Cabinet

Cabinet (pronounced kab-uh-nit)

(1) A piece of furniture with shelves, drawers etc, for holding or displaying items; a wall cupboard used for storage, as of kitchen utensils or toilet articles; a variety of fixed or movable receptacles for storing stuff.  Historic origin of the trade cabinetmaker (vis-à-vis carpenter) was that cabinets tended to require finer, more precise work.

(2) In the era of big-box televisions and LP records, a piece of furniture containing a turntable or television, usually standing on the floor and often including storage for twelve-inch vinyl records.

(3) An elected or appointed council advising a president, sovereign etc, especially the group of ministers or executives responsible for the government of a nation (often initial capital letter); In the US, an appointed advisory body to the president, consisting of the heads of the (currently) fifteen executive departments of the federal government (often initial capital letter).

(4) A small case with compartments for valuables or other small objects; a small chamber or booth for special use; a private room (obsolete); a room set aside for the exhibition of small works of art or objets d'art (historic and technical use only).

(5) A dry white wine produced in Germany from fully matured grapes without the addition of extra sugar; also called cabinet wine.

(6) A milk shake made with ice cream (mostly used in Rhode Island and southern Massachusetts, US).

(7) In architecture, a type of drafting, designating a method of projection (cabinet projection) in which a three-dimensional object is represented by a drawing (cabinet drawing) having all vertical and horizontal lines drawn to exact scale, with oblique lines reduced to about half scale so as to offset the appearance of distortion.

(8) In printing, a standard paper size, 6×4 inches (150×100mm) or 6½ x 4¼ inches (165×105mm), used for mounting photographs.

(9) In computing, an often compressed file, typically used in the distribution of installation software.  Originally, on compact discs (CD), they emulated the earlier distribution media of floppy diskettes.

1540–1550: The construct was cabin + -et.  From the Middle English cabinet (secret storehouse, treasure chamber; case for valuables), from the Middle French cabinet (small room), diminutive of the Old French cabane (cabin) or cabine (hut, room on a ship) of uncertain origin, but thought perhaps influenced by (or more likely from) the Italian gabinetto (toilet) (masculine, plural gabinetti), diminutive of gabbia, from the Latin cavea (stall, stoop, cage, den for animals).

The original meaning in English was "case for safe-keeping" (of papers, liquor, etc.), gradually shading to mean an actual static piece of furniture which fulfils the same function.  The sense of "a private room where advisers meet" emerged circa 1600 and from that is derived the modern meaning in a political context: "an executive council", a use noted first in the 1640s and thought short for “cabinet council” a phrase in use since the 1620s.  From that it evolved from “the place or room in which the group meets” to mean the group itself.  From the 1670s, it also meant "building or part of a building set aside for the conservation and study of natural specimens, art, antiquities etc."  The suffix –et was from the Middle English -et, from the Old French –et & its feminine variant -ette, from the Late Latin -ittus (and the other gender forms -itta & -ittum).  It was used to form diminutives, loosely construed.

Cabinet government

The cabinet in the sense of an executive body comprising some or all the ministers of a government was so named because, in England, their meetings with the monarch were conducted in a cabinet (in the sense of a small room), the first recorded reference to the institution being Francis Bacon’s mention of a “Cabinet council” in 1605.  Charles I attended "Cabinet Councils" from his accession in 1625 although it wasn’t until 1644 the body first described itself as a "cabinet".  A recognizably modern cabinet system, necessitated by the demands of war, was created between 1916-1918 by UK Prime Minister David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1945) who established both a cabinet office and secretariat, this remaining the standard Westminster model, familiar in Australia as the Department of Prime-Minister & Cabinet (PM&C).  The modern slang, “kitchen cabinet” is a smaller group, not always a sub-set exclusively of the cabinet proper, which is ad-hoc and usually the creature of a prime-minister.  Caution needs to be taken also when reading historic documents.  Frederick the Great's father, Frederick William I (1688–1740) (King of Prussia & Elector of Brandenburg 1713-1740), described his system of administration as cabinet government (kabinettsregierung) but his rule was exclusive and autocratic and by “cabinet” he meant that all decisions emanated from the royal closet.  Frederick the Great (Frederick II (1712–1786) (King of Prussian 1740-1786)), no stranger to the closet, followed his father’s example.

