domingo, 2 de agosto de 2026

Livro - História do Abastecimento de Água a Lisboa (Luis Leite Pinto)

 


Reflexão - LBC

 

Eis as razões do que se passou em Ceuta, em 20 segundos...



The Spectator - The rise and rise of Australia’s Nigel Farage

 

(personal underlines)

The rise and rise of Australia’s Nigel Farage

For three decades, Australia’s political Establishment has been predicting Pauline Hanson’s demise. But whenever critics tried to administer the kiss of death to the flame-haired firebrand, it somehow functioned as mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

Today her One Nation party is polling at levels once thought unimaginable. In recent polls, it even surpasses support for Australia’s centre-left Labor government and centre-right Liberal-National party opposition. Last month, One Nation won its first lower-house seat. Whatever happens next, Hanson has become one of the most consequential figures in modern Australian politics.

To British readers, Hanson is often described as Australia’s answer to Nigel Farage. The reverse is closer to the truth. Hanson emerged in 1996, two decades before Brexit, long before Donald Trump’s rise, before Reform UK and before the resurgence of nationalist and populist parties across Europe. Australia encountered populism before populism became fashionable.

Hanson’s maiden parliamentary speech that year, in which she said that Australia was in danger of being ‘swamped by Asians’, triggered outrage among metropolitan sophisticates and offended an entire region. The Australian left responded with its customary restraint and moderation by comparing her to Hitler. She even served time in prison on electoral fraud charges that were ultimately overturned on appeal.

To much of educated Australia, Hanson appeared less like a politician than an embarrassing historical artefact. The assumption was Hanson would eventually vanish. I should confess that I was among those who believed she had reached her peak years ago. So were many others. Hanson has spent much of her career proving us wrong.

Why? The answer is not that Australians suddenly became racists or extremists. Nor is it that Hanson was always right. Rather, many of the issues she raised never disappeared. Concerns about mass immigration, housing affordability, national identity, energy security and affordability, and the widening gap between political elites and the general public remained potent long after commentators declared them settled.

For years, much of Australia’s media and political class treated these questions as beyond respectable debate. It was not so much their opinion and her opinion; it was their opinion – and she’s stark raving mad. Hanson wanted to reopen questions that the Establishment considered closed. That helps explain her extraordinary longevity.

The Establishment has often mocked Hanson as a simpleton, a former fish-and-chip shop owner who had somehow wandered into parliament by mistake. Yet her supporters see a profoundly patriotic politician who speaks plainly, appears authentic, and seems less interested in impressing elites than representing voters who feel ignored by them.

In an age of growing distrust toward institutions, authenticity has become a formidable political asset. Hanson and One Nation have benefited from a simple perception shared by many supporters: whatever her faults, Hanson says what she thinks. This also helps explain why repeated attempts to destroy her politically often backfired. Critics attacked Hanson herself rather than addressing the concerns which were driving voters towards her. The more she was denounced as beyond the pale, the more some Australians concluded she must be touching subjects others preferred not to discuss.

Recent events have reinforced that lesson. The landslide defeat of the Voice referendum in 2023 – the proposal that a selective group of Indigenous Australians should be granted a special place in the national parliament – revealed a substantial gap between elite opinion and public opinion. The result demonstrated that Establishment consensus is not always the same thing as popular consensus. The same institutions that expected a comfortable victory for the Voice have repeatedly underestimated the depth of support for Hanson and the causes she represents.

The same dynamic is evident in the immigration debate. Over the course of a generation, large parts of urban and outer-suburban Australia have been transformed by rapid population growth. Many residents worried about housing shortages, congested roads, overstretched hospitals and crowded schools felt their concerns were either ignored or dismissed as prejudice. But they were genuine anxieties, and many voters continue to believe that neither major party is prepared to address them.

The coalition behind One Nation therefore includes not only traditional conservatives who think the Liberal party has lost its way under a succession of wet and weak leaders, but also working-class voters who believe Labor has become preoccupied with identity politics. In that respect, Hanson supporters resemble many of those drawn to Farage, Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. They are willing to disrupt conventional politics not because they know precisely what comes next, but because they have lost faith in what already exists.

None of this means One Nation is destined for government. Under Australia’s preferential voting system, Hanson may never become prime minister. But that may be beside the point. Farage was not even an MP when Britain left the European Union. Political influence is not measured solely by office. Some politicians govern; others make the weather. Hanson belongs firmly in the second category. The more important question is whether Australian politics continues moving onto terrain that Hanson helped define. On immigration, energy policy, cultural identity and distrust of political elites, that process already appears well under way, especially at a time of stagnant living conditions and a productivity drought.

The real surprise is not that Pauline Hanson survived, but how many of the issues she raised now dominate politics across the democratic world.

Desporto - Sumo (Torneio de Julho)

É notável a subida de nível destes últimos torneios! Mesmo com a lesão no pé, conseguiu ganhar depois da finalíssima com o sekiwake Atamifuji e o ozeki Kirishima. 






Classificações antes do torneio de Julho de 2026




The Spectator - Why did Anthony Fauci take the Fifth?

