Friends will know that among my obsessions (some would say “petty obsessions) is my extreme aversion to the word “iconic”. Check the work of decent writers of the last two hundred or so so years from (say) Jane Austen, via Charles Dickens and Oscar Wilde to Noel Coward and any Booker prize winner and there isn’t an “iconic” to be seen. It’s a modern day neologism used by the vocabulary challenged and hard of thinking. Anyway I thought I’d rant on in more detail about it but found that the American author Garry Berman had done it for me. Here’s what he said:

“I’ve been a professional writer for a long time. I write books, articles, short stories, screenplays, etc. I pay attention to words — not just the words I use, but words that others use as well. And I’ve become convinced that the word “iconic” is now the most overused word in the English language — or, at least, the most overused adjective.

Whether you agree or disagree, please note that this isn’t a scientific finding on my part — no polls, linguistic research, or algorithms were used (or harmed) in the writing of this piece. However, it is the result of extensive observation and scrutiny of our mass media in recent years. And, while I do a lot of writing, I am in no way promoting myself as any kind of Language Police or Grammar Gestapo. I make more errors with my own writing than I care to admit. But I just need to express this…

I will bet you any sum of imaginary money that you will hear the word “iconic” spoken or printed several times this very day, probably within less than an hour after you either sit down to watch TV, listen to the radio or online podcast, skim your news feed, or however you choose to interact with the world. The word seems to have become the favorite go-to adjective of newscasters/reporters, commercials, documentaries, magazines, newspapers, and wherever the English language is found in our culture. I can also guarantee that if you scan down the column of headlines and articles on the Yahoo! or Microsoft Edge home pages on any given day, you will find “iconic” staring back at you two or three times, even before clicking on the actual story.

Yes, in our American culture’s collective laziness and semi-literacy, the thesaurus has apparently become as extinct as the dinosaur (and some might even mistake “thesaurus” for the name of a dinosaur). The result being that we now find nearly every landmark, bridge, skyscraper, bakery, book, film, song, fashion style — you name it — described as “iconic,” even when the subject in question really isn’t, and never was. The other day, I swear I heard an actress described as an “iconic icon.”

An episode of the MeTV program Collector’s Call, which visits nostalgia mavens and their vast, private collections of pop culture memorabilia, reached a nadir of shameful proportions recently: between host Lisa Welchel, the featured collector of ’60s TV items, and the guest appraiser, the word “iconic” was bandied about among the three of them no fewer than eight times in the single, half-hour episode. Other episodes of the show have come close to that shameful total.

Fortunately, there is a generous choice of synonyms that offer the same meaning, any of which could replace “iconic,” yet retain the meaning of the phrase or sentence in which it is used. Just a few:

·       legendary

·       historic

·       famous

·       renowned

·       seminal

·       epic

·       celebrated

·       illustrious

·       fabled

…or just plain “really cool.”

I implore you — use these synonyms! They’re free!

So, how about it, fellow English speakers and writers— any chance of mixing things up a bit and plucking a few words from the above list, or elsewhere, to free them from obscurity, and giving “iconic” a well-deserved rest?

Probably not. The word has somehow permeated our everyday speech and writing quickly and solidly in the past few years, having been absorbed and regurgitated relentlessly and without question on a daily basis, throughout all media — social and otherwise… 

So come on, you Millennials, and Generation X, Y, Z, and We’ve-Run-Out-Of-Letters-To-Describe-Ourselves people. Try a bit of variety. Expand your linguistic horizons, just a little. Save “iconic” as you would a fine wine, to be taken out only for special occasions, and then propose a toast to yourself for demonstrating such restraint. I know you can do it!”

“Today, of course, we live in a different world: we in the UK have enjoyed three centuries of growth and, over the past few decades, unprecedented peace. This has recalibrated our conception of what it means to live in a “compassionate society”…” Matthew Syed in the “Sunday Times”.

So Matthew has fallen for the “growth is always good” imperative. Shame. And wrong. Fifty years ago when I was studying Economics one of the set books was “The Costs of Economic Growth” by E.J. Mishan. He articulated a conviction that the growth in real income was accompanied by a simultaneous decline in human welfare. It was a persuasive and systematic demolition of the religion of growth. And as we look at the growing social and environmental problems of today – especially at environmental degradation – we cannot ignore the fact that untrammelled growth is killing us.

The Industrial Revolution is a handy metaphor as well as a warning from history. The metaphor is that “progress” generally takes place alongside decline. The calibrations are different. In the nineteenth century Gross Domestic Product increased but the society it created, persuasively described by Disraeli as “Two Nations”, was grotesquely unequal. “Trickle down” was nonsense then, and still is.

The “growth is good” mantra is reminiscent of Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is good”. Greed creates inequality and that doesn’t deliver a “compassionate society”. In Britain is has created a North/South divide that places us, without London, as Europe’s poorest country!

The most popular political model of modern times is called “neoliberal” and within that growth is the largely unchallenged driver. There are challenges, think Greenpeace or Greta Thunberg, but whilst governments pay lip service to “Net Zero” they still worship Growth which is incompatible with it.