Even where a cabinet in the modern sense does exist, cabinet government is an organic process and cannot always be understood by analyzing its structure; the mere existence of a cabinet not of necessity creating government by cabinet.  This is especially true of US governments where the influence of its appointed cabinet varies between and even within administrations but the spectrum exists also in Westminster-style arrangements.  Indeed, in both Australia and the UK, since the trend of “presidential” prime ministers became prevalent in the late post-war years, both parliaments and cabinets are sometimes marginalized, the former by the exercise of executive authority, the latter by the increasing role of advisors and the formation of “kitchen cabinets”.

Cabinet room, Reich Chancellery, Berlin, 1938.

An extreme example was the Third Reich’s cabinet (Die Reichsregierung (originally Reich Cabinet of National Salvation)) which existed between 1933-1945, the Nazis inheriting the cabinet structure from the Weimar Republic (1918-1933).  It wasn’t until the Nuremberg trial when the indictment included the Reich Cabinet as a criminal organization that it became understood the body had met only sporadically after 1934, last gathering on 5 February 1938; Hitler was a dictator who had no taste for cabinet government.  The judges thus held that no declaration of criminality should be made with respect to the Reich Cabinet because (1) after 1931 it had ceased to act as a group or organization and (2) because it comprised so few people they should, where appropriate, be tried as individuals.

Interestingly, despite not having met since 1938, as a bureaucratic institution, the establishments of the offices attached to the cabinet grew greatly after 1938.  In fairness, the demands of an administration in wartime are greater: Winston Churchill (1975-1965; UK prime minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) noted with some satisfaction the prime-minister's private office maintained a staff of five when he arrived at Downing Street in 1940 and had grown to over five-hundred at the time of his (un-expected) departure in 1945.  Even the five he found on arrival existed only because of the establishment by David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1945) in 1917 of a small staff which no prime-minister had enjoyed since 1841 when Sir Robert Peel (1788–1850; UK prime-minister 1834–1835 & 1841–1846), upon becoming prime minister for a second time, delegated day-to-day oversight of the Treasury to the newly created post of chancellor of the exchequer.  In 1841, the prime-minister had left behind the office and administrative infrastructure of the treasury.  The residue of the old arrangement is that prime-ministers to this day, despite the structural reality, formerly are styled "Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury".

The authoritative Into the Gloss deconstructs Lindsay Lohan's bathroom cabinet.

Solidarity

Solidarity (pronounced sol-i-dar-i-tee)

(1) A state or feeling of union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples etc.

(2) A community of feelings, purposes etc; a unity of interests.

(3) In the Westminster political system, as cabinet solidarity, a principle in representative & responsible government whereby all members of the cabinet are required either publicly to support all decisions of cabinet or resign from the body.

(4) In inter-personal relations, a willingness to provide support of various kinds when another person is in need.

(5) A communist era Polish organization of independent trade unions founded in 1980 (solidarność (pronounced saw-lee-dahr-nawshch) in the Polish)).  It was in 1982 outlawed by the government of Poland before being made lawful and going on to form the basis of the non-communist government in 1989.

1829: The construct was the English solidary +‎ -ity, from the French solidarité (solidarity; communion of interests and responsibilities, mutual responsibility), from solidaire (characterized by solidarity), from the Latin solidum (whole sum), neuter of solidus (solid).  The French solidarité was coined by and first appeared in the Encyclopédie (1765) and was from solidaire (interdependent, complete, entire) from solide.  Capitalized, it was ultimately from the French form the independent trade union movement in Poland gained its name.  The –ity suffix was from the French -ité, from the Middle French -ité, from the Old French –ete & -eteit (-ity), from the Latin -itātem, from -itās, from the primitive Indo-European suffix –it.  It was cognate with the Gothic –iþa (-th), the Old High German -ida (-th) and the Old English -þo, -þu & -þ (-th).  It was used to form nouns from adjectives (especially abstract nouns), thus most often associated with nouns referring to the state, property, or quality of conforming to the adjective's description.  Solidarity is a noun, solid is a noun, adjective & adverb and solidarize & solidary are verbs; the noun, plural is solidarities.