 

(personal underlines)

Reflection - (LBC): Sorry, but I thought there was someone (important, I must say...) that insinuated this, and once again, they ignored him. I can't remember his name...

                                                                 

Why did Anthony Fauci take the Fifth?

anthony fauci
Dr. Anthony Fauci is sworn in during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee hearing on Capitol Hill (Getty)

In his final hours in office, President Joe Biden issued a preemptive, blanket legal pardon for Dr Anthony Fauci, the most visible US health official during the Covid pandemic, for any and all actions he took from 2014 on, the same kind of pardon he granted his son Hunter Biden. Fauci, like Hunter Biden, thus literally rose above the law.

That’s what made yesterday’s decision by Fauci to take the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee so shocking.  

After Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth, chairman Rand Paul told Fauci he would face ‘repercussions’ for refusing to answer questions based on a valid congressional subpoena. Fauci attorney David Schertler then tried to address the committee but was cut off by Senator Paul, who said he was not recognised to speak. Paul then ordered security to remove Fauci’s lawyer from the committee room.

Yesterday, Paul had responded to a reporter’s question about how he would respond to arguments he was trying to put Fauci in a position to perjure himself.

‘There’s no risk to perjury if you tell the truth,’ Paul said. ‘In fact, he can even admit to not telling the truth in the past. He can admit destroying records. He can admit to not adequately presenting both sides of equations, which isn’t really a crime. He can admit to anything. The only thing he can’t do is lie again.’ He stipulated that Fauci had no right to obstruct a congressional inquiry.

But the story is much bigger than that. Fauci was appearing under subpoena to address grave questions of government accountability during the pandemic. In April, a federal grand jury indicted Fauci’s former senior adviser, David Morens, on felony charges for allegedly circumventing public records laws to conceal internal Covid emails.

As proof that Morens may have had something to hide, over the weekend Paul released a trove of pandemic-era diary entries by Fauci that document his thoughts as he dealt with the crisis and marinated in his new celebrity status as ‘America’s Doctor.’ As early as January 2020, the dawn of Covid, Fauci wrote that early infections were ‘not connected to the [Wuhan wet] market’ which he said was an ‘amplifier’ rather than the source.

Fauci then repeatedly rejected the theory that the virus had been engineered in the Chinese government’s Wuhan laboratory, which had been conducting the kind of research that would risk the leak of man-made viruses. In 2021, Fauci testified under oath in the Senate that neither he nor the National Institutes of Health funded that research – only to be contradicted by NIH’s principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak. Perhaps that explains why President Biden granted Fauci a preemptive, blanket pardon, placing him above the law.

Fauci claimed he had nothing to do with school lockdowns, which did great damage to the education of millions of children. ‘I didn’t shut down anything,’ he said on Fox News in 2022. ‘Show me a school that I shut down,’ he said on another occasion. But in his diary, Fauci bragged that he personally convinced top officials in New York City and California – which contain a seventh of the US population – to close their schools.

For six years, Fauci has fended off his critics by deploying slippery answers and arrogant self-regard. He has scoffed at criticism, calling it ‘noise,’ and asserted: ‘They’re really criticising science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.’

But the new scandalous behaviour revealed in the Fauci diaries is that which cuts closest to the vanity, self-importance and unaccountability of DC’s elite media. The diaries raise profound questions about insider power and the dangers of the media not questioning authority.

The 1,141 pages in the diary provide exhaustive detail on how the Beltway media bought into Fauci’s storyline, promoted him and covered up for his mistakes. Fauci clearly loved every minute of the ride: ‘My national and international fame is explosive and really unimaginable. It is not hyperbole to say that today I am the most famous and talked-about person in the country.’

Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks at the III International AIDS Conference Washington, DC, June 1987 (Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty)

Along with fame came the opportunity for Fauci to engage in cosy collaboration with his many media friends. He enjoyed several dinners with CNN anchor Jake Tapper, including a ‘relaxed’ evening at Fauci’s house in October 2020 – just a week after he told Americans to ‘sacrifice’ Thanksgiving that year. Earlier in 2020, Fauci wrote that Tapper had called him after an appearance on CNN: ‘Jake wanted to make sure the interview did not cause me any problems.’

Fauci notes interactions with other journalists he referred to as his ‘media friends.’ ‘Yasmeen Abutaleb [of the Washington Post] has agreed to write a story trying to uncover the source of this organised effort to discredit me,’ Fauci wrote in October 2021. The next day he wrote that Abutaleb was ‘getting very worked up about the fact that she realises now that there is an organised effort to discredit me and she wants to use the investigative reporter capabilities of the Washington Post to try and find out if they can track funding for this effort to the Republican party or to any other organisation that is trying to discredit me. Let us see how this turns out.’

Mark Halperin, a former political director of ABC News who now runs the interactive media platform 2Way, says the diaries reveal ‘the Dominant Media’s years of protection’ of Fauci, despite his chequered track record during previous pandemics such as AIDS and his tendency to offer advice while citing no hard evidence. He questions why, even today, ‘so many of his former defenders continue to coddle and champion him… Have they reckoned with just how badly they got the story wrong?’

