Pádraic Mac Coitir ✒ Since I was a young lad and I began to take an interest in the politics here in Ireland I was also encouraged to read about other struggles. 


My two older sisters were in Armagh gaol and whenever I visited them they suggested books I should read about Cuba, Vietnam, Palestine and other places of struggle. 

I can't remember reading too many books but I would read the odd article in papers and magazines. As I got older I read more and when I ended up in gaol myself I had access to many books. The Palestinian struggle was one I took a lot of interest in and over the years I became very cynical of Arafat and his cronies but I knew there were many other organisations that I agreed with. After getting out I met a lot of Palestinians whose politics I agreed with and some had been imprisoned for years including the year of 1981 and they spoke about the influence they got from the hunger strikers. Below is statement from that period.

During the Hunger Strike in 1981 a statement was smuggled out of Nafha Prison from the Palestinian prisoners and sent to the families of the 10 men who died.

To the families of the martyrs oppressed by the British ruling class. To the families of Bobby Sands and his martyred comrades.

We, revolutionaries of the Palestinian people who are under the terrorist rule of Zionism, write you this letter from the desert prison of Nafha.

We extend our salutes and solidarity with you in the confrontation against the oppressive terrorist rule enforced upon the Irish people by the British ruling elite.

We salute the heroic struggle of Bobby Sands and his comrades, for they have sacrificed the most valuable possession of any human being. They gave their lives for freedom
.
From here in Nafha prison, where savage snakes and desert sands penetrate our cells, from here under the yoke of Zionist occupation, we stand alongside you. From behind our cell bars, we support you, your people and your revolutionaries who have chosen to confront death.

Since the Zionist occupation, our people have been living under the worst conditions. Our militants who have chosen the road of liberty and chosen to defend our land, people and dignity, have been suffering for many years.

In the prisons, we are confronting Zionist oppression and their systematic application of torture. Sunlight does not enter our cell. Basic necessities are not provided. Yet we confront the Zionist hangmen, the enemies of life.

Many of our militant comrades have been martyred under torture by the fascists allowing them to bleed to death. Others have been martyred because Israeli prison administrators do not provide needed medical care.

The noble and just hunger strike is not in vain. In our struggle against the occupation of our homeland, for freedom from the new Nazis, it stands as a clear symbol of the historical challenge against the terrorists.

Our people in Palestine and in the Zionist prisons are struggling as your people are struggling against the British monopolies and we will both continue until victory.

On behalf of the prisoners of Nafha, we support your struggle and cause of freedom against English domination, against Zionism and against fascism in the world.
 
Padraic Mac Coitir is a former republican
prisoner and current political activist.

Growing Up With Palestine

Anthony McIntyre While I have been to a few Celtic matches, never sober enough to pass a breathalyser, I am not a fan.

The first time I travelled to Scotland for a game was in May 1973. It was cup final day in both Glasgow and London, and six of us sailed over on the Larne-Stranraer ferry. At 16, the youngest travelling, it was my first time abroad. 

A few hundred miles to the South, Leeds were taken out at Wembley by a combination of Ian Porterfield's strike and acrobatic acumen in the Sunderland goal from Jimmy Montgomery. In Hampden Celtic fell to Old Firm rivals Rangers, losing out by one in a five goal thriller. An official attendance of 134,000 - fans swore that was a very conservative estimate - the sway of the crowd left me wondering about the threat to public safety posed by heaving terraces, my friend urging me to grip his father who seemed in danger of being consumed by the moving mass. Two years earlier Rangers fans had suffered an appalling tragedy when 66 fans were crushed to death in Ibrox. Then too, the opponents were Celtic. On my left arm is a simple stencilled tattoo - Ibrox 66, an affirmation of my strongly held view that every soccer fan who who attends a game should return to their family safe, not in coffins. 

Things have improved in stadia since then despite, and because of, disasters at Bradford and Sheffield. So when fans gathered at Celtic Park yesterday for the final day showdown - the game that would see either Hearts or Celtic emerge as champions - what concerns they had given so much at stake, being crushed was not amongst them. That is, if we set aside the emotional crushing that Hearts fans endured when their season, so filled with anticipation that after sixty six years they could emerge as champions of Scotland, came to a shattering end that was not climactic.