Flag of Solidarność.

The Solidarity labor union was formed in Poland in September 1980 and was independent of both the state and the Polish Communist party.  Under the leadership of dockyard electrician Lech Wałęsa (b 1943; Polish dissident trade union leader, President of Poland 1990-1995), it came into existence at a time when the communist authorities in both Warsaw and Moscow had become more reticent in their internal suppression and by the early 1980s its membership was in the millions.  Eventually banned by the government in 1982, as an underground movement it continued to pursue the need for industrial and democratic reform and was a factor in the fall of communism in Poland.  Although Wałęsa won both the Nobel Peace prize (1983) and the presidency of his country, (1990-1995), by the end of the century, Solidarity’s historic moment had passed.

Looking their best: Arthur Sinodinos presenting to President Trump his credentials as Australia's ambassador to the US, the White House, Washington DC, February 2020.

In Australia, royal commissions are public investigations, established by but independent of government.  Not a court, royal commissions are created to enquire into matters of importance and, within their terms of reference, have broad powers to conduct public & in camera hearings and can call witnesses, compelling them (under oath) to provide testimony and they deliver recommendations to government about what should be done, consequent upon their findings.  These can include recommendations for legislative or administrative changes and the prosecution of institutions or individuals and they’re of great interest because they appear to be the only institution (at least theoretically) able to compel a politician to tell the truth.  Even that power is limited though because when appearing before royal commissions, politicians seem especially prone to suffering an onset of Sinodinos syndrome, a distressing condition which compels witnesses frequently to utter phrases like “I can’t remember”, “I don’t recall”, “not in my recollection” etc.  The condition is named after Arthur Sinodinos (b 1957; Australian Liberal Party functionary; senator for New South Wales 2011-2019) who, according to legal legend, while being questioned by an enquiry, set a record for the frequency with which the distressing condition manifested.  Happily, Mr Sinodinos' symptoms weren't thought serious by the Liberal Party government which in early 2020 appointed him Australia's ambassador to the United States. 

Looking his best: Eight photographs of Stuart Robert.

A royal commission is currently enquiring into matters associated with the “robodebt” affair which was an attempt by the previous government to use unlawful methods to calculate what it alleged were debts to the Commonwealth, owed by some who had in the past been in receipt of some sort of benefit, pension or welfare payment.  The commission is, inter alia, seeking to work out the usual “who knew what when” in relation to the unlawful conduct and so far, witnesses have provided contradictory evidence so it will be a matter for the commission to decide which sworn statements seem most compelling.  The appearance of one of the ministers responsible for robodebt, Stuart Robert (b 1970; minister in various portfolios in National-Liberal Party coalition governments 2013-2022) was anticipated more eagerly than most and he didn’t disappoint anyone hoping to see the odd symptom of Sinodinos syndrome, some of his answers among the contradictory responses through which the commission will have to sift.  If need be, the commissioner can recall Mr Robert if any clarifications are needed and there will be some looking forward to that.

Of interest also were Mr Robert’s thoughts on what is meant by “cabinet solidarity” which in the Westminster political system is a one of the principles of representative & responsible government whereby all members of the cabinet are required publicly to support all decisions of cabinet or else resign from the body.  The matter of cabinet solidarity arose after Mr Robert admitted to the commissioner that he publicly defended robodebt despite his own “personal misgivings” and further admitted that during 2019 he made several comments on the scheme he personally believed were false.

