AA Gill faces up to his cancer
AA Gill faces up to his cancer
AA Gill used to think that being a NHS patient was like travelling second class on a train, glitter than first class, but in the end everyone ended up at the same destination.
But now, he’s discovered that the drug that might keep him alive is not available on the NHS…
It seems unlikely, uncharacteristic, so un-“us” to have settled on sickness and bed rest as the votive altar and cornerstone of national politics. But there it is: every election, the National Health Service is the thermometer and the crutch of governments. The NHS represents everything we think is best about us. Everyone standing for whatever political persuasion has to lay a sterilised hand on an A&E revolving door and swear that the collective cradle-to-crematorium health service will be cherished on their watch.
When you look at our awkward, lumpy, inherited short-tempered characters, you’d imagine we might have come up with something more brass-bandy Brit: a bellicose, sentimental military fetishism, perhaps, or sport, or nostalgic history, boastful Anglophone culture, invention, exploration, banking avarice. But no. It turned out that what really sticks in our hard, gimpy, sclerotic hearts is looking after each other. Turning up at a bed with three carnations, a copy of Racing Post, a Twix and saying,“The cat misses you.”
We know it’s the best of us. The National Health Service is the best of us. You can’t walk into an NHS hospital and be a racist. That condition is cured instantly. But it’s almost impossible to walk into a private hospital and not eetingly feel that you are one: a plush waiting room with entitled and bad-tempered health tourists.
You can’t be sexist on the NHS, nor patronising, and the care and the humour, the togetherness ranged against the teetering, chronic system by both the caring and the careworn is the Blitz,“back againstthewall”,sternandsentimentalbest of us — and so we tell lies about it.
We say it’s the envy of the world. It isn’t. We say there’s nothing else like it. There is. We say it’s the best in the West. It’s not. We think it’s the cheapest. It isn’t. Either that or we think it’s the most expensive — it’s not that, either. You will live longer in France and Germany, get treated faster and more comfortably in Scandinavia, and everything costs more in America.
I’ve wanted to write about the National Health Service for a long time, but it’s resistant to press inquires. While the abstract of the NHS is heart-warming, the truth for patients is often heart-stopping. And junior doctor strikes, executive pay, failing departments, slow-motion waiting times and outsourcing tell a di erent story, and I’m regularly, ritually refused access by PRs and administrators, or they insist on copy approval or preplanned stories.
One of the doctors I approached was Professor Brian Gazzard, who has a reputation mostly for being an exemplary and inspirationally brilliant physician, but also as something of an ocean-going eccentric. He treats, teaches at and runs the Chelsea Aids clinic. I asked him what had changed most about his job.
“When I started, I told every patient that they were going to die. I could make it easier, make them live a little longer, but everyone died. Now I tell every patient they will live. They will need to do what I tell them, they’ve been silly, but they’ll live to die of something else. That’s astonishing.” He paused so I would understand the e ect it has on a doctor. “Look, I really don’t want to be written about. You won’t remember, but we met once before.”
A decade ago, Gazzard diagnosed my foreign correspondent’s dodgy tummy as acute pancreatitis, the result of alcoholism. “Of course I remember. You told me I could never drink alcohol again and I said, ‘You haven’t read my notes, I’ve been teetotal for 20 years.’ And you gave a sigh and reached into a drawer and lit a cigarette and said you’d been dreading telling a restaurant critic he couldn’t have a glass of wine.”
Gazzard laughed.“You’re one of the lucky ones,” he’d said as he walked onto the street clutching an armful of patient les and raised a hand in farewell. He repeated again: “You’re one of the lucky ones. I can always tell.” It was his rst misdiagnosis of the day.
What neither of us could know is that my pancreas was already a stuffed wallet of cancer, though not pancreatic — a migrated, refugee, desperate, breathless lung cancer.
I stopped smoking 15 years ago and as a gift to myself, proof of the clarity of my lungs, I would spend a week stalking on Loch Maree in Wester Ross. Every autumn since, I have climbed the same hills, chasing the deer, and, trudging upwards, recited a doxology of mostly extinct snouts I no longer puff: Weights, Guards, Navy Cut, Olivier, Black Cat, Passing Clouds, Number 6, Sovereign, Gitanes, Gauloises (does anyone remember when Paris smelt alternately of Gauloises, pissoirs and Chanel?), Winston, Camel, Sobranie, my father’s pipe in the cinema — clouds of sweet latakia smoke in the ickering projection. A Greek cigarette in a red box with a lasciviously smiling girl that called itself Santé, without irony: an untipped fag called Health.
This year, for the first time, I couldn’t make it to the top of the hill. I knelt in the heather, weak and gasping. It was the first time all was not well. There was also a pain in my neck that my doctor said was probably a cervical spine thingy and I should get a scan.