Halperin’s response is an emphatic no: ‘Now that the undeniable truth is staring them in the face they’re just saying “I love what the emperor is wearing”… How are you going to restore credibility to my profession for behaving in this crap way?’

The answer is that the media’s reaction to the Fauci diaries shows they are still either shovelling crap or whitewashing the revelations in them. Brian Stelter, CNN’s media critic, dismisses yesterday’s Senate hearing as ‘predictable’ and sniffs the Fauci diaries merely focus on his ‘documenting the objectively wild speed at which a government immunologist became internationally famous.’

There are some dissenting views. John Tierney, a former science columnist for the New York Times, was never impressed by Fauci. He told me ‘he was an amazing manipulator – had reporters eating out of his hand.’ Fauci knew what gullible, ambitious reporters wanted to be fed – analysis that created a sense of crisis and bolstered their own biases. Tierney says Fauci even produced a 2024 memoir that was ‘a masterclass in how to get away with it. For Anthony Fauci, fearmongering was always an excellent career move.’

Now that their Covid superhero has been exposed, Washington’s media enforcers have decided that their best career move is to ignore the furore until it dies down while continuing to discredit Fauci’s critics.

Observador - Ceuta e a esquerda (Miguel Morgado)

 


(sublinhados pessoais)

Ceuta e a esquerda

A esquerda deixou de possuir uma dimensão política do seu pensamento e da sua acção. Cada vez mais, tudo se reduz ao enfileiramento numa vaga ética da semelhança humanitária

As reacções ao desastre de Ceuta deixaram totalmente transparente a posição política que a esquerda europeia ocupa em matéria de imigração. Ceuta foi o caso extremo, o exemplo-limite, que tornou o implícito perfeitamente explícito.

O inefável Pedro Sánchez chamou-lhe “invasão” e “ataque”. No entanto, é questionável que alguém como ele, como os seus ministros e parceiros de coligação, possa descrever aquelas dezenas de milhares de pessoas como “invasores”. É verdade que o raciocínio é mais subtil. Os invasores são, afinal, outros – para o governo espanhol, todos menos Marrocos. São as “máfias”, os Estados Unidos e, para celebrar o anti-semitismo candente na esquerda extrema e na outra assim não tão extrema, Israel. Diz esta tese que as dezenas de milhares de pessoas, na sua esmagadora maioria homens jovens, que se atiraram à água para pôr pé em solo europeu foram apenas carne para canhão, por assim dizer, instrumentos de poderes maléficos. E temos de dizer solo europeu porque, ao contrário do que a mesma esquerda quis fazer crer, ora para pôr em causa a legitimidade geográfica do Estado espanhol no continente africano, ora para produzir cortinas de fumo a propósito das subtilezas do regime jurídico do espaço Schengen, o sentido da migração foi inequívoco.

Mesmo com estas explicações a dificuldade mantém-se. Como é que a mentalidade infantil da esquerda, de que Sánchez é uma manifestação particularmente embaraçosa, pode classificar como “invasão” o que todos vimos acontecer? É que no mundo da esquerda, integralmente governado por palavras de ordem feitas para cantigas de música ligeira ou divisas para as redes sociais, os guias de orientação são coisas como “diz não aos muros que dividem” e “não há pessoas ilegais, apenas sem documentos”. Em Ceuta, os muros abriram-se e caíram. Por que não foi isso motivo de regozijo? Se tivesse sucedido junto do Rio Grande, no sul dos Estados Unidos, o local onde os governos americanos com mais ou menos publicidade vão estendendo um muro, o aplauso seria garantido.

Em Ceuta, durante todas aquelas horas, os muros deixaram de dividir. Devíamos abraçar o resultado, como o fez aquela rapariga que, de inevitável telemóvel na mão, foi chamando os homens que se precipitavam a correr para a cidade de Ceuta. Se não há pessoas ilegais, porquê chamar “invasores” a estas que apareceram em Ceuta, ou sequer tê-las como carne para canhão? Será apenas uma questão de escala e de tempo? Se forem 60 mil (?) em 24 horas, é invasão, mas se forem 48 mil ilegais e em processos fraudulentos ao longo de meses é o “dever humanitário” a funcionar? Se forem encorajados pelas “máfias” é invasão, mas se o forem pela operação conjunta de ONGs “humanitárias” com as ditas “máfias” já corresponde à realização sublime da consciência moral?

A verdade é que, depois de um período fundacional em que a esquerda política republicana se fez justamente guardiã do Estado moderno, os anarquismos e marxismos do final do século XIX, reavivados sob uma forma burguesa mimada, no Maio de 68, introduziram na esquerda um conflito terrível entre a afirmação do Estado e a sua negação como aberração moral. Depois disso, uma longa e gradual deriva de dissolução das instituições da ordem política foi-se tornando cada vez mais apelativa na família das esquerdas democráticas. A estratégia foi ir denunciando o “fardo moral” produzido por cada uma dessas instituições, desde a família até ao Estado – não o Estado “social”, ou o mecanismo geral de socorro previdencial e redistribuição, mas o Estado como pilar da ordem pública.