Asked several times by the commissioner why he had made comments which he believed at the time were false, Mr Robert told the commissioner he had done so because he was “bound by cabinet solidarity” and “as a dutiful cabinet minister…that’s what we do”.  When the commissioner asked if this meant he was bound by cabinet solidarity to “misrepresent things to the Australian public?”, he replied he wouldn’t “put it that way”.  It seems a generous interpretation to suggest Mr Robert may “misunderstand” what “cabinet solidarity” means but it may be with that degree of delicacy the commissioner chooses to comment on the matter in her final report.  What “cabinet solidarity” really means is that members of the cabinet are required publicly to defend the decision of cabinet even if they disagree with them.  If the disagreement is to an individual a matter of such significance they feel compelled publicly to oppose the decision, then they must resign from cabinet to be free to do so.  It has nothing to do with providing some cloak of cover to enable a cabinet minister to make statements representing something he believes to be false as truth and the system as it’s operated in Australia is actually quite flexible.  Some years ago it was arranged for a minister to resign from cabinet yet remain a minister in the “outer ministry”.  That trick enabled (1) the decision to stand, (2) the minister to keep a higher salary and lots of perks and (3) the “resignation” to be spun as a matter of principle although it was just a way to try to minimize the loss of votes in a particular electorate.

Looking her best: Lindsay Lohan with ankle braclet.

In July 2010, US Customs and Border Protection officers stationed on the Canadian border reported an ankle surveillance bracelet was being worn by Eugene Todie (b 1981) who was being questioned after attempting to re-enter the US using someone else's passport.  The report revealed Mr Todie claimed a friend in the probation service had given him the monitor, pursuant to his request for a way he could “show solidarity” with Lindsay Lohan, then wearing a court-ordered alcohol monitor on her ankle.  Record checks showed Mr Todie, a resident of Buffalo, New York, was on probation for criminal contempt, had surrendered his own passport after being banned from leaving the US and was wearing the bracelet by court order.  Mr Todie was remanded in custody and later appeared in Federal Court on charges including misuse of a passport.

Concord & Concorde

Concord or Concorde (pronounced kon-kawrd)

(1) Agreement between persons, groups, nations, etc.; concurrence in attitudes, feelings, etc; unanimity; accord; agreement between things; mutual fitness; harmony.

(2) In formal grammar, a technical rule about the agreement of words with one another (case, gender, number or person).

(3) A treaty; compact; covenant.

(4) In music, a stable, harmonious combination of tones; a chord requiring no resolution.

(5) As concordat, under Roman-Catholic canon law, a convention between the Holy See and a sovereign state that defines the relationship between the Church and the state in matters that concern both.

(6) In law, an agreement between the parties regarding land title in reference to the manner in which it should pass, being an acknowledgment that the land in question belonged to the complainant (obsolete).

(7) A popular name for locality, commercial operations and products such as ships, cars etc.

(8) In horticulture, a variety of sweet American grape, named circa 1853 after Concord, Massachusetts, where the variety was developed.

1250-1300: From the Middle English and twelfth century Old French concorde (harmony, agreement, treaty) & concorder, from the Latin concordare & concordia, (harmonious), from concors (of the same mine; being in agreement with) (genitive concordis (of the same mind, literally “hearts together”)).  The construct was an assimilated form of com (con-) (with; together) + cor (genitive cordis (heart) from the primitive Indo-European root kerd (heart)).  The "a compact or agreement" in the sense of something formal (usually in writing) dates from the late fifteenth century, an extension of use from the late fourteenth century transitive verb which carried the sense "reconcile, bring into harmony".  From circa 1400 it had been understood to mean "agree, cooperate, thus a transfer of sense from the Old French & Latin forms.  Concorde was the French spelling which eventually was adopted also by the British for the supersonic airliner after some years of linguistic squabble.  Concord is a noun & verb, concordance & concordat are nouns, concorded & concording are verbs and concordial & concordant are adjectives; the noun plural is concords.

