Blog

The popular consensus is that it’s not so much that Labour will win but that the Tories will lose.

The Conservative Party hasn’t had strong leaders since Margaret Thatcher was turfed out in a coup d’état.

And strong leadership is what’s required for a party to look united even when so many members disagree on the key electoral issue, Brexit.

As a result, the Tories appear to be torn down the middle, with the factions on either side bickering like drunk housewives in the communal kitchen of my Moscow childhood.

A house divided against itself will not stand, said that great political analyst of the past. Looking at those internecine squabbles, Labour bigwigs are rubbing their hands. They sense that the next election is theirs to lose.

I think they’re too smug for their own good, and the popular consensus is wrong. Labour may very well lose the next election, but unfortunately they don’t have to.

They can guarantee a win by ditching Corbyn a month before the polling date and replacing him with, well, just about anybody.

Then they can win without changing one comma in Corbyn’s Trotskyist programme. For, while our voters see nothing wrong with Corbyn’s programme, they increasingly see something wrong with Corbyn.

Labour has always attracted voters by claiming a high moral ground. The Tories are the nasty party in popular lore; Labour are the nice one.

Don’t they want to share wealth evenly or at least equitably? Of course, they do. So there.

And don’t they want to make life better for the working men – and also for the non-working ones, provided they have no private pensions? Definitely.

Also look at how they promote equality for all, regardless of faith, race, country of origin or the number of criminal convictions.

Any way you look at it, Labour exudes goodness out of every orifice in its body politic.

Granted, when yet another Labour government turns Britain into a basket case, voters sense that perhaps goodness isn’t enough by itself. Some modicum of cold-blooded competence may come in handy too.

So they sigh and vote for the nasty party. But after the Tories have shovelled some of the Labour manure out of the Augean stables, it’s time for goodness again.

The upshot is that preserving the image of a nice party is as vital for Labour as appearing competent is for the Tories. Lose that image, and what does Labour have to offer that hasn’t been tried a thousand times and found wanting every time and everywhere?

It’s that wholesome image that Corbyn is damaging.

Belying his avuncular looks, he regularly stars in decidedly nasty headlines about his saying hateful things about Jews, cavorting with terrorists, extolling the Venezuelan nightmare, refusing to criticise Putin – and shagging Diane Abbott, although that may be a thing of the past.

In short, he increasingly comes across as not just nasty, but evil. That’s an election loser for Labour.

The Tory press stays on Corbyn’s case, attacking everything he has ever said or done. As the election draws nearer, such attacks will intensify because, being indeed evil, Corbyn presents an easy target.

Yet using Corbyn as the target enables his party to do what it’s genetically predisposed to do: externalise evil.

If I were a political consultant to Labour, I’d advise them to encourage personal attacks on Corbyn – and then replace him with anyone from whom Corbyn has drawn fire.

That would crystallise their message: “Look, that nasty Corbyn usurped power and caused your just anger. But now we’re the nice party again – and look at the mess the Tories are in.”

The trouble is that the Tory media are incapable of spelling out the real problem of Labour. It’s not that the party is led by an evil man. It’s that it flogs an evil ideology.

Hence, the personality of the leader doesn’t really matter. For socialists, the choice isn’t between good and evil. It’s among various degrees of evil.

Some good conservatives tend to romanticise the Old Labour of Ramsey McDonald, Ernest Bevin and, if you will, Frank Field, all supposedly misguided but full of good intentions.

I don’t buy that because the price is too high: suspension of reason and morality.

The essence of socialism, be it national, international, democratic, soft, mild, extreme or mainstream, is the urge to destroy everything that’s good in our civilisation.

To use Harry Jaffa’s phrase, our civilisation was baptised in the Jordan, not the fiery brook (a reference to the materialist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach). Hence its belief in the primacy of every single individual over a faceless collective.

That’s why the watershed issue in Western politics is the balance of power between the individual and the state.

Conservatives, who by definition think along Christian lines even if they aren’t Christians, gravitate towards subsidiarity – devolving power to the lowest sensible level, thereby empowering the individual. A conservative is never statist; a socialist always is.

Socialism is all about an omnipotent state lording it over its flock, an amorphous collectivist mass.

Only such a state has the power to rob people of most of their income, impose false moral standards, dictate not only what people do but also what they say and think, enforce materialism along with political, social, educational and cultural egalitarianism, put a yoke on peoples’ talents and enterprise.

Socialists by definition think along anti-Christian lines even if they happen to be Christians. If they are, they’re very stupid Christians, who can’t relate their religion to the realities of earthly life.

The Labour Party is a broad coalition of the evil and the stupid, with the former dominating the latter. If the Tories are the nasty party, Labour is the evil one – and it has got precisely the leader it deserves.

The only thing socialists are good at is propaganda – reducing their vacuous and wicked messages to catchy, appealing slogans. Their task is easy because only such messages are so reducible.

Thus a slogan like ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ is understandable even to the dimmest people. But even the brightest conservative would fail to counter with an equally catchy phrase.

He’d have to explain that this idea presupposes an authority empowered to decide what constitutes both ‘ability’ and ‘need’. Such an authority would inevitably become tyrannical because it would have to have total control over the whole society and everyone in it.

As far as catchy counter-slogans go, this doesn’t quite work, does it?

That’s how Labour has concocted its reputation for kindliness, assisted in this endeavour by the dumbing-down educational system it has created and fostered.

And that’s how Labour can win the next election, by jettisoning Corbyn who contradicts that reputation.

Now, if I were a political consultant to the Tories, I’d advise them to shift the focus of their offensive from Corbyn to everything Labour stands for, every supposition from which it proceeds – the reality behind the slogans.

And then wiser heads would probably object that by now our socialist education has become so successful that we simply don’t have an electorate capable of thinking beyond slogans and personalities.

Well, now you know why I’m not a political consultant to the Conservative Party.

In today’s politics, if a man is disliked (or liked) for something, he’s disliked (or liked) for everything.

If, say, Donald Trump opined that the sky is blue, his detractors would cry foul simply because it was he who said it.

And if Mr Trump insisted that the Earth is flat after all, his admirers would hail that as the acme of wisdom.

Boris Johnson is becoming a similar love-him-or-hate-him figure in Britain. Nothing he says or does pleases some people; everything he says or does pleases some others.