He sent me to Harley Street, where another doctor said: “You haven’t got insurance, it’s going to be expensive. Why don’t you get it done down the road and send me the pictures. A third of the cost.” I said: “I’m here now, just do it.” And he shrugged. A couple of hours later I went back for the results. He had the bland bad-news face.
“That was the best money you ever spent.” He turned the screen around and there was a beautiful spiral of colour clinging like an abstract expressionist collar to my spine.“This is cancer.”
That afternoon I was back in my doctor’s surgery. He was wearing the antiseptic face, the professional-doctor tragedy mask. I’m getting to see this a lot now. It is as much a protection against the infection of catastrophe for them as a respect for its victim. They glaze the bad news with sweet spittle. They’ll say: “The test results were not quite what we hoped. It might be trapped wind or it might be the thing that hatched from John Hurt’s stomach. Realistically, we’ll have to assume it’s more alien than fart.” My alien was the most common cancer in old men, our biggest single killer: an aggressive, nimble cat-burglar lung cancer that is rarely noticed till it has had kittens.
Guy has been my doctor for 30 years — 32 to be precise. He was the doctor who put me into treatment for addiction and he’s looked after me and my kids ever since. He’s private, so I pay. If I need a test, an x-ray, a consultant, I’ll pay. If I need anything more than a couple of antibiotics, I’m going to the NHS.
Within 24 hours I have an NHS consultant oncologist and early-morning appointments, for scans, blood tests and x-rays.
You couldn’t make up Charing Cross Hospital. Well, not as a hospital you couldn’t. It’s a monstrous, hideous, crumbling patched-up mess — the Elephant Building. On the way in I notice a couple of posters on the street saying “Save Charing Cross Hospital”. They’re stuck on a municipal noticeboard that’s falling over.
It’s plainly the result of dozens and dozens of attempts to make things better and, in fact, it is the physical embodiment of how most of us, trying to make our way through the teetering automatic doors, feel. It has a very good collection of contemporary British art. In some back corridor there is a series of Peter Blake’s best silk screens.
I love it: it’s how I feel. The lifts take hours to arrive, emphysemically, wheezingly opening their doors, and when they do, it’s without con dence or conviction. A man going up to the cancer ward puts his hand in front of the door and gets out.“I’m too frightened to take this lift,” he says.
In a waiting room, hundreds of us take numbers to sit like wilted potted plants in an autumn garden-centre sale, to take it in turns to meet the antiseptic face. If this were a set for a lm, all the actors and extras would be pulling looks of agony and sadness and fear, but the face of real cancer wipes our expressions to a pale neutral human.
The NHS has one of the worst outcomes for cancer treatment in Europe. It’s something to be borne in mind when you’re deciding to combine chemotherapy with a safari, or want to embark on a bar-thumping argument about health tourism. It was the rst question I asked my oncologist, Dr Conrad Lewanski.“Why is this such a bad place to get cancer, when we have lots of hospitals, when we teach doctors from all over the world, when we’ve won more Nobel prizes than the French?”
“It’s the nature of the health service,” he says.“The key to cancer outcomes is the speed of diagnosis and treatment.” The health service was set up with GPs separate from hospitals. The system means you probably have to wait a week or so for an appointment to see rst your GP, or a clinic. The average time for that consultation will be seven minutes. Perhaps your cough isn’t a priority. And then if your doctor thinks it does need a second opinion, he’ll suggest you see a consultant, and that’s likely to take a month. If the GP suspects cancer,that referral time is reduced to two weeks. He or she will probably write a letter, often two — all doctors still carry fountain pens.
And then there are all the appointments — for tests, a cancellation, a missed x-ray, a scan — which can put months on a diagnosis. It’s not the treatment, it’s the scale of the bureaucracy and the Attlee-reverential, immovable-but-crumbling structure of a private-public doctor-consultant arrangement, which was the cornerstone laid down by the 1945 government at the insistence of doctors. That is the chronic tumour in the bowel of the system.
I’m given a talk by a nurse on the consequences of chemotherapy. She uses three pens. Two of them have three coloured barrels each. The scribbling, the underlining, the stars, the acronyms, the exclamation marks become ever more emphatic and decorative. Finally she hands me a notebook that is unintelligibly runic, but says not to worry because it’s all on the computer, which she then turns on to show me a heart-warming lm about sexual infections and high temperatures.
The hospital utters with bits of paper like mayflies. They’re propped up against screens, wedged up against keyboards, stuffed into teetering les, and then there is the constant Tourette’s questions,“When’s your birthday? What’s the first line of your address?”, all to collide you with the right cancer, to go with all the forms, the signatures, the screens, the machines, the radiation disclaimers and destiny. It makes Kafka look like ee cummings.
I like my oncologist. He doesn’t have the morphine face; he looks amused, inquisitive, like a shaved, garrulous otter. All he does
is lung cancer. This is his river, tumours his trout. He’s been a consultant for 15 years. Two years in, his father got it and died: “The worst thing I’ve ever had to go through. I do know what this is like — so how much do you want to know?”