The Concorde and other SSTs

Promotional rendering of Concorde in British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) livery.  BOAC was the UK's national carrier between 1940-1974 when merged with British European Airways (BEA) to form British Airways (BA).

Concorde was an Anglo-French supersonic airliner that first flew in 1969 and operated commercially between 1976-2003.  It had a maximum speed over twice the speed of sound (Mach 2.04; 1,354 mph (2,180 km/h)) and seated 92-128 passengers.  Man breaking the sound barrier actually wasn’t modern; the cracking of a whip, known for thousands of years, is the tip passing through the sound barrier and engineers were well aware of the problems caused by propellers travelling that fast but it wasn’t until 1947 that a manned aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in controlled flight (although it had been achieved in deep dives though not without structural damage).  The military were of course immediately interested but so were those who built commercial airliners, intrigued at the notion of transporting passengers at supersonic speed, effectively shrinking the planet.  By the late 1950s, still recovering from the damage and costs of two world wars, France and the UK were never going to be in a position to be major players in the space-race which would play-out between the US and USSR but civil aviation did offer possibilities for both nations to return to the forefront of the industry.  France, in the early days of flight had been the preeminent power (a legacy of that being words like fuselage and aileron) and UK almost gained an early lead in passenger jets but the debacle of the de Havilland Comet (1949) had seen the Boeing 707 (1957) assume dominance.  The supersonic race was thought to be the next horizon and the UK’s Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) was in 1956 commissioned with the development of a Supersonic Transport (SST) for commercial use.

Concordes exist in a number of flight simulator programs; this is Colimata's Concorde v1.10 in BA livery.

The committee’s early research soon established it was going to be an expensive undertaking so the UK sought partners; the US declined but in 1962 the UK and France signed the Anglo-French Concorde agreement, a framework for cooperation in the building of the one SST.  The choice of name actually came some months after the engineering concord was signed, the manufacturers submitting to the UK cabinet the names Concord and Concorde, it being thought desirable to have something which sounded and meant the same in both languages (the French had already agreed it shouldn’t be called the Super-Caravelle the project name for a smaller SST on which some work had been done in 1960).  The other suggestions put to cabinet were Alliance or Europa.  In the cabinet discussions in London, Alliance was thought to be "too military" and Europa offended those Tories who still hankered for the "splendid isolation" which had been the British view on European matters in the previous century.  Even in the nineteenth century age of Pax Britannica splendid isolation had been somewhat illusory but in the Tory Party the words still exerted a powerful pull.  

The French-built Concorde 001's roll-out, Toulouse Blagnac airport, 11 December 1967.

There is some dispute about whether the cabinet ever formally agreed to use the French spelling but, like much in English-French relations over the centuries, the entente proved not always cordial and the name was officially changed to Concord by UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (later First Earl Stockton, 1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) in response to him feeling slighted by Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970; President of France 1958-1969) when Le President vetoed the UK’s application to join the European Economic Community (the EEC which evolved into the present Day EU of which the UK was a member between 1973-2020).  However, the Labour party won office in the 1964 general election and by the time of the roll-out in Toulouse in 1967, the UK’s Minister for Technology, Tony Benn (Anthony Wedgwood Benn, 1925–2014, formerly the second Viscount Stansgate) announced he was changing the spelling back to Concorde.  There were not many eurosceptics in the (old) Labour Party back then.

Concorde taking off, 1973 Paris Air Show, the doomed Tupolev Tu-144 in the foreground.

The engineering challenges were overcome and in 1969, some months before the moon landing, Concorde made its maiden flight and, in 1973, a successful demonstration flight was performed at the same Paris air show at which its Soviet competitor Tupolev Tu-144 crashed.  Impressed, more than a dozen airlines placed orders but within months of the Paris show, the first oil shock hit and the world entered a severe recession; the long post-war boom was over.  A quadrupling in the oil price was quite a blow for a machine which burned 20% more fuel per mile than a Boeing 747 yet typically carried only a hundred passengers whereas the Jumbo could be configured for between four and five hundred.  That might still have been viable had have oil prices remained low and a mass-market existed of people willing to pay a premium but with jet fuel suddenly expensive and the world in recession, doubts existed and most orders were immediately cancelled.