Apesar de tudo, a queda não foi súbita. Se, nas suas fabulosas meditações em torno da “globalização”, a literatura e a acção da extrema-esquerda pós-soviética se renderiam definitivamente à negação do Estado, a esquerda democrática reinventava-se naquela altura com um renovado apelo à conservação e protecção das estruturas do Estado. O keynesianismo, precioso nessa tarefa de renovação, não deixou de ser um alicerce importante dessa reafirmação, com uma teoria económica global que funcionava ao mesmo tempo como crítica dos delírios neoliberais de um mundo sem fronteiras.

Mas as migrações e a extrema vulnerabilidade à colonização intelectual da extrema-esquerda deram força ao outro pólo da tensão. A esquerda hoje já não acredita no Estado. É pouco relevante que prossiga a sua retórica piedosa de defesa do Estado. Desde que lhe negue um seu pressuposto fundamental e um legado indesmentível da sua formação histórica moderna – as fronteiras fixas, estáveis e guardadas –, as consequências são as da negação pura e simples. Não existe Estado moderno sem fronteiras, tal como não existe Estado político sem a possibilidade de decidir quem é cidadão, quem não é e o procedimento de aquisição dessa cidadania plena – não como algo que seja devido ao resto do mundo, mas como uma deliberação própria da comunidade política.

O horizonte moral em que a esquerda se deixou enredar, e debaixo do qual pretende arrastar o Estado para a dissolução, confessa que as fronteiras são moralmente arbitrárias. Admite, no fundo, que nenhum Estado, e, portanto, nenhum corpo de cidadãos, nem sequer os seus eleitores, pode decidir nada ao arrepio das reivindicações do resto do mundo tal como estas são interpretadas pela esquerda indígena. É que, no resto do mundo, nenhum outro Estado tem esta visão do que são as suas fronteiras e regras de acesso. Daqui decorre a proibição moral de se impor limites à imigração – sejam estes quais forem. Visto de outra maneira: nenhuma imigração é suficiente, nenhum ritmo de entradas, por elevado que seja, pode ser determinado politicamente. Nenhum argumento que sirva para justificar essas restrições tem cabimento moral. Para a esquerda, o seu mandamento moral de radical despolitização verga-nos a todos a esta resignação – independentemente das consequências.

É sem surpresas, portanto, que vemos a esquerda “autêntica” do nosso tempo, ao contrário do que acontecia até há 30 ou 20 anos, a ter de se esconder atrás de formulações vazias que invariavelmente sussurram “nenhum Estado está moralmente autorizado a formular outra política de imigração que não seja a da imigração potencialmente ilimitada”. Freneticamente amarrados a vociferar acusações de xenofobia – e mais recentemente, com uma notável traição aos princípios que fundaram a esquerda política na Europa, de “islamofobia” –, de racismo, de frieza imoral perante os “deveres humanitários”, a esquerda lida assim com quem for que se atravesse na sua corrida para o penhasco. Tudo o que não for a coroação da imigração ilimitada tem evidentemente de ser cognomeado “extrema-direita”, mesmo que o protesto venha de governos socialistas, como o da Dinamarca.

A esquerda deixou de possuir uma dimensão política do seu pensamento e da sua acção. Cada vez mais, tudo se reduz ao enfileiramento numa vaga ética da semelhança humanitária que não dá qualquer espaço às considerações fundamentais da ordem política. Com essa aniquilação de espaço natural, extingue-se também o Estado e o próprio Estado de Direito, em nome do qual, paradoxalmente, tribunais e legisladores se combinam para impossibilitar políticas de imigração realistas. O reino do Direito sem o Estado é uma ficção perigosa; o Estado sem fronteiras, e sem a sua substância política fundamental, está condenado à morte.

Almoço- Escola Alemã

 Almoço em 24.07.2026, na antiga Casa Marítima com João Leite, Manuel Ribeiro e Carlos Medeiros.
















sexta-feira, 31 de julho de 2026

The Spectator- Is the World Cup rigged for Argentina?

 

(personal underlines) 

LBC: and if? Just if?...

Is the World Cup rigged for Argentina?

(Getty Images)

To be on the cusp of their nation’s greatest triumph and see it collapse in ten minutes was too much for many of the Egyptian side that lost 3-2 to Argentina on Tuesday. ‘It is clear that this tournament has been fixed,’ said winger Mostafa Ziko, whose goal was chalked off by the video assistant referee. The Egyptian FA wants the referees banned from the remainder of the tournament. Manager Hossam Hassan suggested it was a Fifa conspiracy ‘to keep the world champion in the competition… Perhaps they wanted Messi to stay in the running.’ Are they right?

The main point of contention was the disallowed Ziko goal that would have put Egypt 2-0 up in the 59th minute. Winger Haissem Hassan received the ball in his own half and weaved through the Argentine defence before squaring it to Ziko, who stabbed it past the keeper. It should have been one of the goals of the tournament, but the VAR referee deemed there had been a foul at the other end of the pitch 17 seconds earlier: an Egyptian defender had accidentally stepped on Lisandro Martínez’s toes, so no goal.

Worse still, Argentina’s winner in the 93rd minute was almost a play-by-play repeat: the ball recovered in their own box, Lautaro Martínez charged forward and crossed it to Enzo Fernández. In the build-up there was a clear foul on Egypt’s star forward Mo Salah – arguably a penalty – but VAR did not budge.