This dichotomy is becoming even more pronounced now Mr Johnson is transparently angling for Tory leadership and consequently the keys to 10 Downing Street.

Daniel Finkelstein is clearly no Johnson partisan, a stance with which I’m in broad sympathy. But that doesn’t mean that everything coming out of Mr Johnson’s mouth must be savaged as a matter of course.

That, I’m afraid, is exactly what Lord Finklestein does in today’s Times. He takes issue with Mr Johnson’s economic programme based on cutting existing taxes and introducing no new ones.

In the process Lord Finkelstein takes a swipe at Arthur Laffer and his notorious curve. Now that curve – like all sound economics – was just plain common sense. Nothing more and nothing less.

Laffer made a blindingly obvious observation that high tax rates don’t necessarily produce high tax revenue. A tax rate of 100 per cent would deliver the same tax revenue as a tax rate of zero per cent: zero.

The optimum tax rate lies between those two extremes, although Laffer didn’t specify exactly at what point. Those economists who believe that an economy has functions other than just punishing the rich tend to place that cut-off point somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent.

Since our tax rates are considerably higher than that, we tax too much, thereby putting dampeners on the economy. Hence Mr Johnson’s promises to cut taxes.

Enter Lord Finkelstein: “These promises are foolish. And the more watertight they are… the more foolish they are.” Quite. Watertight is the new foolish.

Lord Finkelstein then cites the experience of the Reagan administration as proof that the Laffer curve isn’t a magic potion.

That much is true. But Lord Finkelstein proceeds to display the modern intellectual failing, an inability to take the next step in ratiocination.

Yes, the curve did impress Reagan’s virginal mind. And politically it worked. Reagan rose to power largely by promising to reduce taxes without necessarily reducing government spending.

Alas, initially neither the president nor his close economic advisers, such as David Stockton, understood in sufficient depth the problem at hand. Stockton was the first to reach such understanding by the simple expedient of crunching numbers.

He quickly found that the Laffer curve didn’t work by itself, without parallel reductions in government spending. He then went department-hopping door to door. Like a child at Halloween he’d beg to be treated to some cuts, only to be turned away.

Having butted their heads against the impossibility of curbing the government’s appetites, the Laffer enthusiasts were faced with an unsavoury choice. They either had to go back on their tax-cutting promise or else plug the inevitable holes in the budget by printing money.

Given the political impossibility of the first option, they went for the second and, by the end of Reagan’s tenure had increased the national debt 2.5 times – leaving the country structurally worse-off in the long term.

Here comes the aforementioned next step, which Lord Finkelstein is unable to take. He correctly confirms Stockton’s discovery that the Laffer curve doesn’t pay for itself. But he incorrectly concludes that it doesn’t pay tout court.

The Curve will work famously if accompanied by concomitant cuts in public spending. In fact the most spectacular modern successes, both in Europe and in Asia, have been achieved by economies with low marginal tax rates and reduced government spending.

Even tax cuts against the background of a slower growth in public spending have been known to work, as they did in Thatcher’s Britain and are doing in Trump’s America.

Yet Lord Finkelstein dismisses lower government spending out of hand. In his mind, runaway public spending is a third sure thing in life, after death and, well, taxes.

He correctly points at the on-going demographic shift towards an older and presumably more dependent population. But ‘presumably’ is the operative word.

If people didn’t have to pay to the state more than half of what they earn over a lifetime, if the top marginal tax rate were, say, 17 per cent, and if contributions into private pensions were encouraged, older wouldn’t necessarily mean more dependent.

(Just think what kind of pension fund you’d have if you never paid more than say 10 per cent of your income in tax, after legal deductions. You wouldn’t be dependent on the state, would you?)

But, as I keep repeating, making people, young or old, independent of the state goes against the grain of the entire modern political ethos. The modern state is solipsistic, wholly committed to looking after Number One, itself.

This desideratum, and the political means of reaching it, trumps economic considerations. A more dependent population may not make sense morally or economically, but it does make sense politically and, if you will, politico-psychologically.

“Tax cuts can be popular and they have been,” observes Lord Finkelstein, looking down from his intellectual Olympus. “But they can’t be all the Conservative Party has to say. Even if that has worked in the past, it won’t work in the future.”

But neither Mr Johnson nor the Conservative Party has ever come up with a single-plank platform. Tax cuts have never been all they have to say. But if the country is to prosper, that’s something the government must say.

People, concludes Lord Finkelstein, “want a robust economy that isn’t floated on debt. They want good public services that are properly financed and a welfare state that they can rely on.”

He evidently sees no contradiction between the two parts. But refusing to acknowledge it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

A welfare state (as opposed to some sensible welfare) presupposes an economy floating on an ocean of debt. A robust economy able to afford good public services without ruinous indebtedness has to be one propped up by low taxation and a small public sector.

Lord Finkelstein doesn’t realise this and, though Mr Johnson probably does, he can’t say it for fear of committing political suicide. So he sends half the message, lower taxes, which sounds half-baked.

That gives Lord Finkelstein a chance to pounce, but his rebuke isn’t even half-baked. It’s not baked at all.

As the founder, chairman and STILL the only member of the Charles Martel Society for Multiculturalism, I’m happy to add my gravelly voice to the chorus of indignation about the new series Bodyguard.

The first episode features a young Muslim woman wearing an elegant hijab complete with that essential fashion accessory, a suicide belt.

The young lady is threatening to blow up the train she’s on, but fortuitously the eponymous Bodyguard is among her fellow passengers. He manages to engage the girl in conversation, thereby talking her into having second thoughts – this even though she must find his Scottish accent well-nigh incomprehensible.

The Bodyguard must have undergone sensitivity training because, rather than putting a bullet between the girl’s eyes, he treats her with sympathy and affection, hugging her in an avuncular fashion.

It turns out the suicide bomber was brainwashed into that activity by her husband, and the Bodyguard not unreasonably suggests that this probably betokens a certain deficit of marital love.

Now I can hardly keep my fingers on the keyboard, I’m so outraged.

For beamed at millions of viewers is a flagrant show of racist, neo-colonialist, misogynist and quite possibly homophobic stereotyping (both participants in the confrontation are straight, but homophobia has to be there somewhere).

First, no Muslim of either sex can possibly be brainwashed. Islam, as we all know, promotes free thought and uncompromising individualism, encouraging its adherents to engage in debate and even question some of the dogma – to the point of apostasy if such is the call of their conscience.