“Everything, and the truth.”
I’ve never Googled cancer, but I’ve discovered that every one of my friends who owns their own house has a preferred cancer specialist and a hospital to go with them. They also have a perfect gardener, an ideal interior decorator and a masseur that they insist — insist — I use, because they are all the best and, of course, you only get what you pay for. Lots of them are astonished I’m still in this country of catastrophic cancer statistics.
Those who don’t have money for their own homes have magical diets, homeopathy and religious new-age cures, or at least a conspiracy theory about big pharma hiding the e cacy of vitamin C, kale, magnetism and mistletoe. If it doesn’t make you better, at least you get snogged a lot.
And everyone, but everyone, will have a mantra story of their secretary’s husband or a woman they used to work with who was given three weeks to live and is still stacking shelves or conducting operas 10 years later. These little homilies are handed out with the intense insistence of lucky heather, using the language of evangelical religion and locker-room encouragement.
Why is our reaction to cancer so medieval, so wrapped in fortune-cookie runes and votive memory shards, like the teeth and metatarsals of dead saints? Cancer is frightening. One in two of us will get it. It has dark memories, unmentionably euphemised. In the public eye, not all cancers are equal. There is little sympathy for lung cancer. It’s mostly men, mostly old men, mostly working-class old men and mostly smokers. There is a lot more money and public sympathy for the cancers that affect women and the young. Why wouldn’t there be?
“How do men react when you tell them their cancers are fatal?” I ask Dr Lewanski. “Always the same way — with stoicism.”
“Bollocks,” I think. “I thought that was just me.”
Actually it’s not being told you’ve got cancer that is the test of character, it’s the retelling. Going home and saying to the missus: “That thing, the cricked neck. Actually it’s a tumour, the size of a cigar.” It ought to come with a roll of thunder and ve Jewish violinists, instead of the creaky whisper of fear.
People react differently to different cancers: most women think they’ll survive, and statistically they’re right. Most men think they’ll die — and likewise.
“So, what’s the treatment?”
“Chemotherapy. Platinum in your case. It has a very good chance.”
Someone should write a paper on the euphemistic size comparisons for tumours. There should be an esite, Euphotumours. The images are very masculine: golf balls, cricket balls, bullets, grenades, ruminant testicles. No one ever says, “I’ve got a cancer the size of a fairy cake.”
And what about after the chemo?
“Well, there’s a new treatment, immunotherapy. It’s the biggest breakthrough in cancer treatment for decades. Cancers camou age themselves as chemical markers that tell your body’s natural defences that there’s nothing to see here, move along. These new drugs strip away the disguise and allow your body’s natural system to clean up. It’s new and it’s still being trialled, but we’re a long way along the line and it is the way cancer treatment is bound to go. It’s better for some growths than others, but it’s particularly successful with yours. If you were in Germany or Scandinavia or Japan or America, or with the right insurance here, this is what you would be treated with.”
The doctor looks at Nicola, the missus. His otter face has grown a little sphinxy. “You remember asking if the treatment Adrian got on the NHS would be any different from being a private patient? And I said a better cup of coffee and more leeway with appointments. Well, this is the difference. If he had insurance, I’d put him on immunotherapy — speciffically, nivolumab. As would every oncologist in the First World. But I can’t do it on the National Health.”
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), the quango that acts as the quartermaster for the health service, won’t pay. Nivolumab is too expensive — £60,000 to £100,000 a year for a lung-cancer patient; about four times the cost of chemo. And the only way to see if it will work for an individual patient is to give it to them all, and the ones it doesn’t work for will weed themselves out. What Nice doesn’t say about the odds is that immunotherapy mostly works for old men who are partially responsible for their cancers because they smoked. Thousands of patients could benefit. But old men who think they’re going to die anyway aren’t very effective activists. They don’t get the public or press pressure that young mothers’ cancers and kids’ diseases get.
As yet, immunotherapy isn’t a cure, it’s a stretch more life, a considerable bit of life. More life with your kids, more life with your friends, more life holding hands, more life shared, more life spent on earth — but only if you can pay.
I’m early for my first eight-hour stint of platinum chemo. The ward in Charing Cross looks like a cross between a milking shed and an Air Koryo business lounge. I am settled into a hideous but comfortable chair and a tap is jabbed into the back of my hand. A series of plastic bags full of combative and palliative cocktails slowly dribble into my body and every 10 minutes I have to shuffle to an invalid’s loo to dribble it out again.
I like it here. The nurses are funny and comforting, optimistic, and bear the weight of the sadness, the regret and the pity in the room on their shoulders with an amused elegance and sincerity that comes from their years of experience, or the naivety of inexperience. The other patients shuffle in with their partners to share sandwiches, talk about shopping and the cousins in New Zealand and window boxes. There are children with ageing parents, happy/sad to be able to repay an infant’s debt.