I will be accused by some (again!) of being a “sourpuss” ! Here I wouid reference the Music Hall song:

“It’s the same the whole world over,
It’s the poor what gets the blame,
It’s the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn’t it a blooming shame?”

Have you noticed how there is a perfect correlation between scepticism about (say) “Net Zero’ and Climate Change and wealth. Those protesting about our collective insanity of environmental destruction are poor but honest. Those in denial are the rich who revel in the personal wealth that growth has given them.

The King and Country Debate was a debate on 9 February 1933 at the Oxford Union Society. The motion presented, “This House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country”, passed with 275 votes for the motion and 153 against it.

1933 was the year that Hitler came to power and I’d guess that six or seven years later many of the 275 who voted for the motion joined up voluntarily. Context is everything!

I recently responded to an article in The Times by Melanie Philips which hailed Britain’s “historic strengths as a nation.” Philips was peddling bombastic nonsense, at least to me, proving the rightness of Doctor Johnson’s “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” I said “Let’s list a few “strengths” from our history – some still current”:

* A leading slaving nation for 200 years

* Obsession with extending the Empire wider still and wider

* Warmongering pursuit of power

* Destruction of the lives of First Nations peoples

* Inventor of Concentration camps

* An Industrial Revolution based on exploitation of the poor

* Without London the poorest country in Europe

* Inability to create modern and efficient transportation systems

* Destruction of a once substantial manufacturing sector

* A public service emphasis on profit not the population’s needs

* Murderous suppression of those whose territory they usurped

* Preposterous arrogant belief that the “English are Best”

* Male dominated society without womens’ rights for centuries

* Unelected Head of State and upper House of Parliament

* Institutionalised historic racism and colour and religious prejudice

* Huge gaps between the aristocratic rich and the downtrodden peasantry

* Contempt for international institutions and transnational cooperation

* Failure to deal with famine from Ireland to Bengal

* Criminalisation of the sexual preferences of 10% of the population

* Obsession with faux-patriotism and flag waving

* Complete and ongoing failures of political leadership

We are in “Hitler was kind to dogs” territory here. Is Britain the best of the worst or the worst of the best? I don’t compare, in the main, by making international comparisons (except the point about being the poorest country in Europe if you exclude London. Which is pretty shocking).

I received many compliments from readers and friends about my gloomy list. But the usual suspects went predictably into faux-patriotism mode. Didn’t I know that Britain abolished slavery for example? Well yes, I know my Wilberforce. But defending 200 years of slavery by boasting that we were the first to abolish it is pretty weak ! Then apparently we didn’t invent Concentration camps, and lots of countries had empires, and we weren’t the worst imperialists. Etcetera ad infinitum.

Nations do advance over time and yes Britain is more liberal and equal today than it was before the social legislation and change of the 20th century. But there is much to criticise – my point being there always was. In the main we are a fairer and more tolerant society than in the past. And we’ve stopped enslaving people and children don’t work on looms or in chimneys any more. We’ve stopped hanging people and persecuting gays.

In short our past was pretty disgraceful and our present is better. But there’s a long way to go and faux-patriotism and defending the indefensible doesn’t help.

Farage’s 60th birthday with with Tory Andrea Jenkins and Reform’s Aaron Banks. And Liz Truss in the background glancing over. Then there was this a while back:

Tim Montgomerie long-standing conservative commentator recently tweeted “The most successful conservative politician since Mrs T. Happy 60th Nigel_Farage and thank you for your friendship” Something’s up !

It’s not too big a leap to see a Banks/Farage/Tory Right deal. Banks agrees to stand Reform down at the General Election in return for Farage ousting Sunak as Tory leader. Far fetched ? Not really. Ian Dale another Hardish Right Conservative hailed Farage as the most important conservative politician years ago when Farage was UKIP and David Cameron Tory Leader.

We are in “Nothing to lose “ territory here. Sunak cannot win an election and the Conservative Party could be decimated. A punt with Farage would make ideological sense for the ERG (including Rees-Mogg and Truss). He has public appeal especially in the Red Wall seats. And there’s a transatlantic link as well. Remember this?

If Donald Trump can win the Presidency this year then Nigel Farage could be Prime Minister. You think I’m joking? Sadly not.

I didn’t like it when critics started calling Israel an “Apartheid state” and I don’t like the accusations of “genocide” either. South Africa’s racial discrimination was uniquely venal and using the word “Apartheid” for other places takes away from that. And whilst some Israeli government statements are unquestionably racist about Palestinians I think on balance that the actions of the Israeli government cannot be termed genocidal, but it’s certainly close.

But are we dealing with reasonable people who just have a grievance if we institute dialogue with and between Hamas and Israel? I don’t think we are in either case. And, tragically, there’s nothing new about the situation. The problem is that it goes back to 1948 and, arguably, well before that. Land was confiscated and a state created some of which, today, with land acquired in wars and not returned in peace, but settled.

Israel’s actions for decades can be described as being the seeking of and gaining of Lebensraum. This word should send a chill through the blood of Jewish people anywhere, including in Israel. Because if one state gains room another state, or people, loses it. There’s a zero sum.