I had been at a Gaza vigil in the town centre, intending to make it home for the second half. As soon as I reached the house my son opened the door excitedly proclaiming 'Celtic penalty.' In the living room once the conversion proved successful, he went into a state of frenzied excitement, roaring, dancing, scarf waving and screaming. I thought my startle reflex was just not sufficiently finely honed for an afternoon of jumpiness. I turned around and made my way for the train to Dublin to see my daughter and then onto a friend. Thankful for small mercies, I was relieved that the four women in the seats next to me while following the match and cheering when Celtic took the lead, were not remotely near as eardrum bursting as my hyperexcitable son.

I followed the score throughout the journey on my phone. My son rang immediately after the home side took the lead to exuberantly inform me that Celtic would be champions of Scotland. While I was happy for him, for friends like Paddy Mooney and Davy Clinton, for Gary Robertson who has seriously raised my interest levels in Scottish soccer with his TPQ column, I had wanted Hearts to win. Because of my fond memories of big Scooby McCabe, a man I had on more occasions than one staggered into Celtic Park with after a feed of whiskey and beer - vodka for him - I felt a twinge of guilt, a tad disloyal. All sentiment aside, I feel a Hearts success would have been good for the game in Scotland. For the first time in years because of the Hearts challenge, Scottish soccer had become unpredictable and excitement enhancing, the race to get over the line even more appealing than that of the English Premier League.

Soccer in Scotland, with its history of success in Europe,  should not be a poor neighbour to its Southern counterpart. Although there are currently only twelve teams in the Scottish premiership, there is a huge gap between it and the League of Ireland Premier Division which has two fewer competing. Scottish soccer needs something broader than Celtic-Rangers. It needs more success from the two Edinburgh teams, one of the Dundee sides as well as Aberdeen.

Yesterday, Celtic fans left victorious, Hearts fans deflated. But they all left alive. There were emotionally crushed hearts but no physically crushed bodies. Hopefully, next year Hearts will come again. They deserve to having upped the quality of soccer in Scotland. 

Follow on Bluesky.

Crushed Hearts

Ukraine Solidarity Group ✊ A Digest of News from Ukrainian Sources ⚔ 11-May-2026.

In this week’s bulletin

⬤ Journalists persecuted in occupied territories.
⬤ Oil refineries hit by drones.
⬤ Disaster in Tuapse, Russia/ Evidence of  Ukrainian civilians tortured to death.
⬤ Investigation into crimes against humanity. 

News from the territories occupied by Russia

“Child Diplomacy” or a Propaganda Tool? How Russia Uses Children to Legitimise the Occupation of Crimea (Crimea Platform, May 8th)

Russia brings ‘extremism’ charges against 86-year-old Crimean Jehovah’s Witness after sentencing his son to 6 years (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 6th)

The Crimean Prosecutor’s Office has initiated the first proceedings concerning a crime against humanity following a submission by ZMINA (Zmina, May 5th)

Weekly update on the situation in occupied Crimea (Crimea Platform, May 5th)

Two fake trials and 16-year sentence for pro-Ukrainian views in occupied Crimea (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 5th)

5 May — Birthday of illegally imprisoned human rights defender Server Mustafaiev (Crimea Platform, May 5th)

Melitopol hostage sentenced to 26 years for supposed attempts on the life of a Russian-installed traitor (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 4th)

News from the front

Ukraine’s ‘Frozen’ Frontlines Are Shifting Significantly (Byline Times, May 7th)

Cyberspace as Another Front of War (Tribunal for Putin, May 2nd)

News from Ukraine

Belarussian volunteer fighting for Ukraine: Forbidden memory (Solidarity Collectives, 5 May)

(Un)safe shelter: Russia’s 2025 attack on Chornobyl (Ukrainer.net, 24 April)

War-related news from Russia

352,000 deaths in four years: Russian casualty monitor (Mediazona, 9 May)

Geraniums in bloom: The Insider and Nordsint reveal how a large Chinese firm supplies Russian drone production (The Insider, May 8th)

A Bell Is a Cup Until It Is Struck: The Disaster in Tuapse (Russian Reader, May 7th)

Alexander Okunev burned himself alive to protest against the war. The state tried to erase his memory (iStories, 6 May)

The biker jailed after flying Ukrainian flag: Sergei Dudchenko’s speech in court (Mediazona, 6 May)

Anticolonial fraud: The Kremlin in Africa (Links, May 5th)