It’s also a religion of peace, as discovered by Messrs Bush, Blair, Obama, Cameron and Mrs May. I hasten to disabuse the reactionaries among us of any dissenting notions, and I don’t care how many murderous Koran verses they cite in support of their Islamophobia.

You show me your verses, I’ll show you mine, and mine abrogate yours, to use the Islamic term. And if you still insist that Islam isn’t exactly a religion of peace, any sensible Muslim would be within his right to cut your head off with a dull kitchen knife.

Nor is it relevant that, now our Irish friends are taking it easy, just about every terrorist act in Europe is committed to the accompaniment of a rousing “Allahu akbar!!!” The choice of accompaniment notwithstanding, such actions have nothing to do with Islam as such.

These libidinous youths are simply, to use a colloquialism, on the pull. They know that shouting “Allahu akbar!!!” while mowing down infidel pigs, and then themselves perishing in a hail of bullets, opens a door to an eternity spent in the company of 72 virgins.

Given today’s decadence, this is the easiest way of finding so many virgins without raiding kindergartens. But there are other ways too.

First, there’s nothing wrong with raiding kindergartens: this would constitute a righteous act of imitating the Prophet. Second, a genuflecting or, better still, doggie-style supplication to the deity may encourage Him to rebuild a few pre-ruptured hymens, which should be a doddle for the omnipotent Allah.

Of course the doctrinal promise would have to be modified to provide for reconstituted virgins but, as Archbishop Welby knows, religious doctrine must evolve with the times.

Those who insist that there’s nothing objectionable in depicting a Muslim suicide bomber because that short-lived career is exclusively reserved for Muslims miss the point, both artistically and existentially.

Artistically, they advocate crude, vulgar realism bordering on naturalism. Don’t they know that art, even as practised on TV, creates a reality all its own, allowing us to peek into the artist’s world, imaginary and so much more real for it?

Existentially, the same parallel reality is created by all those who shape our modern ethos: politicians, activists, writers, journalists, social workers, community organisers, teachers et al.

Who’s to say which reality is more real? Certainly not Plato, to whom, as Whitehead explained, the whole of philosophy is but a series of footnotes. The Greek taught that only our imagination is real, while what lesser minds see as reality is but so many shadows on a cave wall.

We’re all Platonists now, and it’s from this philosophical vantage point that we should rebuke the Bodyguard creators – and possibly send their names and addresses to the ISIS branch of the religion of peace.

That’s not to suggest that irate viewers do nothing but rebuke. Some of them tweet valid creative suggestions, such as: “In the current climate I don’t want to see a suicide bomber on a train cast as a young Muslim woman in a veil. They could have cast it differently.”

I agree wholeheartedly. And I’d go so far as proposing one possibility. To get back into my (and other viewers’) good books, the second season of Bodyguard should feature Jacob Rees-Mogg as a suicide bomber.

Admittedly this would present a challenge to the show’s costume designers, for a close-fitting Savile Row suit offers less room than a hijab for concealing a suicide belt.

But, as someone who used to work with London film crews, I trust their endless ingenuity. Perhaps they could use a flasher’s Mac, naturally custom-made.

Mr Rees-Mogg could be shown in the first-class carriage of the Orient Express, saying in that supercilious way of his:

“If you reprobates decline to comply with one’s entreaty, one shall feel compelled to depress this button and blow these entire premises to kingdom come, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And pray do not even contemplate summoning police constables, for that would force one into precipitate action.”

This would allay all suspicions of Islamophobia and ultimately serve the actual, as opposed to shadowy, Platonic reality. I hereby offer my services to write the additional dialogue.

One would think that the bloodiest century in history, the twentieth, would have taught us a lesson.

When thugs become a viable political force in Western countries, they always take ‘civilised’ out of ‘politics’. Always – not sometimes or occasionally.

And when a country’s politics isn’t civilised, neither is the country – it’s as simple as that.

Allowing thugs to enter the political mainstream, even at its margins, is bound to have the same effect as adding a spoonful of vinegar to a glass of wine.

You’ll no longer taste the wine, even though there’s more of it in the glass. All you’ll taste is vinegar.

For thugs are by definition more dynamic and violent than either end of mainstream politics. Open the door ajar, and they’ll kick it in, chain and all.

Thus it’s impossible to win a political victory in alliance with thugs. Such a victory is always illusory. In reality it’s a defeat.

That’s why social democratic parties must never enter into coalitions with communists – the communists will eventually take over. A short-term political gain will turn into a long-term loss, possibly a catastrophe.

Just look at the alliance between soft-left Labour and hard-left, mostly Trotskyist Momentum in Britain. It has taken the Trots thugs a while, but they’ve eventually gained control.

Now the thugs are jettisoning the softies, giving the formerly respectable (if severely misguided) party a distinctly thuggish character. Labour now has a lethal case of the Trots.

It’s true that without the support of the hard left, or rather of the unions behind it, Labour would find it harder to win political office. And of course one would have to be terminally naïve to believe that any modern political party is capable of thinking beyond the next election.

But if Labour really cared about the good of the country, it would have consigned the Trotskyist thugs to what their spiritual father used to call ‘the garbage heap of history’.

UKIP are no better than Labour at learning from history. But one hopes they are still capable of learning from Labour, as it has become.

An alliance with thugs is tantamount to losing the last vestiges of civility, thereby compromising our whole civilisation. If that’s what it takes to win an election or a referendum, I’d rather lose.

There’s always a comeback after a lost election. There’s none after a lost civilisation.

Thugs don’t necessarily say wrong things or propose bad policies. In fact, if you look at groups going by the misnomer ‘far right’, they often pursue ends that appear sensible to any civilised conservative.

They want to leave the EU – so do we. They’d like to dismantle that contrivance altogether – we would too. They say mass Muslim immigration is socially, culturally, demographically and economically suicidal – we nod our agreement.

Then what? Let’s assume we’ve left the EU, with most other members following suit. The EU is no more. We’ve stopped Islamic immigration and even deported many Muslims whose presence here is illegal or dangerous. What happens then?

More precisely, who’ll munch the fruits of such a political victory? If thugs were the main driving force in the triumph, they’ll gorge on such fruits and regurgitate them into a society made in their own image.