So Twitter investigators and pub pundits lit a conspiracy that already had plenty of kindling. After all, this is the Fifa that fudged Ronaldo’s ban to let him play Portugal’s opening game and folded when Trump leant on them to cancel the suspension of USA striker Folarin Balogun. (Fifa denies that Trump had any sway over the decision.) They added hydration breaks to allow US broadcasters to run extra adverts (worth some $250 million in the US alone and perhaps $1 billion worldwide), raised ticket prices higher than at any previous World Cup, and then stuck their hands into fans’ pockets a second time by taking a 30 per cent cut of any ticket resale.

In the Egypt game, observers said, Argentina received no yellow cards despite committing more fouls than their opponents. Across the tournament, it looked as though referees were going soft on the Argentinians, who received only one booking for every 20 fouls, versus a booking every five fouls for poor Egypt. Is this a sign of the conspiracy? I doubt it, given how rough a metric that is: it doesn’t account for bookings for dissent, or players penalised for taking their shirts off in celebration. Spain and Germany are on 18 and 17 fouls per booking respectively – are they in on it too? Germany were booted out by Paraguay, and Spain have simply been consistently strong throughout. Would 2018 winners France also be looked on kindly, given their star line-up? In the France-Paraguay game the referee was unduly lenient on the Paraguayans, who were kicking and hacking at any player in a blue shirt: he called only 13 fouls against them and gave no bookings. Argentina, like every team, have had a different set of referees officiating each of their games. They can make, and have made, some awful decisions, but a genuine conspiracy would require consistency.

It’s the same with penalties. Critics say Argentina have won more than any other team in recent years, so it must be the referees giving them the upper hand. The problem is that the team still has to score them (Argentina have missed two of their three this tournament), and that Argentina win more penalties because of their style of play: rather than slinging crosses into the box, they play quick, short passes around the edge of the area, inviting more challenges. Argentina have the lowest cross rate of any remaining World Cup team, at about half that of England, Spain and Belgium.

We can blame the referees for shoddy decision-making and the hopeless use of VAR despite some of the Egypt side’s insistence that the tournament is rigged in Argentina’s favour. Coach Hassan said: ‘We looked better than the reigning champions – better in everything.’ That's true for most of the game, but it cannot excuse Egypt’s collapse in the last ten minutes. They were hard done by, but there is no grand conspiracy, as appealing as the story may be.

Livro - Batalha pela paz

 Um retorno a ideias de há muito, ou como se pensava há cinco minutos atrás...


quinta-feira, 30 de julho de 2026

The Spectator - Spain has reinvented football

 

(personal underlines)

LBC - Over 600 years of alliance, and it is the greatest enemy that is idolized...

                                                                                                             

Spain has reinvented football

The team’s triumphs go beyond this World Cup

(Getty)

There is something intimidating about sporting royalty in the stands. At many great clubs, retired legends seem almost gargoyle-like, perched high above the pitch, judging those sent to inherit their legacy. Manchester United have long played beneath the watchful gaze of Sir Alex Ferguson; other clubs have their own ghosts.

Spain’s World Cup triumph offered a different spectacle. As the Spanish greats of the past – from David Villa to Iker Casillas – watched Lamine Yamal, Rodri and co defeat reigning champions Argentina, they resembled something more saintly; a reassuring reminder of Spanish supremacy. It was a far cry from the shaking head of Ronaldo watching yet another Brazilian disappointment or protestations of England’s World Cup alumni. The ease with which one generation gives way to the next is no coincidence. It is one of the defining features of modern Spanish football.

Spain’s  footballing journey did not begin at the start of this tournament when they won their second World Cup nor in 2008 when they won their first of three European championships this century. To understand it, we have to travel back to Barcelona in 1988, when an uncompromising Dutchman arrived with a radically different idea of how football should be played. 

When Johan Cruyff became Barcelona manager, Spanish football was not regarded as the game’s intellectual centre. The national side possessed flashes of brilliance but an enduring reputation for underachievement. Barcelona itself had won only a single European Cup. For 30 years, if you wanted to understand football, you went to Italy to AC Milan, Juventus or Inter. The Italian league Serie A was where tactics evolved and where the world’s greatest players congregated. 

But, as Italian football became burdened by debt during the 1990s, Spain invested in something less glamorous but ultimately more durable: youth development. While Serie A looked increasingly backwards, signing older, high-profile players, Spain’s La Liga began educating the next generation of coaches and footballers. Cruyff built something more ambitious than assembling a successful team. He created a philosophy that would outlive him with coaches like Pep Guardiola carrying the torch. 

Influenced by the Dutch ideals of ‘Total Football’, which emphasises fluid tactics and positions,  Cruyff insisted that technical ability and intelligence mattered more than physical stature. Young players were encouraged to solve problems with the ball rather than without it, to understand space before strength and angles before athleticism. Barcelona’s academy La Masia ceased to be a production line for footballers and became a school of ideas.