I manage to find the one dealer in the ward, or rather she finds me. Her boyfriend’s making hash cakes — they’ve definitely shrunk his tumour, I should definitely have some. I smile, shrug apologetically and say sadly I’m already a junkie. I don’t take drugs.
“Really? Even for this?” I’m not giving up 32 years of clean time for some poxy lung.
And there are the ones who sit alone, who don’t have any friends to play cards with them, to drip the will and the strength and the faith to face this. I don’t know how anyone manages to do this on their own.
An old friend sits through the mornings with me, Nicola comes with lunch and Flora and Ali, my grown-up kids, share the afternoon. If it wasn’t for the cancer, that would be a really lovely day. If it wasn’t for the cancer.
There’s a natural break in the article here. It should have been finished two weeks ago, but I had a bad night, a really bad night.
Nicola called Guy, the GP, and he came round and took a look and said: “He needs to be in A&E now.”
So I’m on a gurney in Charing Cross at nine in the morning. On the other side of the blue plastic curtain, a bloke is being held down by three policemen shouting, “Don’t flick your f****** blood over here, I don’t want what you’ve got.”
A young doctor comes and asks me questions. All doctors in A&E are preternaturally young. One of the questions after “What’s your date of birth and the first line of your address?” is inevitably “Can I put my finger up your bottom to see if there’s any poo or blood?”
The other question is: “On a scale of 1 to 10 — 1 being a scratch and 10 unspeakable agony — what do you think you’re suffering at the moment?” You wouldn’t describe this as thin pain. It’s 10 out of 10. My stomach is agonised with a terrible wrenching distension. I’ve lived a middle-class, sheltered, uncombative, anti-violent life, so I don’t know how this compares to other more manly men’s pain, but this is by miles and miles the worst thing I’ve ever been through, thank you for asking.
More x-rays and blood tests and the surgeon returns with the complete granite face and says: “Well, it could be a burst ulcer, but of course it isn’t. The tumour in your pancreas has increased in size very fast. It’s as big as a fist.” And he shows me a fist in case I’d misplaced the image.
I’ve decided to call the pancreatic tumour Lucky, as a nod to prophetic Professor Gazzard. So the chemotherapy isn’t working. I ask my oncologist what’s next.
“It’s a bugger,” he says. “It looked so hopeful, but you’re right, it isn’t working. The pancreas is a bad place. We can’t operate and the side effects of radiation aren’t worth the risk.” And there’s pancreatic pain, which is famously in a league apart, so at least I can be stoical about that.
“What next?”
“Well, on the NHS we can give you another round of chemo, a bit rougher with slighter outcomes … but there is really only one treatment for you: nivolumab.”
From behind the blue curtain, the nurse asks the policeman: “What do you want to do with him?”
“Oh, let him go,” says the copper.
“I thought you’d arrested him?”
“No. Let him go.”
That evening I’m sitting in bed on the cancer ward trying to get the painkillers stabilised and a young nurse comes in.
“There you are. I’ve been waiting for you all day. You’re supposed to be with me down in chemotherapy. I saw your name. Why are you up here?”
“Well, it turns out the chemo isn’t working.” Her shoulders sag and her hand goes to her head. “F***, f***, that’s dreadful.” I think she might be crying.
I look away, so might I.
You don’t get that with private healthcare.
Cancer survival rates in Europe
The UK has the worst cancer survival rates in western Europe — a third lower than those of Sweden.
“Five-year cancer survival rates are so low in the UK because we’re so slow at diagnosing cancer in the first place. A patient must first see their GP, then be referred to see a specialist. The lag time can be months. And when each GP consultation lasts a few minutes, people can slip through the net altogether. In European countries, patients can access specialist care easily and straightaway.”
Dr Conrad Lewanski, consultant clinical oncologist and fellow of the Royal College of Radiologists
AA Gill began taking nivolumab after writing this article
TableTalk – The Magpie Café Whitby
I’ve got cancer. Sorry to drop that onto the breakfast table apropos of nothing at all. Apropos and cancer are rarely found in the same sentence. I wasn’t going to mention it, the way you don’t. In truth, I’ve got an embarrassment of cancer, the full English. There is barely a morsel of offal not included. I have a trucker’s gut-buster, gimpy, malevolent, meaty malignancy. And I’ve mentioned it because, as I write in the first person, and occasionally some of you might take me seriously enough to book a table on a recommendation, you ought to know if there are any fundamental, gastro, epicurean, personal changes that would affect my judgment. If I were, for instance, struck down with palaeo-sidereal veganism, which I hope we would all agree would be worse. Or if I had all my teeth kicked out by an Icelandic horse on his way to the butcher’s. Chemotherapy can alter the way things taste. I am being rinsed with commando doses of platinum. My insides are being turned into road-rail, pig-lead, firewood, iron-ware and cheap tin trays. If ever things start tasting like licked battery terminals, I’ll tell you. Either that or I’ll be eating at Sexy Fish.