Drawing historical parallels, the alliance between democratic socialists and Bolsheviks against the Russian monarchy produced a Bolshevik society. And when German conservatives joined forces with the Nazis to defeat Weimar, what emerged wasn’t a decent, conservative Germany. It was the Third Reich.

That’s why I don’t cheer electoral advances gained by fascisoid groups in countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary and Sweden. I do like what they say about the EU and Islamic immigration. I just don’t like them.

And when I read about German thugs beating up an elderly Jewish woman to the accompaniment of a mighty choir yelling Judensau (Jew pig – a popular term of endearment in Nazi Germany), I don’t just feel outrage. I feel the taste of things to come.

Politics isn’t a force majeure or a natural science. It’s a result of human action, and what it ultimately achieves depends on what kind of humans do the acting. This is a crude rephrasing of a passage from a book that used to be quite popular:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits… A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

That’s why, for example, I’ll never be an admirer of Trump, even if he’s exonerated from collusion with Putin. This although I like most of Trump’s policies, especially domestic ones.

I don’t like him because he has spent his whole career walking, talking and acting like a thug – mostly in company with other thugs. Those gurning facial expressions Trump habitually wears are the biographic imprint of lifelong thuggery.

And thugs are those corrupt trees that bring forth evil fruit – even if until then they produce a decent impersonation of a good tree.

American political conservatives, if such a thing can exist in a country that started life as a revolutionary republic, swear by Trump because they, like me, approve of many of his policies.

What they don’t realise is that style, decorum, probity, nuance matter more than today’s policies in the long run. A great country shouldn’t allow thugs to be at the helm. If it does, it’ll stop being a great country – sooner rather than later.

As I write, UKIP is getting close to admitting our own thug, a different genus naturally, into the party. Tommy Robinson, a convicted felon, has been closely associated with such fascisoid groups as the BNP, British Freedom Party and English Defence League, having held high positions in some of them.

If an odious figure like Robinson joins UKIP, the party will have blown any chance of ever becoming a serious, mainstream opposition to our spivocratic, Europhile establishment, rather than a marginal heterogeneous group brought together by a shared hatred of the EU and Muslims.

And it’ll certainly lose my vote which it attracted in every election where UKIP was on the ballot. Now if that isn’t a deadly threat, I don’t know what is.

Fewer than one in seven Britons now describes himself as an Anglican.

That proportion stood at 40 per cent in 1983. Now it’s 14 per cent – and, at a mere 11 per cent, even lower among the middle-aged.

I hate to compare the salt of England’s earth to rodents – and resort to a clichéd saw – but when rats abandon a ship, it’s a fair guess that the ship is sinking.

Like any other statistics, these data must be treated with caution. In the past many people wrote ‘C of E’ in questionnaires simply out of social convention, not because they were ardent believers or, God forbid, churchgoers.

However, the very fact that the social convention no longer operates is telling in itself. Writing ‘none’ in the same rubric has evidently become not only acceptable but, well, cool – especially among young people, aged 17 to 24.

Only two per cent of them call themselves Anglicans, and the number of proud atheists among them stands at about 70 per cent.

Add to that exponents of non-Christian creeds, along with dubiously Christian sectarians, and the two traditional Western confessions can’t boast big battalions. Nor even big squads.

However, during the same period the Catholic denomination suffered a considerably smaller attrition, having gone from 10 to eight per cent. Thus, while suffering pain, Catholicism in Britain isn’t exactly suffering death throes.

Anglicanism clearly is, which must be seen as catastrophic not only by Anglicans, nor even by other Christians, but by all subjects of Her Majesty. For, as an established religion, the Church of England is an inseparable part of our constitutional dispensation.

Our monarchs and consequently their parliaments derive a great part of their legitimacy from divine, or at least ecclesiastical, ordination. In its turn, the Church of England has derived much of its appeal from being established.

However, there’s a danger inherent in this status. When the embrace between the state and the church grows too tight, the state may crush the church under its weight. Rather than being a partner to the state and the moral authority over it, the church may become its concubine, always at her master’s beck and call.

As a result, the church may sacrifice its core business to the task of following the meandering, or rather violently zigzagging, secular trends.

When that happens, the church begins to duplicate numerous secular institutions, but without the concomitant power of enforcement. A redundancy note awaits just round the corner.

That, I’m afraid, is exactly what has happened to the Church of England. It has become an extension not only of the secular state, but of its least commendable aspects.

That doesn’t mean that any Christian confession should refrain from trying to affect politics in any way. People who express this popular but erroneous view never fail to cite Jesus’s teaching that his kingdom is not of this world.

But what Christ meant was that his kingdom is higher than this world. And a higher authority must judge (within its remit) a lower one to keep it on the straight and narrow.

Actually the parenthetical phrase above is critical. In its dealings with the secular world, the church must not only bring the uninitiated to Christ but also pass moral judgement on secular affairs, including politics.

For politics, even at its most amoral, which is to say most modern, has a moral dimension in its very flouting of morality. Hence it’s the church’s business to pronounce on how the morality of politics agrees with the founding tenets of our civilisation.

However, as someone who has written several books, each trying to look at various aspects of modernity from a Judaeo-Christian perspective, I know how difficult this task is. Many disciplines have to come together for any chance of a comprehensive picture emerging.

Yet difficult tasks promise the highest rewards, and, though I’m not going to claim an unreserved success in that undertaking, I’ve learned something vital in the process:

That Judaeo-Christian perspective alone can function as a universal basis for the theory of everything, to borrow Stephen Hawking’s phrase. Nothing else can, certainly not anything Stephen Hawking conceived.

This, in addition to straightforward proselytising, is the church’s mission: to show how Christianity relates to every part of modern life. This is one service that only the church can provide, and it’s one that the Church of England is demonstrably not providing.

Rather than trying to elevate quotidian life to heaven, it tries to bring heaven down to earth. Rather than showing the way, it meekly trails in the wake of every modern fad, no matter how idiotic or perverse.

The feeble excuse favoured by church dignitaries is that religion must change, as it has always done. This is intellectual larceny, pure and simple.

Of course, unlike the other Abrahamic religions, Christian doctrine wasn’t delivered all at once. It developed over centuries by incorporating some new dogma at the expense of the old.

Yet every new change was believed to be, and explained as, something divinely inspired and therefore congruent with the Christian revelation.