Analysis and comment

Family Archives and Flowers Instead of Concrete: The Second World War in Research and Memory (Commons.com.ua, 8 May)

Statement on the absence of freedom of expression and the persecution of journalists in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine (Zmina, May 4th)

Research of human rights abuses

Russia returns the bodies of 375 POWs and civilian hostages tortured to death or denied medical care (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, May 7th)

ZMINA took part in the Bring Kids Back UA Expert Day and submitted a civil society statement to the international coalition (Zmina, May 1st)

178 cases of pressure and persecution: ZMINA presented a report on the situation of human rights defenders and civil activists in 2025 (Zmina, May 1st)

Upcoming events

Monday 11 May, 1.0pm, Hermitage Hotel, Bournemouth. Ukraine fringe meeting at Communication Workers Union conference

Sunday 17 May: premiere of Try Me For Treason, the film. In-person premiere in London: 6.30pm, Upstairs room, the Lucas Arms, 245a Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8QY (arrive for drinks from 6.0pm). Youtube premiere at 8.0pm. Information at trymefortreason.org.

🔴This bulletin is put together by labour movement activists in solidarity with Ukrainian resistance. More information at Ukraine Information Group.

We are also on twitter. Our aim is to circulate information in English that to the best of our knowledge is reliable. If you have something you think we should include, please send it to 2U022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.


We are now on Facebook and Substack! Please subscribe and tell friends. Better still, people can email us at 2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com, and we’ll send them the bulletin direct every Monday. The full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine is going into its third year: we’ll keep information and analysis coming, for as long as it takes.

The bulletin is also stored on line here.

To receive the bulletin regularly, send your email to:
2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.
To stop it, please reply with the word “STOP” in the subject field.

News From Ukraine 💣 Bulletin 195

The i Paper Written by Jonathan Singh.

The US President’s evangelical festival shows how he’s weaponising God

US politicians on all sides have long called on God to bless the United States of America, but having surrounded himself with evangelical firebrands, President Donald Trump is now being accused of weaponising American Christianity – and using it as pretext for an increasingly authoritarian approach at home and abroad.

The White House is preparing to host a prayer festival this weekend where speakers will include Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White-Cain, who has compared him to Jesus, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who has talked of the conflict with Iran as a holy war.

The Rededicate 250 National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving – planned alongside the country’s 250th birthday celebrations and partly funded by US taxpayers – features mostly evangelical Christians. But the focus on appealing to a small subsection of Americans has big political risks, and could tear apart Trump’s Maga movement, experts have warned.

The festival, along with regular White House prayer meetings and the establishment by Trump of a White House Faith Office, are part of a wider strategy to cast the US as a righteous Christian nation . . .

Continue @ The i Paper.

What’s Really Behind Trump’s ‘Cosplay Christianity’

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Peter Montgomery.


A Guide To This Weekend’s White House-Sponsored ‘Revival’ To ‘Rededicate’ America to God

The Trump regime’s aggressive Christian nationalism will be on full display at two events being held in Washington, D.C. this coming weekend whose stated purpose is to “rededicate” the United States to God.

The government-sponsored “revival” reflects the extent to which the Trump White House has embraced the religious right’s contempt for the constitutional separation of church and state.

And it’s part of the Trump team’s hijacking of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence to turn it from a bipartisan national celebration into a massive corporate-backed promotional campaign for Trump and the MAGA movement and what Rep. Jared Huffman has called “a platform for Christian nationalism.”

Here’s what to look forward to this weekend.

The Warm-Up Act

On Saturday, May 16, dominionist musician and MAGA activist Sean Feucht will host a worship service at an outdoor theater on the grounds of the Washington Monument. Since launching his “Let Us Worship” campaign against COVID-era restrictions on worship gatherings in 2020, Feucht has toured the country holding high-energy public worship services that double as Christian nationalist MAGA political rallies

Continue @ RWW.

Christian Nationalists, Grifters, Charlatans & More

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Seventy Four

 

Pastords @ 44

 

A Morning Thought @ 3148

Anthony McIntyre  Missing these weekly vigils leaves a bad taste in the mouth. 

I was not available for the previous two due to other matters kicking in that needed attending to. If only the Israelis would miss a day of child murder.

