Return to Alcatraz
While it is true that not all heroes wear capes, given the nature of the game in terms of crime and violence in the US and beyond, there is a feeling that something drastic needs to be done to get this ever-increasing problem under control. Enter President Trump as a non-caped crusader with a bold idea—which is perhaps a little too bold.
Incarceration is clearly the most common form of punishment for serious crimes. It is interesting that, in many cases, even the death penalty is not deterrent enough in the countries that still impose it. Perhaps we have a solution in the latest announcement by President Trump via Truth Social. He has decided to go back to basics in terms of providing both a solution and a deterrent to the most habitual offenders in society. Indeed, he has dragged in one of the most notorious places as a possible solution: Alcatraz.
Clearly, there is likely to be a backlash among those who feel that such an infamous institution being revived as a solution to crime is something that should have died with the 20th century. However, it could be that for some would-be offenders, the prospect of being locked up in such a place could be the difference between pulling the trigger or not. In fact, it is interesting that Alcatraz was not wheeled out during the era of the war on terror; instead, it was Guantánamo Bay that became the place no one wanted to set foot in. But if Alcatraz does return, it will be interesting to see whether the ultimate challenge—escaping from one of the world’s most famous prisons—becomes the kind of badge of honour that few have been able to attain.
The UK’s Non-Special Relationship Tariffs
What is interesting regarding US tariffs on the UK—or at least the prospect of them—is the way it was initially suggested that this country might escape the full blast of President Trump’s attempt to balance trade between his country and the rest of the world. The plus point was that in the week of Brexit, the UK did not represent the kind of protectionist zone that the EU has clearly become. Instead, there was an impression that a “tariffs-light” approach would be delivered, perhaps as a combination of the old special relationship and President Trump’s soft spot for America’s former colonial master.
However, it now looks as though this may not be the case, despite the President’s initially effusive reaction to his first meeting with Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Initially, it seemed that—even though politically they are poles apart—there was a chance of this country’s ailing economy not being put further through the wringer.
But now, in a move that seems well-timed to suit the aftermath of the Reform Party’s Trump-friendly success, it seems the gloves are off, and he is going to hit the UK where it hurts. The prospect of 100% tariffs on the UK film industry is not only the worst thing at the worst time but hits one of the true shining areas of this country’s exports. On the face of it, it is an act designed to level up the prospects for a US film industry that is apparently declining due to the increasing ease with which content can be produced anywhere, including virtually.
Rather surprisingly, this country has given the film industry special dispensation—something that many other deserving industries have yet to receive. It gets worse though, as even though the overall tariff rate of 20% in Europe is much higher than the headline 10% for the UK, sector-specific areas such as the film industry and car manufacturing are being hit disproportionately harder than many of the activities of other nations. This could mean that even when the dust settles and the bravado from the President dies down, unless there is a very special negotiation going forward—which seems rather unlikely—the UK is going to find itself in a very difficult position.
The Dog Whistle Checkmate?
The latest comments from Labour MP Lucy Powell regarding political point-scoring around grooming gangs being a “dog whistle” underline the unsavoury schism between left and right on major issues, and the way that, at least in the near term, there seems to be no prospect of an accord. Given the alleged backgrounds of the perpetrators, and the backgrounds of many of the new arrivals to the UK, this is an issue that does not seem likely to die down any time soon.
ECHR or not, it has been the policy of successive governments to welcome (and of late be happy to pay for) as many people as possible to come to this country for any reason over recent decades. This has gone on for so long that for anyone in the “establishment” to admit to any negative issues arising from such a process would be politically untenable. On the contrary, it is maintained that the benefits of multiculturalism are self-evident, and there is a doubling down taking place.
It now seems, in the wake of Lucy Powell’s comments, that those who question mass immigration or its alleged consequences are met with accusations of dog-whistling, in addition to the usual “racist” or “far-right” labels. Indeed, “dog whistle” has become a kind of verbal checkmate—just as “racist” and “far right” already have.
However, this state of affairs cannot continue forever, and at some point, there will have to be some kind of consensus between both sides. Alas, from the current vantage point, such a scenario seems impossible given what is at stake politically in the run-up to the next general election.