Some of history’s deepest and most brilliant minds wrote thousands of exegetic treatises explaining how the proposed change fits into the general framework of Christian doctrine.

Some of history’s saintliest individuals pronounced on the issue, each time enriching one another’s understanding until a consensus was reached. They didn’t always succeed, but they always tried.

No one who knows anything at all about today’s Church of England will claim it goes through the same process.

It certainly doesn’t when, for example, creating female priesthood and episcopate, abandoning the traditional liturgical texts and language, encouraging the use in church of such anti-Christian musical genres as pop and rap, de facto endorsing every manner of sexual perversion or having its prelates mouth subversive leftist twaddle.

No wonder young people will have nothing to do with it. Even more worryingly, many middle-aged people, most of whom were raised as Anglicans, are wandering off.

Anglicanism has lost its aura of solemn mystery wherein salvation lies. By following secular fads – each morally subversive and intellectually puny – it finds itself in competition with secular institutions specialising in that sort of rubbish.

And mere dabblers don’t stand a chance against the pros: if a youngster can hear the same music at a rave as he hears at mass, why should he choose the latter? A rave is easier, it doesn’t even pretend to impose any obligations on the participant.

And if the spiritual head of Anglicanism starts preaching a ‘Christian’ economic sermon that falsifies in equal measure both economics and Christianity, what’s the point in staying in his church? That’s what we have schools, newspapers and TV for.

In conclusion, I wonder if anyone would notice any difference if Justin Welby and Jeremy Corbyn swapped jobs. Somehow I doubt it.

What price principles? Honour? More appropriate, what price sovereignty?

These questions naturally come up whenever the word ‘Brexit’ is mentioned in my presence.

Now I seldom feel I’m enunciating majority opinion, but in this case I’m sure just about everybody in Britain will agree with me: we’ve had it up to here with all the incessant bickering, wrangling and squabbling about Brexit.

And we’re sick of all that talk about a whole raft of ‘deals’ covering every possible permutation, each propped up by sky-high columns of figures proving that either we’ll end up eating house pets post-Brexit or become rich beyond our wettest dreams.

Such disciplines as history, political science, philosophy, constitutional law have all fallen by the wayside. Accountancy reigns supreme: the whole issue has been reduced to a balance sheet, with the bottom line pointing one way or the other.

Enter the greatest adman who has ever lived, Bill Bernbach, who came up with the maxim in the title above. It’s fully applicable to the situation at hand.

Brexit may make us richer or poorer, no one knows for sure. Actually, now we’re on the subject, I suspect we’ll suffer a bit, for the first few years at any rate.

The EU is bloody-minded enough to cut off its economic nose to please its political face. That vile setup is guaranteed to try to punish Britain even at a huge cost to itself, pour encourager les autres, as Napoleon I said and Napoleon IV, aka Manny Macron, doubtless keeps repeating.

If Britain leaves the EU painlessly and profitably, those dominoes will start falling one after another. And they’ll continue to do so until that awful contrivance is reduced to a single Franco-German state, with Angie as its Queen and Manny as her consort (he fancies older women).

The readjustment of our trading patterns will take a few years, and we may be worse off in the interim. Then again we may not – if I could predict economic trends, I’d be living in the house currently occupied by Roman Abramovich (not that he acquired it thanks to his economic prescience – Google ‘organised crime’ for details).

My point, oft-repeated, is that the decision to regain our sovereignty and to have all our laws passed by our own Parliament should have nothing to do with money. Nothing. Nil. Zilch.

Sovereignty is neither an incremental nor a relative concept. A great nation can’t be almost sovereign or partially sovereign. It can be either sovereign or subjugated.

If the choice between the two is made on the basis of pounds and pence, we might as well not bother.

For, if that’s all it boils down to, we’re already subjugated in perpetuity, Brexit or no Brexit. We’re for ever enslaved morally and intellectually – we’ve already done an Esau and sold our political soul for the mess of rancid EU potage.

A rich slave who fears becoming a poor free man, remains a slave in either case.

This reminds me of the story of a bear born and raised captive in a cage 10 feet square. For years he moved back and forth within that space, 10 feet this way, 10 feet that.

Then he was set free, and what do you know? He continued to pace the same 10 feet back and forth. The cage wasn’t around his body; it was in his mind.

How could any Englishman attach his signature to the Maastricht Treaty? A document that in one fell swoop prostituted Britain’s constitution and debased the memory of the millions who gave their lives defending their country’s independence over two millennia? I don’t know; I’ve only lived here for 30 years.

But I do know that Brexit is an attempt to undo the constitutional catastrophe created by one flourish of John Major’s pen. It’s the only honest thing to do and – for those who understand the vital significance of the British constitution for the British nation – the only intelligent thing.

Yet what do we do? We argue whether acting on sound moral and intellectual principles will make us a few pounds richer or poorer.

Call me an incurable optimist (one charge that’s seldom levelled at me), but I don’t believe the British have become completely corrupt. Partially corrupt, for sure. But not completely.

I don’t believe my countrymen have calculators for brains and spreadsheets for hearts.

The thought that our politicians have neither hearts nor brains comes more easily. But I still believe the nation has enough spunk left to force our spivocrats into acting with a modicum of decency.

And the upshot of it all? Simple. The only good deal is summary exit with no deal – and damn the torpedoes.

It has been proved beyond any doubt that the Novichok attack on British soil was perpetrated by two GRU agents, whose identity, if not real names, has been established.

Britain now holds the distinction of being the only Western power targeted for both nuclear (2006 polonium murder of Litvinenko) and chemical attacks on its citizens.

Yesterday Theresa May delivered a scathing attack on Putin’s junta, hinting at retaliation, probably involving cyber warfare, further sanctions and travel bans. However, her attack wasn’t scathing enough.

While saying that the authorisation for the crime had to come from the highest tiers of the GRU, Mrs May stopped short of naming Putin himself as the culprit.

Security Minister Ben Wallace tried to fill that blank, or rather pretended to. Asked if Putin himself bears responsibility for the murders, he replied: “Ultimately he does, insofar as he is president of the Russian Federation and it is his government that controls, funds and directs the military intelligence…”

This sounds as if he actually said something, whereas in fact he said nothing at all. Nicely done, Ben. That’s the stuff political success is made of.

Yes, in some oblique way a dictator is responsible for all crimes committed on his watch. This much goes without saying, meaning it didn’t have to be said.