I’m forbidden from travelling on trains, boats, buses and planes. Nor can I drive. Jeremy Clarkson says this has nothing to do with getting cancer. I’ve been banned from riding a bike — even on grass, added the oncologist unkindly. So I’m not going to be plashing through marsh and fen to find outré openings (no change there — ed). If there was a good thing to say about cancer, and frankly this is medical bowel-scraping, it’s that it gives permission and excuse to friends to say and do generous things that the onset of gout or herpes might not have elicited. So, just after my diagnosis, I got a call from Jimmy Carr, who said, “Awful news, but I’d like to fulfil a bucket-list wish. I can pretend to be Jimmy Savile for a day. I’ve always wanted to do Jim’ll Fix It.” “How kind. What were you thinking of ?” “Well,” he said, “I’ve got to go up and do 10 minutes’ filming with Jeremy on his new show, and there’s a spare seat in the whirlybird. We can be back in London for tea. What do you say?” “Where are we going? Paris, Deauville, Barcelona?”
“Whitby.”
“Now you’re talking.”
If I didn’t have cancer, I would probably have passed on Whitby in October. But the thought that this might be my last chance ever to visit the place again clinched it. Whitby has the best fish and chips in Britain. So, the next morning, I get into the helicopter and there’s a manic Jimmy, gurning, “Nowthen,nowthen…”and we take off into the chilly Elstree dawn and chug north. “So,” he asks, “cancer — what’s the silver lining? There must be anupside.”Well,there is: you can stop worrying about Alzheimer’s, but even that is a bit tarnished because I’m already an ambassador for the Alzheimer’s Society, and getting cancer is like going over to a competing charitable condition. Hey ho.
Whitby appears like a William Blake doodle over the North York Moors. As with most east-facing seaside towns, it both perches and hunches on the grey wet, with its gothic ruin and nudge-nudge naughty postcards. It’s a place that is both eminently dour and practical and utterly, bonkersly up some seaside spectrum. So, everyone on the street has apparently decided to dress at Millets for under £15 and attach themselves to a terrier. Or they’re dressing up as role-play therapy groups: there are goths, vampires and, today, masses of pensioners in Dad’s Army costume, platoons of spavined Home Guard and women going to collect their rations. It’s a steampunk version of Westworld. There are no tourists or trippers. They are just doing it for their own amusement.
Jimmy and I go in search of the Magpie Café, a fish’n’chip shop I deemed the best in Britain more than a decade ago. It remains completely, perfectly true to its calling. At 11.30, the little restaurant is beginning to fill up with retired couples in cagoules, coming in for an early lunch. But seaside fish and chips isn’t like other meals. We approach it with a proprietary fondness. This is grade 1 listed dinner, cultural heritage, a communion of secular us-ness. No one is eating fish and chips for the first time. Jimmy and I were given the table in the bay window, looking out at the wandering Private Godfreys and Van Helsings.
The fish is generous, fresh off the boat, battered with a loving authority. Beef-dripping twice- fried chips are thick, crunchy and floury. The curry sauce is authentically indigenous, free from any Asian aspiration. Mushy peas are marrow-fat bland sog, not blitzed garden frozen. They dance with a surprising elegance when dabbed with a douse of malt vinegar. There is bread that has been buttered as if there was still rationing and pots of brown, round-vowelled tea, and jam roly-poly that comes with custard and cream.
Jimmy and I are absurdly happy with the whole modest but profound table, each constituent panto part perfectly fitting in with its neighbour with a warming familiarity. We decided to judge, once and for all, the ancient north-south question of haddock or cod. And, as a Scot, I’m happy to say my national preference for haddock won by a slim, opalescent flake.This is, all things considered, without pretension but with utter self-confidence, still the best fish and chips in the world. Naturally, Clarkson disagrees and has his own Whitby favourite, Mister Chips, which is run by a messianically enthusiastic team. They have a board on which they write the name of the particular trawler your fish was landed from and, out of fairness, we took another complete fish dinner back with us on the helicopter. I have to say it was pretty damn perfect, and no one else in the ether of the world was having superior in-flight catering.
We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of that most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia
It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle- class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in- law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.” It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”
Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and su ering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.
We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug ,nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blightly. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat- catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.
The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.
And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expresion of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his televisions, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.
All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and Sheffield plate teapots.
There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.
The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jacks pants on and say “Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?” When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry- Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Something is rotten in the state of Poland
Serious political texts seldom get into Christmas editions. They do not sit well alongside the seasonal mood of goodwill. But this year is different. In just a few days, politics and Poland will be talked over at millions of festive tables. My guess is that most of these conversations will not sound optimistic. Something is very rotten in the Polish state.