While we gather, the Eurovision Song Contest is taking place in Vienna. The organisers have not banned the genocidal state from participation, coming up with all sorts of jabberwocky about an artistic space where unity is promoted and from which an image of a better world might be projected, conveniently choosing to ignore that Israel is using the competition to song wash its genocidal image.

Ireland along with Spain, Iceland, Slovenia, and the Netherlands make up the group of five societies boycotting the event in opposition to Israeli genocide in Gaza. While thirty five countries will be taking part, it is the lowest number of entrants since the 2004 expansion. While Iceland and the Netherlands are reported to be screening the event, Ireland along with Slovenia and Spain are broadcasting alternative shows. In the case of RTE, it has opted to put out old Father Ted episodes. Certainly more than most other national broadcasters are doing but it would have been more pointed and imaginative to have broadcast history shows about the 1938 Nazi march into Austria in pursuit of Hitler's Anschluss project which aimed at creating a Greater Germany. It would have been poignant and a reminder of what horrors can follow from inviting those who perpetrate genocide. Austrians made the German Nazis welcome in 1938 while today the country makes Israeli Nazis welcome. Lesser Germany and Lesser Israel, seem to be concepts alien to the Austrian political and cultural psyche which favours greatness.

RTE's decision is nevertheless to be welcomed but the institution remains a strange beast. Last night it opened its early evening news slot with a report about its top earners where the station juggled with the interchangeability or crossover between presenter and producer. The semantic hairsplitting around producing or presenting might be of interest to the number crunchers in RTE or to the type that like to train spot or plane watch, but it is hardly the most newsworthy item on the public agenda.

RTE's coverage of the genocide in Gaza is considered by many to have has fallen short of the mark. Earlier this week I accompanied our very own Siobhan to Dundalk courthouse where she had been summoned for refusing to pay her licence fee. 


Inside the pre-hearing consultation room she made the case most strongly that she was vehemently opposed to the broadcaster's coverage of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. When people are prepared to stand up and take a hit for their beliefs it serves to remind us of just how many people, to quote the biologist Jerry Coyne, are wedded not to what is true but to what makes them comfortable. 

Which brings me to the Independent Writers Union of which I am a member. RTE, despite its failings, has shown more fortitude, than the Union. It at least is prepared to participate in a cultural boycott of genocidal Israel. The IWU declined to do any such thing a few weeks ago at its AGM, the reasoning being that it is not political. That leaves us as scribblers to look haughtily over the top of our glasses at our fellow writers in Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Territories and proclaim:

most sorry old bean that you are being murdered, your prisoners raped and now facing the noose, your children massacred, your education system destroyed, your intellectuals, writers and surgeons maimed to stem their creativity, your health system obliterated, your land stolen because your tormentors are the chosen people and you are children of a lesser god. But we, the Irish Writers Union, as a body of scribes can't do anything, because protecting our institution from allegations of being political must take precedence over protecting you from genocide.

And when we offer them that as an explanation for our commitment to nothingness, let's not feign surprise when they look at us through disbelieving and disdainful eyes and respond in three terse words: Irish Wafflers Union. 

This week our esteemed colleague. Siobhan, through a single act of civil obedience, did more to challenge the barbarism of Israel than the Irish Writers Union. A playwright, I don't imagine she will sign up for membership of a union too institutionally and non-politically timorous to write the wrong.

Follow on Bluesky.

Song Washing

Geordie Morrow 🖌 with a painting from his collection of art work. 



⏩Geordie Morrow is a Belfast artist.

Back To Where It All Began

Cam Ogie What began in an earlier critique of Trump, Vance and the wider populist-nationalist movement as a warning about modern politics drifting toward the theatrics of imperial Rome now finds its mirror image in Keir Starmer’s Labour government. 

Rome’s decline was never driven by one faction or one personality alone. Some emperors and like Trump evoking Caesarist politics, governed through spectacle, grievance and personal cults; others through sterile managerialism, bureaucratic insulation and an increasingly desperate attachment to office. Both reflected the same deeper decay: a ruling class detached from the public mood and incapable of recognising when legitimacy had begun to collapse.

That is where Keir Starmer enters the Roman parallel. Starmer represents something colder but no less dangerous: the late-imperial ruler who mistakes control of the machine for consent of the people.

If Trump evokes the theatrical populism of emperors who thrived on mass emotion and political spectacle, Starmer increasingly resembles the later Caesars whose authority technically endured while public belief in them steadily evaporated. Rome did not fall solely because of flamboyant demagogues. It also declined under rulers who mistook administrative control for genuine consent, who governed through caution and messaging while the society beneath them became restless, distrustful and exhausted.