In fact, Mr Wallace fudged the issue as much as Mrs May did. Putin is responsible for the nuclear and chemical attacks on British subjects on British soil not in some oblique way, but in a most direct one. He was the one who issued the orders.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the chain of command in Russia will know that no GRU officer, no matter how high up, has the authority to initiate an action with far-reaching geopolitical ramifications.

Such an order in today’s Russia can only come from the Botox Boy, who sits at the top of what he calls ‘the vertical of power’. Russia’s power structure has eschewed horizontality from time immemorial, so Putin continues a fine tradition there.

I realise that diplomatic protocol doesn’t encourage referring to the leader of a foreign state as a murderer. Yet this protocol isn’t always followed, and at times it’s more honoured in the breach than the observance.

Assorted US presidents and British prime ministers haven’t shied away from describing in such an uncomplimentary way Messrs Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad – and even Erdoğan, president of a country that happens to be a NATO member.

What has Putin done to deserve a special dispensation? He, after all, combines in his person a KGB thug and a global gangster, and he leads a state blended out of the same ingredients, one that’s demonstrably hostile and threatening to the West.

Of course the aforementioned gentlemen didn’t possess nuclear weapons, and Putin does. But refusing to point an accusing finger at him for that reason would brand our leaders as cowards and flat track bullies. Surely they can’t be such awful things?

Even articles calling for stiff measures against Russian gangsters who live, or keep their loot, in Britain have to dilute the message with the kind of disclaimers that bespeak ignorance.

A piece in yesterday’s Times, for example, says that not all Russian money sitting in London banks is ill-gotten gains, though much of it is. Fair enough, a Russian computer programmer who works in London and keeps a few thousand in a NatWest current account is no mobster.

But if we’re talking about millions, never mind billions, such amounts can’t be made in Russia without at least passive collaboration with the ruling mafia. And typically the collaboration is far from passive – those Russian billionaires are to a man Mafiosi themselves.

Choosing targets for financial sanctions, such as the impounding, freezing or – my personal preference – confiscating of Russian assets is thus a no-brainer. It’s like firing a sawn-off shotgun point blank at a flock of pigeons pecking breadcrumbs in Trafalgar Square: you can’t miss.

Some pundits do say all the right things, but one questions their moral right to say them. Dr Mark Almond of Oxford is one such man.

In today’s Mail he bemoans that Putin’s strategy seems to be working in that he has already succeeded in recruiting allies among EU members:

“Last month, he was a guest at the Austrian foreign minister’s wedding, and Vienna’s Right-wing government is one of the loudest voices in the EU clamouring for improving relations with Moscow.

“In Italy, the new government is led by a critic of sanctions against Russia, so imposing new ones is unlikely to win Rome’s support.”

All true. But Dr Almond forgot to mention that his is another loud voice “clamouring for improving relations with Moscow”. The difference between him and those European countries is that he does so not in the national media but on RT, Putin’s propaganda channel, where he’s a frequent guest.

That’s like a British academic c. 1938 writing articles in Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer. No honest man, especially one who seems to know what’s what in Putin’s Russia, would ever agree to take RT’s rouble. If such an offer were made, he’d reject it indignantly and then wash his hands afterwards.

I happen to know Dr Almond: in 1995 we met in Minsk, where we and a few others were observers at the Byelorussian election.

Over what the Russians call “a shot of tea”, I said that all those glasnosts and perestroikas hadn’t changed anything in Russia. They were nothing but window-dressing on a transfer of power from the Party to the KGB.

Dr Almond was horrified. “We aren’t allowed to say that,” he said with a quiver. “The most we can get away with is regret that the march of democracy in Russia is slightly slower than expected.”

That was opportunism, nowadays a necessary job qualification for academic success in Britain and elsewhere in the West. But being a willing tool of what in effect is enemy propaganda is much worse, as William Joyce, ‘Lord Haw-Haw’, could have testified.

One can only ask how many more crimes Putin has to commit before his ‘useful idiots’ in the West stop being useful. Would an airborne Spetsnaz landing in Kent do the trick?

Archbishop Welby has delivered himself of views on the economy, proving yet again that the popular description of the Anglican Church must be revised.

It’s no longer the Tory Party at prayer, as it once was. The economic ideas enunciated by His Grace more readily belong on the hard left of Labour. And indeed they do come from the leftie Institute for Public Policy Research.

It’s the same old saw about our economy being unfair because some people are better off than others. Hence class war must be waged until everyone is equally poor, while the state grows mighty and omnipotent.

That’s justice, as understood by Messrs Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Corbyn. Hence if the Archbishop cited such references in support of his notions, he’d only show a poor grasp of economic history, theory and practice.

Alas, he cites Jesus Christ, showing that his understanding of his chosen discipline is as feeble as his grasp of economics, with the added disadvantage of being dishonest. To wit:

“As a Christian I start with learning from Jesus Christ that people matter equally, are equally loved by God, and that justice in society matters deeply – a theme that runs throughout the Bible.”

That theme does run through the Bible, but to interpret it as a call for all people to have equal wealth is ignorance and vulgarity at their most soaring.

Nowhere in the Scripture does Jesus or any of his apostles call for economic egalitarianism. Quite the opposite.

Jesus teaches that “the poor will be with you always”, and he doesn’t seem to mind that state of affairs.

Moreover, he implicitly doesn’t mind wealth either, and his metaphor about the camel and the eye of the needle was merely a polemical riposte against the rabbinical teaching about riches being a reward for righteousness.

Incidentally, Calvin, the major influence on Anglican theology, revived that idea – even though it came from the Jews whom he cordially loathed.

During the time our civilisation was being formed, seeking wealth for those who weren’t heirs to large estates was tantamount to selling the fruits of their labour. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker bartered their products for other people’s.

Money was sometimes involved as a means of exchange, and when that was the case it was natural to expect that more money would eventually end up in some hands than in others.

Thus labour implicitly presupposes the possibility of enrichment. Yet in spite of that the New Testament contains direct endorsements of work.

These come across in the Lord’s Prayer (“give us this day our daily bread”), in Jesus the carpenter talking about “the labourer worthy of his hire” and in St Paul the tent maker stating categorically that “if any would not work, neither shall he eat.”

Thus being “equally loved by God” doesn’t mean being equally enriched by the state. Nor does it mean that people unable to work because of their age or health shouldn’t eat.