Two-Speed Poland
We are witnessing two parallel processes in the country today, with roughly comparable dynamics. In one corner, Jarosław Kaczyński’s party, undertaking and systematically implementing moves to demolish the rule of law, in the other: a dynamic of civic resistance. If the dynamic of the former has been predictable, the scale of the latter is surprising. No one could have possibly predicted that society should wake up so promptly, that the voice of dissent will sound so loud, that it will be heard from so many places in Poland.
Both these dynamics are intimately interrelated. The more brutal and ostentatious Jarosław Kaczyński’s attack on democratic institutions becomes, the stronger grows the anger of millions of Poles, expressed in street protests, and in the polls.
Faced with such a mass protest movement against their actions, authorities in a democracy would soften their policies. But Poland is no longer a normal democracy, and the leader of Law And Justice (PiS) certainly is not a normal politician. His heart is no longer in governing, but in ruling, in the diktat. Rather than make people’s lives easier, which is normally the aim of politicians, he has homed on an institutional revolution, or counter-revolution, because it was the change initiated in 1989 which was the true revolution. What we are witnessing today is a Bolshevik- style deconstruction of anything and everything, amounting to a virtual restoration of a Communist People’s Republic except, obviously, under an anti-Communist banner.
The supreme leader does not feel like correcting the course he has charted. Protests enrage him and provoke him to even more unscrupulous vandalism, spiced by mean accusations against those whose actions displease him. Does it render futile protests? To the contrary, they may provoke Jarosław Kaczyński to move even faster and wield the battle axe even harder, but they also steer him towards more frequent errors. These result in lower PiS ratings in the polls and cause thin fractures in the ruling camp (for the moment, they are limited to groans in dark corners and eloquent silence from important politicians on the Right, as well as the ever-clearer distancing of the Catholic Church from PiS).
In the long run, a really solid foundation of power rests not so much in parliamentary majority, as in popular mandate, which can be eroded much faster than a majority, through unwise actions, attitudes and words.
Revenge And Gifts
Surely, no one can have any doubt by now concerning the real programme being enacted by Jarosław Kaczyński and PiS. Point one – revenge: degrading institutions and thousands of people. Second – cash rewards, deployed to sweeten the Government’s shocking brutality and to temper any negative emotions directed against it.
The thirst for revenge is undisguised. To the contrary, it is manifest. It is not sufficient for the Constitutional Court to be destroyed and marginalized, it has to be humiliated and chased out of the capital. Any time now, more institutions will go for the chop, and a lot of people will be oppressed, even those, who are only potentially noncompliant, and certainly those whom the authorities dislike. Already a number of ambassadors have been recalled, who had links to the previous team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, particularly those linked to the pet-hate Radek Sikorski. The civil service will soon experience wholesale deconstruction, with 1500 competent officials dismissed in order to make room for the leadership’s mediocre, but faithful kin. Cleansing is continuing in state-owned companies. And cleansing is the right term, for it is hardly normal, when the head of Poland’s largest company Orlen, a man with great success to his name, is replaced by Chairman Kaczyński’s mate, who gathered experience in retail and rural transport co-operatives. While holding the Treasury portfolio, he made a name for himself stopping privatisation in its tracks. This is not a joke, such is the personnel policy of the new authorities. We are now facing an attack on the public media, the Audit Chamber, the Office of Public Ombudsman, the whole of the judiciary. And, presumably, on many more people and institutions who have demonstrated their independence and competence, or could do so. Such people are a danger to the new government. They may nurse a deficit of attachment.
But revenge is not all. There will be rewards. However, the new authorities walk on slippery ground here. It will take no time for millions of Poles to understand that it is they who are paying for such gifts from their own pocket. And frequently, paying more than the goods are worth. Credit repayments will go up, so will banking fees and supermarket prices. In short, these presents will soon begin to hurt. And they shall hurt the regime as well.
While we are witnessing this madness of destruction in the superstructure, there is theoretically some hope that it won’t be as bad with the economy. But there is nothing to indicate that, so far. The Polish Zloty is ailing, stocks are slipping, deficit is growing, and public debt will follow soon. Quietly, but at a stable pace, investors are withdrawing from the stock exchange and giving up on their long-term plans concerning Poland. Why? It’s simple: in just a few weeks the new Government has carried Poland from the sphere of stability into the sphere of higher volatility. The new Government’s economic team looks serious enough, with the Deputy PM Morawiecki, who is well regarded in business circles. But members of the entrepreneurial class who have talked to him lately note his thinly disguised distancing from many steps taken by the new regime. And they are speculating how long has Morawiecki got left in its ranks. The most frequent reply is “a few months”. With deputy PM Morawiecki’s eventual departure, scales would fall from the eyes of those, who are still hoping that “at least they won’t mess up with the economy too much”.
Without a fuse-box
Normally, in a democracy, there are fuses in-built into the system of power. But Jarosłw Kaczyński switched them off from the outset. He will break the Constitution Tribunal soon. The head of Government is but the Leader’s tool. It is particularly painful to see a total emaciation of the President, assuming he had ever had intellectual and character attributes which would spur his ambition to play an autonomous part.
