics”…
Do you want the total dismantling and destruction of the state of Israel?
Typical polarisation of the debate, absolutely typical on here, lacking any nuance..
Answer.. No (obviously)
Do I want to see Israeli illegal settlements, Israeli lobbying in parliament, the MIC controlling government policies, politicians around the world having conflicting interests (ie shares) in the MIC, the corrupt politicians taking back handers from Israeli lobby and the slaughtering of innocent civilians to stop.
Answer.. Yes (obviously)
Noticed how nuanced it is….
Oh forgot one… Do I want people to stop parrotting the Zionist narrative, as if what ever they say is the truth..
… I think you might know the answer to that
You aren’t paying attention.
Joker
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13913385/Kemi-Badenoch-Whitehall-civil-servants-bad-prison.html
Unfortunately this confirms how woefully out of touch Ms Baddenoch is. There are perhaps 10% of civil servants truly worth their money. Sixty percent are taking money under false pretences, twenty percent are wholly unemployable anywhere and the rest belong in prison.