Such cruelty is incompatible with Christian love and therefore justice. But it’s yet another example of congenital leftie mendacity to confuse welfare with the welfare state, and the latter with Christian charity.

Christian charity – especially if offered anonymously – not only helps the taker, but also elevates the giver. It therefore has to be a voluntary act inspired by love.

However, when the modern state talks about helping the less fortunate, it really means ripping off the more fortunate, to make them less independent from the state.

This is done by coercion, which alone disqualifies the welfare state from any claim to Christian antecedents.

Thus Welby’s pronouncement is bad Christianity – and it certainly is rotten economics. The underlining principle comes straight from Corbyn’s book: tax the rich to help the poor.

This stratagem has been tried uncountable times in innumerable countries, and everywhere it has succeeded only in the rich either spending all their time looking for tax shelters or fleeing the country – taking with them their capital and therefore jobs.

As a result, state revenues actually decrease, and Arthur Laffer with his curve showed the inverse relationship between high tax rates and tax income.

Where such cracker-barrel economics has failed miserably and universally is in helping the poor. It merely turns the poor into the idle, while increasing their number no end.

Welby’s ideas have nothing to do with either Christianity or sound economics or for that matter justice.

Justice means getting one’s due, what one deserves. If our economy were run on this principle, much of the population would starve to death – unless you believe that a young, able-bodied man who has never worked a day in his life deserves his keep, complete with the latest electronic kit and designer trainers.

Speaking of fairness, I’d argue that inheritance tax is the most unfair of all. The state re-taxes the money already taxed every which way during a man’s lifetime, thereby reducing his ability to provide for his family.

Yet this is precisely the tax that our seeker of Christian justice wants to jack up, by reducing the threshold of tax-free gifts.

He also wants to bring capitals gain tax and taxes on dividends in line with income tax – which is guaranteed to discourage investment and thrift, while encouraging irresponsible and profligate spending.

His Grace’s bugbear is that “The wealthiest 10 per cent of households own more than 900 times the wealth of the poorest 10 per cent, and five times more than the bottom half of all households combined.”

Justice Welby-style demands that this outrage be stopped. However, elementary honesty would call for mentioning in the next breath that the top 10 per cent also pay 60 per cent of all taxes, and the top one per cent contribute 28 per cent.

Nicky Morgan, chairman of the Commons Treasury committee, welcomes Welby’s ideas: “Our aim should be to make the whole nation wealthier.”

Now Miss Morgan matches the Archbishop’s formidable intellect and economic nous. If that weren’t the case, she’d realise that such socialist measures are guaranteed to make the whole nation not wealthier but poorer.

I wonder if Miss Morgan is an Anglican. If so, she has a perfect spiritual leader.

The great dialectician preached unity of opposites. For every thesis, he argued, there’s an antithesis, and then they come together in a synthesis.

If hate is the thesis, then love is the antithesis, which relationship must pertain even when the two words are used attributively.

Thus ‘hate crime’ presupposes the existence of ‘love crime’. Assuming that a hate crime is motivated by hatred, one also has to assume that there must be crimes motivated by love.

Since I’ve never heard of a person mugged, maimed or killed lovingly, I have to believe that all crime is motivated by some negative emotions, often including hatred. Therefore we can safely drop the modifier ‘hate’ and just talk about crime qua crime.

I doubt this speculation would pass the most rigorous of dialectical tests, and Hegel would certainly punch it full of holes. But compared to the mass hysteria about ‘hate crime’, my facetious musings have to be the paragon of sound reason.

One general observation: whoever talks about hate crime is incapable of nuanced thought. When such differently intelligent people (is this PC enough for you?) talk about crime, they confuse two different things: aforementioned crime motivated by hate and hate as a crime in se.

The distinction is critical: the first is a criminal act, the second is a criminalised thought.

What kind of criminal act? Oh, you name it. Murder, assault, GBH, harassment, that sort of thing.

The law does prosecute palpable acts, not the nebulous thought behind them. The thought may at times figure as a mitigating or aggravating consideration, but that’s strictly background stuff.

Hence what intellectually challenged people (this definitely must be PC enough) mean when talking about hate crime is the crime of hate. Hating a person or especially a group of persons is to them a crime in itself, especially when such feelings are put into words.

There’s something suspect about the very notion of criminalising intangibles like feelings and thoughts, and something decidedly spooky about trying to police them. This evokes fond memories of my Soviet youth, and whenever that happens at night I wake up in a jolt, hoarse from my own scream.

Fair enough, hateful words may sometimes be upsetting, but even there popular folklore distinguishes words from sticks and stones.

Granted, it’s not nice to find oneself on the receiving end of slurs based on one’s race, religion, ethnicity, colour or absence of hair, sexual preference or stature. But that’s where those nuances come in: ‘not nice’ doesn’t fit any traditional definition of ‘crime’.

A victim of murder can’t ignore that crime, but a ‘victim’ of a slur can just pay it no notice. Or, if such is his nature, respond in kind, for example by suggesting that the offender take two words, of which the second is ‘off’, and arrange them in the right order.

All this hate crime business would make even a lesser mind than Hegel wince. Yet there’s something the philosopher wouldn’t understand if he were miraculously transplanted to modernity.

His experience wouldn’t have prepared him to grasp the thought I’ve expressed a thousand times if I’ve expressed it once: ‘hate crimes’ are committed not against individuals but against the state.

The very category was thought up as a means for the state to put its foot down and control things that civilised countries used to leave to people’s own discretion.

The state aggressively promotes the ethos of victimhood, offering protection to the self-professed victims. But such protection comes at a price as it does with gangster families. For gangsters, it’s money; for the state, it’s liberty.

I don’t necessarily mean just our state. In fact, like most modern perversions, the culture of hate crime started in the US, which makes me wonder why we never borrow good things from the Americans, such as their enterprising dynamism and polite conviviality.

The disease afflicts the West in its entirety. And it’s getting worse.

Parliament is about to debate a bill proposed by the Labour MP Stella Creasy to make misogyny a crime. Miss Creasy and her likeminded allies define misogyny broadly: not just hatred of women, but also contempt or prejudice.

Now in my long and varied life on two continents and in four countries I’ve never met a straight man who hates women. Some, far from all, homosexuals do, but one can understand them: women with their jutting attractions sidetrack men from the real thing.