A comparison with Nero is therefore not about literal tyranny, but about the psychology of political decline. Nero began with considerable goodwill, promise, image and carefully managed moderation. He presented himself as measured, reforming and modernising — a reassuring figure after instability. Yet gradually image overtook substance. Nevertheless, his reign, like Trump’s, descended into vanity, denial, loyalist courtiers, public alienation and eventual collapse though Trump’s ultimate reckoning remains unrealised. Economic pressures mounted, public frustration deepened, elite confidence weakened, and the emperor increasingly retreated into performance, loyalists and carefully managed appearances. The regime became consumed not with renewal, but with preserving itself.

Critics argue that Starmer now risks embodying precisely that late-imperial instinct. They now argue that his government has entered a similar phase of decay: not dramatic despotism, but managerial exhaustion, moral compromise, endless U-turns and a desperate clinging to office. Rather than recognising growing public disillusionment, the leadership appears determined to rationalise every electoral warning as temporary turbulence. Poor local election results are dismissed as mid-term protest votes rather than acknowledged as evidence of a much broader rejection taking shape. Yet the local elections revealed something far more dangerous for an incumbent government: not simple frustration with individual policies, but a hardening public mood against the Labour leadership itself.

The U-turns matter because they reveal a government without a settled political soul. Pledges are made, abandoned, repackaged, denied and reversed. From welfare to tax, winter fuel, migration, digital ID, farming, public spending and other reversals too numerous to list, the impression is not of tactical flexibility but of a leadership constantly retreating from its own positions. Labour promised stability after Conservative chaos yet increasingly resembles the same exhausted politics it replaced.

The parallels with the recent Conservative collapse are striking and should have been a warning. The Conservatives cycled through prime ministers at extraordinary speed — from Boris Johnson to Liz Truss to Rishi Sunak — in a desperate attempt to convince the electorate that changing the face at the top could somehow restore legitimacy to a government the public had already tired of. Each change sold as renewal, each really an attempt to preserve the party’s grip on power. But the public had already moved beyond blaming individuals. In the end, the electorate rejected not merely the individual leaders: they had rejected the whole exhaustive governing culture surrounding them. Labour now risks repeating that mistake. Removing Starmer alone may no longer be enough if the cabinet around him is equally implicated in the political failure.

Labour now risks repeating the same cycle in reverse. Starmer’s defenders insist that “the public do not want a leadership challenge” during difficult times domestically and internationally. Yet critics point to the local elections as evidence of precisely the opposite: the electorate is signalling deep dissatisfaction with the entire direction of the government. The claim that stability alone is virtuous begins to sound less like statesmanship and more like self-preservation.

The local and devolved election results have made that brutally clear. Labour suffered heavy losses across Britain, with reports citing voters “punishing Starmer’s Labour Party” and reporting more than 80 Labour lawmakers calling for him to go. The argument from Starmer’s defenders that “the public does not want a leadership challenge” during difficult times is therefore nonsense. The electorate has already delivered its challenge. The problem is that Starmer and those around him refuse to hear it. Indeed, critics increasingly argue that changing Starmer alone would no longer be enough. The problem, they contend, is not simply one man, but an entire political apparatus that rose and advanced under his leadership.

That refusal is sustained by a cabinet and inner circle whose political futures are inseparably tied to Starmer’s rise and survival. Critics argue that he has surrounded himself with sycophants, careerists and political dependants who increasingly confuse loyalty to the leader with loyalty to the country itself. Like the courtiers surrounding Nero and Rome’s declining emperors, they protect the illusion of authority because their own positions, ambitions and influence depend upon the survival of the existing order. This inevitably breeds caution, conformity and career preservation over honesty or principle, leaving ministers unwilling to challenge leadership failures even as public dissatisfaction deepens. The result is a culture of managed narratives, defensive messaging and political sycophancy in which maintaining power overtakes confronting reality, while repeated appeals for “stability” become less a defence of the nation and more a shield for political self-preservation.

This is where the charge against the cabinet deepens. Critics do not merely accuse Starmer of incompetence, but of moral complicity: of standing with Israel while Gaza faces devastation, mass death and an ongoing genocide case at the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has ordered Israel to prevent acts under the Genocide Convention and ensure humanitarian assistance, while the case itself remains ongoing. For many on the left, Starmer’s government has not simply failed to oppose illegal war and mass killing; it has politically enabled them.