The principles spread far beyond Catalonia. Top-tier teams such as Villarreal, Athletic Bilbao, Real Sociedad and Valencia CF invested in technically demanding academies. Meanwhile, Spain’s thriving futsal culture – a scaled-down version of football – taught young players to think quickly in confined spaces, making close control and spatial awareness second nature. By the early 2000s, Spain was dominating the game at club and national level and the rest of the world was trying to follow in their footsteps.

But there were bumps in the road, bumps that risked derailing this football revolution altogether. In September 2006, Spain travelled to Belfast for their Euro qualifying match and suffered a chastening 3–2 defeat to Northern Ireland. Familiar accusations resurfaced that the national team, while talented, were poorly managed. Critics, both inside and outside the country, doubted Spain’s methods and called for a new coach.

Instead, then Spain manager Luis Aragonés doubled down. Rather than reverting to a more direct, physical style, he placed greater faith in the technically gifted players who would soon define an era. The rewards transformed international football. Their victory at Euro 2008 was followed by the World Cup in South Africa and two other European Championships in 2012 and 2024. On the surface it looked like a ‘golden generation’. Perhaps it was never a golden generation at all, but the first generation of a new footballing order. 

The country’s success now far extends that of the national team. Last season, Premier League champions Arsenal were coached by Mikel Arteta, a product of San Sebastián and Barcelona. The Champions League was won by Luis Enrique, the Spanish football manager of Paris Saint Germain. Unai Emery lifted the Europa League trophy with his team Aston Villa. Both Liverpool and Chelsea have recruited Spanish managers this summer in the forms of Andoni Iraola and Xabi Alonso. After dominating the Premier League, Manchester City now have a stand named after Cruyff’s heir, Pep Guardiola.

For all its success, then the Premier League – La Liga’s closest rival at a national level – is very much a Spanish affair. Indeed, Spain’s greatest footballing achievement may not be its silverware but getting the rest of the world to play the game on its terms. The Premier League possesses the TV money and global audience, but increasingly it imports its footballing ideas from Spain. England owns the richest competition on earth; Spain supplies much of the expertise that makes it worth watching.

That perhaps is Spain’s greatest triumph. Trophies can be won by golden generations, but changing the way the rest of the world thinks about football is something altogether rarer. The legends celebrating in the stands in New Jersey on Sunday were not just watching another success but also the philosophy they popularised triumph. 

The Spectator - How London parks turned into velodromes

 

(personal underlines,...silent thoughts)

How London parks turned into velodromes

Cyclists are going nowhere, and they know it

(iStock)

Pity the tufted ducks: Regent’s Park hasn’t been this manic since Donald Trump militarised it in 2018, and his very oedipal Chinooks terrorised the birds. Read about Trump’s father Fred, and you will understand him, and the Chinooks. But Trump left, and the cyclists multiplied.  

I don’t live in London, so I don’t see the mission creep. The last time I was in the rose garden in the Inner Circle it was a weekday afternoon in early spring, and it was empty, doing what it is designed for: peace in a howling city. But that was then. Last Sunday morning the Inner Circle had the sound of approaching war again: of cyclists using it not as an oasis, but a velodrome for athletes who aren’t that good.  Give me the thighs of my dreams so I can sit on you, is their cry. You share an oasis but dominate a velodrome. Regents Park is two circles. They are going nowhere, and they know it. That’s the point. 

This is not about cycling, because there is nothing wrong with cycling. Rather, it is how they cycle: on slender whiny bikes in a pitch hateful to the ear in a costume that says we are better than you – though strong bodies never looked uglier – and much too fast. A woman was killed in the Outer Circle in 2022, and it wasn’t the cyclist’s fault apparently, because there is no speed limit for bikes. He was travelling at 29mph, a speed lap. Riders are encouraged by fitness apps to boast about their speed online: academics say this creates obsessive tendencies. There is a voluntary guideline of 20mph for cyclists – the legal limit for cars in the park – but guidelines are made to be broken. 

When I heard this I thought: it was always going to be this way. An elderly woman, defined in reports as ‘a grandmother’, as if she existed only in reference to others, would be killed by a cyclist near a rose garden, and it would be her fault for existing in his space. Nor is it about exercise – they call it recreation, because they are appalling – because there is nothing wrong with exercise either. But they should be on an exercise bike, or a racetrack. They act like they are: a dog walker was hit in the same spot in 2024. 

Sunday morning is a time for families and lovers. Don’t whine about the rights of the single. You get a council tax discount, and you get to sleep. My near collision was absolutely my fault: she wouldn’t need expensive lawyers to traduce my corpse. I lingered in the road asking my boy if he wanted sugar in his tea from the café. Out she came, racing ghosts I cannot see, screaming, ‘get out the way!’ in the voice of the American liberal who can take no more infringements on her liberty. She was, coincidentally, dressed as a beetle that wants to fly away but lacks the wingspan. If it were me, I would have slowed down or moved into the empty oncoming lane.  But since this is about ownership, not pleasure, she did neither. She rode at me, screaming. She is like the bodyboarders of Sennen Cove – they race into idling paddlers in groups – but at least they stay in the sea.  