Admittedly I’ve heard men mention reservations about women’s intellect, emotional sturdiness and driving ability. I’ll refrain from coming down on either side of this issue but, whichever side that might be, I can’t for the life of me see such men as hardened criminals.

Typically such remarks are just banter offered in jest. But even if there’s some deep feeling behind them, only extremely stupid, or else ideologised, people can possibly take serious offence.

I have, however, met a few women who are hostile to men in general, and some of those women aren’t even lesbians. That creates another opening for Hegel to poke his head in.

If misogyny is a crime, then surely misandry must be too. And what about misanthropes, those who don’t differentiate between women and men and hate them all equally, along with everyone in between? Should they be banged in the slammer?

The proposed bill is actually an amendment to another one, about ‘upskirting’ (aiming a camera up a woman’s skirt). I can only admire our legislators for concentrating their attention on really important matters.

Never mind Britain fighting for her sovereignty, becoming the most crime-ridden country in Europe, having a Third World health service and facing foreign threat. What really must be nipped in the bud is adolescent cretins snapping pictures of women’s knickers.

I see another dialectical problem here, although Hegel probably wouldn’t identify it as such. If upskirting draws legislative attention, what about downblousing? Men, those hateful creatures, peeking down women’s low-cut blouses?

So far no reports of men taking downward photos have been filed, but isn’t preventing crimes the most important part of policing? Today they peek, tomorrow they’ll snap – unless some MP rides in on a white steed and preempts the outrage.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, where are you now that we need you? Come back, all is forgiven: your iffy philosophy, turgid prose and too many Christian names. And please bring Aristotle with you – this is a plus-one invitation.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has sent a memo to the Cabinet Office, insisting that tax avoiders must be shunned for knighthoods and similar awards.

“Poor tax behaviour,” says the memo, “is not consistent with the award of an honour.” Media personality Libby Purves agrees: “Of course rich people who ingeniously avoid paying adequate tax should find that there is a penalty.”

Now I suspect that most conservatives disagree with both Miss Purves and HMRC emphatically and not necessarily respectfully.

One realises that these day words mean what the government says they mean. Thus our ruling spivs use the terms ‘tax evasion’ and ‘tax avoidance’ interchangeably.

Yet in actual, as opposed to our virtual, reality these terms are more nearly antonymous than synonymous. Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion isn’t.

I hate to second-guess such august authorities as HMRC and Miss Purves, but I get the impression that they fall short of making that distinction.

‘Poor tax behaviour’? Tax avoidance is no poorer than looking for bargains in supermarkets. I’d call it sensible management of one’s finances, wouldn’t you?

If HMRC snoops consider some loopholes unfair, they should petition the Home Office to close them. If they don’t, they don’t consider them unfair, which means we’re free to use them. So what’s the beef then?

And how does Miss Purves define ‘adequate’ tax? To someone who, for old times’ sake, still insists on using words in their real meaning, adequate means sufficient.

Thus a person who pays a legally sufficient amount of tax is paying an adequate amount.

If Miss Purves’s burning conscience flames up at such casuistry, she should follow the example of Charles Lindberg, the famous pilot who always added 10 per cent to his tax bill because he was “proud to be an American”. (He was also proud to be a Nazi, but that’s by the bye.)

None of this transcends elementary logic and basic common sense, commodities that are rapidly becoming as rare as whale dung. But I’d like to expand the argument.

We’ve been conditioned to see nothing wrong about the state extorting more than half of what we earn by honest labour. This is seen as the state’s God-given right.

It’s nothing of the sort, and never was during the entire history of Britain, bar wartime and the last century or so.

When income tax (of a staggering 10 per cent for those earning more than £200 a year) was first introduced in Britain in 1799, it was widely opposed as an unacceptable governmental intrusion into citizens’ private affairs and a threat to personal liberty.

That’s exactly what it was – and is. This isn’t, however, an argument against taxation in general. Some intrusion into citizens’ private affairs and even some curbs on personal liberty are necessary for the state to fulfil its primary function: keeping citizens safe.

Hence there can be no valid argument, this side of the libertarians’ and anarchists’ good offices, against a level of taxation that’s consistent with that desideratum – and perhaps a little extra for other essential governmental needs.

Such is the theory. In practice, however, the British (or any other Western) government doesn’t use taxation for such useful purposes. Citizens’ safety is the least of their concern, as witnessed by our justice system.

Since 1950 violent crime rates have gone up 100-fold, making Britain one of the most violent European countries. In his book Licence to Kill, David Fraser cites stacks of data placing the blame for this outrage squarely on Whitehall.

The whole justice system we buy with our taxes favours the criminal over the victim. Most crimes go either uninvestigated or unpunished. And when some punishment is meted out, it’s typically derisory, putting violent recidivists back on the streets within months and leading to appalling reoffending rates.

The government doesn’t do any better protecting us from external threats. The defence budget is now lower than the cost of servicing the national debt, leaving Britain defenceless – or suicidally relying on her outdated nuclear arsenal.

The state is thus in default of its principal function. And yet it still insists on its moral right to extort half of our income or more.

Moreover, it’s the state that’s guilty of ‘poor tax behaviour’. Our national debt is rapidly moving towards two trillion pounds, with the government continuing to spend more than it extorts. In fact HMG sees it as a huge achievement when in some years it overspends by less than in most others.

In short, there’s no useful purpose for exorbitant taxation. There is, however, a pernicious one: increasing the state’s power over the individual by making people more dependent on the state. This is out-and-out tyranny.

One tell-tale sign is the state’s unquenchable thirst for looting our pension funds. The more financially independent older people are, and our population is aging, the less power does the state have over them.

Private pensions are thus the state’s terrifying bugbear. That’s why both Labour and Tory governments launch devastating raids on them. In fact, our – Conservative! – Chancellor Hammond has just announced another one.

All things considered, every pound the state collects in taxes is a bullet for the gun of tyranny. Conversely, every pound remaining in the individual’s wallet is armour against that bullet.

That’s why finding legal ways to diminish our tyrannical tax burden isn’t just our right, but our civic duty. Hence I’d propose a measure opposite to one favoured by HMRC and Miss Purves.

No candidate should be considered for honours, especially knighthood and peerage, unless he can prove that he has exhausted every legal possibility of paying less tax. People who strike a blow for liberty must be rewarded – even if they do so for selfish reasons.