Within four months, President Duda has degraded his office in great style, spent his authority, and made a laughing-stock of himself personally. The man who called himself indomitable, is quite universally perceived as a puppet. Not only his competence is being questioned, but his character and common decency also.
It is puzzling why Andrzej Duda cares so little for his office, or the success of his presidency, or his political future, or even for pretence of decorum. But by now, such questions fall within the realm of psychology, rather than political science. President Duda is not an independent player in Polish politics, nor is he likely to ever be one. He has severely disappointed all those, who thought he could be not only the new face of Poland’s Right, but also its reformer. He was, briefly, a face, a reformer he will never be. It all points to a careful psychological profiling of Andrzej Duda prior to his selection as PiS presidential nominee. And Jarosław Kaczyński did not err.
The World is dismayed by the excesses of the new regime and its personnel decisions. No one has ever managed to destroy the positive image of Poland so fast. Built over many years, it has been ruined within weeks. We have become the black sheep of Europe. Majority of serious press titles in Europe express their deepest concern while writing about Poland; they say our democracy is in peril. Meanwhile, PiS politicians allege that it is hostile groups inside the country who prejudice the liberal European media. But the argument is pure nonsense: they write what they see, and they see us in a bad light.
Tectonic movements of the electorate.
One should not draw far-reaching conclusions from the melting of PiS ratings in opinion polls, and from a growing support for Nowoczesna, if only because we have only just had an election. But these poll results ought not to be pooh-poohed either. It looks like PiS is rapidly losing political centre-ground, without which it would not have won presidential or parliamentary elections. It is not impossible that PiS may yet rebuild its support, at least in part. But, seeing the destructive swing of Chairman Kaczyński, it looks unlikely.
Political future of Poland depends on the attitudes of this very middle ground, as well as the young, who have recently drifted to the right and certainly will not change this course in the near future. It is time for a solid analysis of the reasons why so many moderate electors and so many young people voted PiS.
It is alredy clear that many of those who voted for Andrzej Duda and PiS did no vote for any revolution, or destruction, but for a good, competent, and rational government. Today, they can see a disparity between their expectations and the reality. Moderate Duda and PiS voters may have well suspected the other side of blind admiration of Civic Platform (PO). They have to understand there was no such unconditional love for PO, but rather a great fear of the evil which Jarosław Kaczyński’s rule would bring. It is plain to see that such misgivings were well-justified. It is hard to tell in retrospect, then, who behaved like lemmings: those in fear, who voted PO, or those hopefuls, who voted PiS.
Recent opinion polls may go to the heads of both supporters of Ryszard Petru, and other enemies of PiS, but I would advise caution. Let us assume momentarily that PiS disappears in front of our eyes. Do we really think there is any other team out there, capable of taking over and holding power? of giving Poland a push in the right direction and implementing a real ‘Good Change’? I do not think so. Today, an alternative to PiS rests solely in the polls and emotions. Petru’s party is still a small grouping, stronger as a media presence, rather than as an organisation with a programme. Civic Platform possesses these attributes, but has not even got a leader. The opposition needs a good deal of time to grow up its capability to hold power, which it will surely win, in due time.
PiS still has considerable time before its voters are disillusioned in truly large numbers, before the party’s populism is spent, and its radicalism produces its sinister effects.
Have the Poles gone mad?
Today, many Poles have succumbed to a mood of a national atonement. A question is often asked: how has it come to that? How come, we have democratically delivered all power in Poland into the hands of a great destroyer, possessed of a thirst for revenge? Auto-reflection is always a good thing. But we should view what has happened in a much wider perspective.
Well, a cumulation of doubts or objections following eight years of government by one party, of a hypocritical, lying, but effective campaign by the main opposition party, of an atrophy of the Left, and a curiously inept presidential campaign by Bronisław Komorowski’s team, has resulted in one man bagging the whole power. However, his presidential candidate won the election by only a small margin. And although his party is holding a parliamentary majority, its electoral result comes only fourth since 1989 (after SLD in 2001, and PO in 2007 and 2011 garnered over 40 per cent of the vote). Even though a lot has transpired politically, nothing unusual has happened in purely mathematical terms.
Let us cast an even wider glance. In France, extreme Right gained 27 per cent of the vote in the recent 2nd round of local elections. The deceitful Donald Trump remains a favourite to get the Republican Presidential ticket in the US. A pretty extreme Leftist, Jeremy Corbyn has become a labour leader in the UK. The gene of extremism has been activated elsewhere, too. Some are fuelled by Smolensk, others by Mexicans, others still by refugees. Meanwhile populism has gone on-line and attained tools it has never had before. Poland has not gone mad at all; it has just listed dangerously to starboard. But opinion polls are showing clearly that a decisive majority of Poles are now well aware where the problem lies. And they wish for a correction. Let us spare ourselves excessive laments and chest-beating. We canot say: “Hey, Poles, nothing’s happened”. But neither has the people fallen on the sword. Give it a break.