I can understand cycling on the Outer Circle. It’s a real roadway with eight sets of traffic lights – the cyclists ignore them – and there’s a good chance you might run over Peter Mandelson. You’d probably get off. (See above). But the Inner Circle was designed for the contemplation of the nightingale’s song. It’s outrageous that tradesmen cannot use the park at weekends, if in their vans – tradesmen have children too, and weekends – but these ghouls can. Of course they are rich: they moan about their £4000 bikes being stolen by gangs, and I smile at this, though I shouldn’t.  

Their defences are absurd. Cars kill more people than cyclists, they say: well, so does Ebola. So would the Martians if they visited Regent’s Park, as they did in The War of the Worlds, and perhaps they could deal with the cyclists. It’s hardly the point. Ban cyclists from the Inner Circle now, and not just because they call it a “0.65-mile loop” and, as such, are unworthy of it.  

The Spectator - Schools out: the dissolution of private education

 

(personal underlines)

Schools out: the dissolution of private education

St Joseph’s College in Reading survived two world wars, the Great Depression and a pandemic. But it could not weather two years under this Labour government. Next month, its 500 pupils will be among thousands across the country who do not return to the schools from which they broke up for the summer holidays. These are the casualties of the government’s decision to impose VAT on private school fees and remove business rate relief – a policy ministers promised would not have such consequences.

We still haven’t seen the full effects of Labour’s recklessness. The true damage will take time to set in. We know that during the financial crisis, parents struggling to pay fees avoided moving their children until they reached a natural break in their education: the end of primary school, GCSEs or a key stage. Governors exhaust every alternative before admitting defeat, pursuing mergers, selling assets and cutting costs in the hope of surviving another year. But the rot has set in, and faster than expected.

Century-old Victorian institutions are closing or morphing into unrecognisable organisations. It will not be long before we are left with a sector transformed: a small number of globally elite schools with fees so high they function only as finishing schools for the rich; parents obtaining certificates proving their child has deficiencies which cannot be accommodated in the state sector; and a handful of religious and eccentric schools able to obtain funding outside of normal fees.

The Department for Education (DfE) initially predicted that 14,000 pupils would leave the private sector by this summer. So far, the figure is 30,000 pupils, at least. Sarah Cunnane, from the Independent Schools Council, describes the rate of closures as ‘very concerning’ and suggests that healthy schools, which ‘would have been open for years to come’ and which were not previously in financial trouble, are at risk.

The changes to VAT and business rate relief did not land in isolation. Schools have also had to absorb the increase in employer national insurance contributions (NICs) and the minimum wage, both introduced in April last year. State schools received additional public funding to offset the higher NIC bill; independent schools did not. For a sector where staffing accounts for the majority of costs, the effect has been severe.

Proponents of charging VAT only want to talk about Eton and Harrow. But Britain’s elite public schools were never going to fall victim to this policy. These schools know they can pass on costs to parents. And if British parents can’t pay, there is no shortage of wealthier international families who will stump up to secure a British education.

Richer schools have also been cushioned by endowments and donations. The regional pattern is revealing: 9.6 per cent of mainstream independent schools in the East Midlands have closed since January last year, compared with 3.9 per cent in London and 3.6 per cent in the south-west.

Girls’ schools are also disproportionately struggling. More than twice as many have closed as boys’ schools. Girls’ schools are often newer and lack historic funds. In an attempt to avoid closure, many single-sex institutions have been forced to pivot to a co-educational model. Cheryl Giovannoni, the chief executive of the Girls’ Day School Trust, warns that these changes risk ‘girls becoming something of an afterthought in the decisions about what is best for them, and how their futures will be defined’.

Durham High was one of the schools that became co-ed shortly after the introduction of VAT, but this was not enough to save it from closure last month. A former member of the board of directors notes that the school wasn’t well endowed, and that it ‘was the plumbers and the sparkies and the scaffolders’ who paid the fees, with a significant number of pupils on assisted places. He speaks of the ‘tremendous pride and admiration’ he had for the staff, who during lockdown were unique ‘among both private and state schools in the area in continuing to deliver the full curriculum’.

Durham High’s fees ranged from £14,475 to £19,323 a year – comparably modest for day education in the region. Parents will struggle to find a similar local offering for their children.

The school was owned by Galaxy Global Education, controlled by Shangqin Gao, a Chinese businesswoman. The group has recently purchased a number of English schools and closed three of them down, including Malvern St James in the West Midlands and Ruthin School in Wales, all with little notice, leaving pupils without a school place and teachers without work.

Labour’s Mary Kelly Foy has accused the company of a land grab. Because private schools are a rapidly declining asset, it may make far more sense from a commercial perspective to buy them and sell off their grounds to developers. Galaxy denies that this was its strategy, claiming that the schools were unable to operate against the backdrop of ‘unprecedented pressures’.

When governors are struggling to make ends meet and reconcile rising costs, they often look to a sale to save the school. More than 30 independent schools have been sold to Chinese investors in the past decade. As more schools battle insolvency, that number is likely to rise. But these buyers are far more ruthless than a governor team made up of parents and community figures. They aren’t interested in a school’s history and may choose closure if the value of an institution’s assets outstrips its profit-making potential.

Private equity funds now also dominate the educational landscape, which may seem strange since the sector is dogged by mounting overheads. But these firms have hit on a way to make money against the backdrop of VAT.