And Hamas and their powerful backers are at the core fighting about the loss of land – in short about losing their land to a huge scale pogrom – an irony that should make Israelis pause for thought. But Netanyahu has made it clear that his goal is fully to incorporate Gaza into Israel. And then…? The Israeli Prime Minister’s “New Middle Easr” doesn’t imclude Palestine. Negotiate your way out of that!

There’s no such thing as a typical English constituency, but Rochdale certainly isn’t one. Eighteen constituencies across the UK have a higher Muslim population than Rochdale (24%) but it is clearly a crucial element in the voters’ dynamic. George Galloway knew this and saw his chance. But extrapolating from the freak circumstances which gave us this result is wrong. Labour won’t make the same mistake again.

It was the coincidence of Time (when Muslims are being killed in Gaza) and Place (a constituency that is among our most Islamic) along with the foolish remarks of Labour’s candidate which caused this upset. It happens at both ends of the political moral continuum. Remember Martin Bell in his white suit beating Neil Hamilton?

That Muslims are the most protesting against the flattening of Gaza and the pogrom against its people is hardly surprising – in Rochdale, elsewhere in Britain and around the world. To categorise it as “Mob Rule” was as offensive as it was wrong. 

Ethnic minorities should be represented in Parliament a fact that for obvious reasons our Prime Minister should acknowledge. But Sunak comes across as more Winchester and Oxford than British Asian. He’s very distanced by his elitist class from his co-religionists in Leicester or Brent or Harrow. 

The electors of Rochdale had a terrible choice. It was a protest vote and we should listen not condemn. 

Other than as symbolism the truth is that it really doesn’t matter who wins the London Mayoral election. And it’s not just in London that it doesn’t matter. If Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson can each win two elections and do a “job” for eight years there’s surely something wrong with the job – and there is.

The elected Mayors are faux-democracy. Do we blame the Birmingham Mayor for the economic catastrophe in England’s second city? We shouldn’t. He had little or no freedom to act on the matter. To run something above all you need tax-raising powers. The Mayors don’t have them.

If you believe in subsidiarity – the taking of political decisions at the lowest practical level – the Mayors don’t do that. Yes there is the London Assembly, a largely impotent talking shop. By comparison with its nominal predecessors the LCC and the GLC it’s powerless and the Mayor with it.

Margaret Thatcher knew what she was doing when she abolished the GLC. She took power to where she thought it should be, with central government. Subsequently, for show, we’ve elected a Mayor in London and elsewhere and it’s made not a jot of difference to the quality of our governance. It’s a sham.

Lord Sikka, “Why is the Conservative government so relaxed about off shore tax avoidance?”

Baroness Vere, “The government is not relaxed about off shore tax avoidance.. All tax avoidance does need to be stamped out”

For 150 years Britain was driven by (largely) unchallenged Nationalism and its bedfellow Imperialism. We went it alone because we had the power and resources to do so. Military setbacks (Boer War for example) were rare and turned into victories. The Dunkirk spirit didn’t just happens after Dunkirk. Then the Great War happened and it gradually dawned on us in the trenches that we weren’t all powerful after all. We nearly lost that war and were rescued by our cousins from across the pond.

Those cousins assumed the world power role as Britain began gradually to decline. We had neither the military power nor the economic resources to challenge the rise of Hitler so chose Appeasement instead. When the inevitable happened and another war broke out we were alone and bravely the Few won the Battle of Britain. After that it was the big beasts of America and Russia fighting alongside us that preserved democracy – ironically we have Stalin to thank for us not descending into totalitarianism!

After WW2 we finally shed Empire – though the Land of Hope and Glory mindset hung around. The conspiracy theories are essentially a reaction to Britain’s decline. We have to blame someone. The EU (hence Brexit). Immigrants. Non religionists (hence antisemitism and Islamophobia). Not of course the heroes of Dunkirk and the Falklands. Put out more flags.

“The number of recorded antisemitic incidents across the country rose by 147 per cent in 2023, which itself was a record high.” The Times.

With a few exceptions distinguished members of Britains Jewish communities have been silent on Netanyahu’s war. It’s almost as if to be Jewish means you have to support whatever the Israeli government does. And that is surely a cause of antisemitism in all too many cases.

We may not like it but it’s a fact. These instances of antisemitism are mostly a direct response to Israel’s attacks on the people of Gaza. The conflation of “Israel” and “Jewish people” is inaccurate and ignorant, but it’s understandable, though shocking, why people do it. It’s not helped by Britain’s Jewish commentators almost to a man or woman failing to condemn Israel’s actions.

That Netanyahu was right to respond strongly to the Hamas attack on 7th October should not be in doubt. But the launch of all out war on the people of the West Bank is another matter. This prompted many people around the world to protest – a perfectly understandable and uncontentious thing to do. Except when to be anti the actions of the Israeli government (reasonable) turns itself into antisemitism (obscenely wrong).

With a few exceptions distinguished members of Britains Jewish communities have been silent on Netanyahu’s war. It’s almost as if to be Jewish means you have to support whatever the Israeli government does. And that is surely a cause of antisemitism in all too many cases.