The proscription of Palestine Action under Yvette Cooper sharpened that sense of authoritarian drift. Cooper announced the move under the Terrorism Act 2000, making membership or support a criminal offence if passed by Parliament. The Guardian later reported that the ban followed damage to RAF Brize Norton aircraft and that the government defended it as targeting serious criminality, while opponents saw it as a dangerous attack on protest and solidarity with Palestine. To critics, this looked like the machinery of the state being used not to protect democracy, but to narrow it.

Starmer’s migration rhetoric also fed the sense that Labour had crossed a moral line. His “island of strangers” language was widely compared by critics to Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” politics, a comparison Starmer rejected. But even if one rejects a direct equivalence, the political effect was clear: a Labour prime minister borrowing the emotional grammar of the right while claiming to defend progressive government. Like Trump, he reaches for fear; unlike Trump, he dresses it in administrative respectability.

The blocking or sidelining of Andy Burnham adds another Roman layer. Burnham’s allies have warned against a rapid “coronation” of Wes Streeting and called for Labour’s NEC to ensure he can contest a seat and enter any leadership race. If Labour’s internal machinery is used to manage succession, exclude challengers or protect favoured candidates, then the party begins to resemble a court rather than a democratic movement.

Streeting’s role only adds to the sense of decay. Reports have repeatedly framed him as a possible successor, while also noting that he has not launched a formal challenge. Critics see this as the worst of both worlds: alleged disloyal manoeuvring without the courage of open confrontation. In Roman terms, it is the politics of the palace corridor — ambition without honour, intrigue without responsibility.

Rome repeatedly demonstrated how dangerous such insulated leadership circles could become. Later emperors surrounded themselves with administrators and loyalists who reinforced the illusion of stability long after legitimacy had begun to fracture. Silence was interpreted as loyalty. Obedience was mistaken for support. Yet underneath the surface, public confidence eroded until collapse accelerated with astonishing speed.

That is why the Nero comparison bites. Nero did not fall simply because he was unpopular. The striking feature of Nero’s downfall was not sudden catastrophe, but prolonged denial. The empire was visibly weakening long before he acknowledged the danger. Provincial revolts spread, elite support collapsed, the Praetorian Guard deserted him, and still the machinery of imperial authority attempted to preserve the illusion of permanence. By the end, Nero remained emperor in title while power had already disappeared in practice.

Critics argue that this is the true danger now confronting Labour. Governments often become most defensive precisely when they sense weakness approaching. They tighten internal discipline, attack dissent, repeat slogans about responsibility and stability, and insist there is no alternative leadership capable of governing. Yet history suggests that once a governing class begins arguing that it alone must remain in office “for the good of the nation,” it is often because it fears the electorate may already have reached a very different conclusion.

Unlike Trump, Starmer’s danger is not assassination or imperial violence; The Roman comparison is symbolic rather than literal. Britain is not imperial Rome and Starmer is not Nero in any direct historical sense. The danger is political death by denial. A leader clings on. A cabinet flatters him. Rivals whisper but do not strike. The party machine blocks alternatives. The public votes against the government, only to be told that now is not the time to question the leader. But the underlying lesson remains timeless: political systems decay when leaders begin confusing institutional control with genuine public consent. Once belief in a government begins to die, the structures around it may remain standing for a time, but legitimacy has already started to rot beneath the surface.

That is the warning increasingly levelled at Starmer and his cabinet — that they risk becoming a modern political court, clinging to office not because public enthusiasm remains strong, but because too many careers, ambitions and reputations are now bound to the survival of the existing regime. And history repeatedly shows that when ruling elites become more concerned with preserving themselves than renewing public trust, the end rarely arrives gradually. That is the same fatal arrogance that haunted Rome’s declining Caesars: the belief that holding office is the same as holding legitimacy. It is not. Once the people stop believing, power becomes theatre. And when a ruler is left performing authority to an audience that has already turned away, the end has usually begun.

Like Rome’s declining Caesars, they often discover too late that power can vanish long before those holding it are prepared to let it go.

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.

Beware The Ides Of May † Et Tu, Brute

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Seventy Three

 

A Morning Thought @ 3147