The one growth sector in private education is special needs. This is because children in possession of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), which states they have needs that can only be met in a private school, will have their fees paid in full by the local council, ensuring no fall in pupil numbers. The council can also claim the VAT back. As of February this year, 30 per cent of independent special schools were backed by private equity firms. Roughly a third of these are based outside the UK – in Jersey, Guernsey, the US, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

There is now a strong incentive for families previously paying for education to obtain an EHCP to retain a private school place. The former education secretary Damian Hinds has pointed out that many families are likely to ‘find that they cannot afford the extra 20 per cent, so they will apply for an EHCP and the child could get placed back in the same school, with the entire cost now being picked up by the state’.

There are currently 538,547 pupils with an EHCP, up 11.6 per cent from 2025. While not all of these plans will require councils to pay for private education, many will, and it is conceivable that more parents have sought them to ensure council funding for their children’s education because they themselves cannot afford to pay increased fees.

The DfE claims that there is no scandal in the story of school closures. Its often trotted-out line is that ‘more private schools opened than closed’ since VAT was introduced. This may be technically true, but it misses how the sector is drifting away from its roots. Eighty-four per cent of schools which have closed were mainstream. Many were centuries-old centres of academic excellence, while 89 per cent of openings are special schools.

We have replaced Malory Towers with another exercise in infantilisation, placing large numbers of children in a state of learned helplessness by sending them to institutions specialising in ADHD, dyslexia or ‘emotional difficulties’. Meanwhile, England’s exceptional schools are struggling. The Purcell School, Yehudi Menuhin School and Chet-ham’s School of Music – where, respectively, Jacob Collier, Nicola Benedetti and Thangam Debbonaire, Labour’s former shadow culture secretary, trained – have all been hit by VAT and business rate relief changes.

Specialist music and dance schools are among the most vulnerable to government vandalism. Due to their participation in the DfE’s Music and Dance Scheme, which provides income-determined grants, many of these schools effectively have their fees set by the government. They cannot simply hike them to cover rising costs. They are also among the most expensive schools in the country to run. Students require one-on-one teaching and extensive contact hours. Class sizes are small and boarding is necessary to house so many talented students in one place.

Baroness Keeley has warned that Chetham’s in Manchester is in particular ‘financial distress’ due to ‘rising costs and the introduction of VAT on fees’. The school fears it may be forced to close in the next few years. Ninety per cent of Chetham’s pupils receive financial support. Their parents do not have extra money lying around to finance VAT hikes. It is also one of the only music schools of its calibre in the north of England.

The Royal Ballet School also faces financial threat. The school requires a pianist for each class and regularly imports costumes from Europe for productions. To cut costs would be to undermine the future of English ballet. One of the school’s heads, David Gajadharsingh, has warned that VAT will ‘destroy opportunity’ for young dancers.

While the government has increased grant funding for these schools, with the Treasury paying itself back some of the tax hike, the money isn’t enough to cover rising costs and is only applied to families earning less than £45,000 per annum. The principal of the Purcell School has identified a £4 million shortfall in funding, in part caused by VAT and business relief changes.

Labour told us that it was taxing private schools to fund the recruitment of 6,500 additional teachers. But the number of full-time equivalent teachers in England’s state-funded schools has fallen by 1,900. And the policy might not even be revenue-raising at all. In Scotland, the VAT raid has already cost more than it raised. Every child that moves into the state education sector does so at a cost of £8,850 to the public purse. The policy’s net fiscal gain is slowly being eroded by that cost.

What has Labour actually achieved? It has forced the closure of at least 78 schools, 87 per cent of which weren’t selective. It has robbed 8,429 pupils of their school places. It has forced girls’ schools to abandon the single-sex principles on which they were founded. Where we once had Victorian institutions, we will now have Chinese-owned schools vulnerable to asset stripping, and private equity-backed special schools sucking at the taxpayer’s teat.

The policy has made Britain one of only two countries in the world to tax children’s education like a consumer service. It is also one of the only times that the government has removed tax relief from a whole class of charities -– paving the way for future policy. If the government doesn’t like what your charity provides, it is now free to remove relief and with it your ability to function.

If ministers wanted to raise revenue, why did they bring in VAT changes in the middle of a school year, with just five months’ warning? Would it not have made more sense to allow private schools to prepare for lost revenue? And why did it bring down the second blow of business-rate relief removal three months later?

None of this should surprise us, though. Bridget Phillipson, the former education secretary, has said she is ‘not the only spiteful class warrior out there’ and showed off T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan. Lucy Powell, the recently appointed Education Secretary, was waging a war on private education long before she got the job. In 2016 she opposed an Independent Schools Council proposal to introduce 10,000 free private school places at the same cost to the government of sending a child to state school. She told the Conservatives to stop ‘fixating on independent and grammar schools as silver bullets to school improvement’.

Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour wanted to abolish private schools. Now it might not even need to bother. A sector too depleted to offer bursaries, unable to train the next generation of musicians and dancers and increasingly dependent on foreign capital may simply cease to exist in the form Britain has known for generations.

Cartoon - Jim Unger Herman