Feathers will fly
Obviously, the battle of the Constitutional Tribunal is but a skirmish. The really “interesting bit” is still ahead of us. It is not accidental that Jarosław Kaczyński placed the likes of Macierewicz, Błaszczak, Kamiński and Ziobro in key positions in the Government. He will also take over public media, squeeze the judiciary, and he will have had the necessary logistics in place to play this game. But the dynamic of revenge and destruction will clash head on with the dynamic of social resistance.
Jarosław Kaczyński and citizens for democracy are on a collision course.
A crash is inevitable. What no one knows is where, when, and with what effects. To be continued…
DONALD KACZYŃSKI
Donald Trump and Jarosław Kaczyński have a lot in common. But, wealth apart, they differ in one more respect: Trump is unlikely to win the elections.
I suggest you should listen carefully to what Donald Trump is saying. You will easily discover this twin-likeness, excusés le mot, with Jarosław Kaczyński.
Let us put aside for a while Trump’s height, his beautiful wife, his many children, his billions in accounts, and his love of luxury, because all these things obscure the deep similarity. When all these attributes are stripped, the common character and inclination will show.
Just like Kaczyński, Donald Trump is a ferocious fighter against the elites. In both cases, it is slightly perverse, because both of them embody the establishment. The billionaire Trump, with his wealth, connections, love of fine banqueting and residences, belongs to the elite of elites. But similarly, the ascetic Kaczyński.
He is interested in money only insofar, as it furthers the interest of his party. But in a social context, he is as good a member of the establishment as any: an ex-Senator and a current Parliament Deputy, an ex-Minister in the Presidential Chancellery, and an ex-Premier. He may not hold a bank account, but why should he, if he owns the whole of Poland. Few people have benefitted more from the transition of 1989 than Jarosław Kaczyński. He owes his career, position and titles to the 3rd Republic, which he hates to the core. So why this war against the establishment? Because, like every populist, he can use it to grab and hold power.
Trump, just like Kaczyński, owes his great notoriety to the media, which he hates to the core. He only accepts them insofar, as they make a good tool in his hands. They provide him with free publicity, but are also freely critical. Being absolutely devoid of self-criticism, he rails against the awful mainstream media at every turn. He simply cannot accept anything, which he cannot control in total, or anyone who fails to serve him.
Jarosław Kaczyński is possessed of an evident media gift, because he has a real personality. It may sound like a mockery, but the camera does love him. Kaczyński provides tv broadcasters with their ratings, gives internet sites their clicks, and guarantees good circulation to the press. He probably knows this well and uses it. But, in parallel to that, just like Trump, Kaczyński is heavily criticised by those media he does not yet have under his full control. And, being of an authoritarian mindset similar to Trump’s, he abhors criticism and, consequently, sincerely loathes independent, normal, so-called mainstream media.
Kaczyński is totally focussed on “Project Kaczyński”, just as Trump is on “Project Trump”. He has a clear goal, but his thinking is clouded by a tendency to paranoid and conspiratorial thinking. Just like Trump, he sees conspiracies and enemies all around. The Republican candidate (or at least a candidate of some of them) has declared of late that the election may be rigged. Meaning: rigged, if he fails. Just like with Kaczyński, who classes elections as honest, meaning won, and dishonest, i.e. lost. Trump is prone to talking nonsense, as when he spoke of thousands of New Jersey Moslems allegedly lauding the 9/11 attacks. His spokeswomen even suggested that they sprung from a Government-initiated conspiracy. But Trump and his team lag far behind Kaczyński, since the whole ideology of PiS is largely based on a conspiratorial foundation myth of the Smolensk attack.
Like Kaczyński, Trump puts himself forward as a champion of the people, but displays a similar deficit of empathy, expressed in his disdain for political opponents, and not just them. Trump thinks that Hillary Clinton ought to wind up in gaol. Is it not what Kaczyński thinks of Tusk? Kaczyński says that people marching against him are “second sort”, spiteful brutes. Trump is capable of treading on the parents of a US Muslim captain killed in Iraq, because they dared to question his candidacy. Kaczyński is likewise capable of spitting on anyone opposing him. This urge is so strong that they both give in to it even against their own obvious interests, which suggests a certain paranoid-narcissistic trait.
Donald Trump is allegedly in great thrall of nuclear weapons. While coached in foreign policy, it is said that he asked several times: “Can’t we just nuke them?” For obvious reasons, the leader of PiS cannot even ask such questions, but he is capable of deploying verbal nukes in relations with our most important partners. Why should he restrain himself?
There is but one fundamental difference between Trump and Kaczyński. In his quest for power, Trump cannot keep quiet, or hide behind his puppets, And this is why he is likely to lose. This is a huge, and regrettable, difference.