Concorde 002 on public display at BAC's (British Aircraft Corporation) airfield, Filton, Bristol, site of its construction.

Eventually, only twenty were built, operated only by BOAC (BEA/BA) and Air France, early hopes of mass-production never materialized; while orders were taken for over a hundred with dozens more optioned, the contracts were soon cancelled.  By 1976 only four nations remained as prospective buyers: Britain, France, China, and Iran; the latter two never took up their orders and by the time Concorde entered service, the US had cancelled their supersonic project and the Soviet programme was soon to follow.  Even without the oil shocks of the 1970s and the more compelling economics of wide-bodied airliners like the Boeing 747, there were problems, the noise of the sonic boom as the speed of sound was exceeded meaning it was impossible to secure agreement for it to operate over land at supersonic speed.  Accordingly, most of its time was spent overflying the Atlantic and Pacific and BA and Air France sometimes made profit from Concorde only because the British and French governments wrote off the development costs.  Concorde was an extraordinary technical achievement but existed only because the post-war years in the UK and France were characterised by national projects undertaken by nationalised industries.  Under orthodox modern (post Reagan cum Thatcher) economics, such a thing could never happen. 

Concorde F-BTSC (Air France Flight 4590), Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris, France, 25 July 2000.

On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590, bound for New York, crashed on take-off out of Paris, killing all 109 on board and a further four on the ground. It was the only fatal accident involving Concorde, the cause determined to be debris on the runway which entered an engine, causing catastrophic damage.  In April 2003, both Air France and British Airways announced that they would retire Concorde later that year citing low passenger numbers following the crash, the slump in air travel following the 9/11 attacks and rising maintenance costs.

Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap (1998)

Fictional works are usually constructed cognizant of physical reality and technological innovations have always influenced what's possible in plot-lines.  The cell phone for example offered many possibilities but also rendered some situations either impossible or improbable (although Hollywood has sometimes found either of those no obstacle in a screenplay).  The retirement of Concorde also had to be noted.  Not only had it long been used as a symbol of wealth but there was also the speed so plot-lines which included the relativities of the duration of commercial supersonic versus subsonic trans-Atlantic travel were suddenly no loner possible.  Lindsay Lohan's line in The Parent Trap (1998) since 2003 (and for the foreseeable future) is a "stranded relic" of the Concorde era.     

Tupolev Tu-144 (NATO reporting name: Charger).

The Tu-144 was the USSR’s SST and it was the first to fly, its maiden flight in 1968 some months before Concorde and sixteen were built.  It was also usually ahead of the Anglo-French development, attaining supersonic speed twelve weeks earlier and entering commercial service in 1975 but safety and reliability concerns doomed the project and its reputation never recovered from the 1973 crash.  The Soviet carrier Aeroflot introduced a regular Moscow-Almaty service but only a few dozen flights were ever completed, the Tu-144 withdrawn after a second crash in 1978 after which it was used only for cargo until 1983 when the remaining fleet was grounded.  It was later used to train Soviet cosmonauts and had a curious post-cold war career when chartered by NASA for high-altitude research.  The final flight was in 1999.

Boeing 2707.

While perfecting supersonic military aircraft during the early 1950s, Americans had explored the idea of SSTs as passenger aircraft and had concluded that while it was technically possible, in economic terms such a thing could never be made to work and that four-engined jets like the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC8 were the future of commercial aviation.  However, the announcement of the development of Concorde and the Soviet SST stirred the Kennedy White House into funding what was essentially a vanity project proving the technical superiority of US science and engineering.  Boeing won the competition to design an SST and, despite also working on the 747 and the space programme, it gained a high priority and the 2707 was projected to be the biggest, fastest and most advanced of all the SSTs, seating up to three-hundred, cruising at Mach 3 and configured with a swing-wing.  Cost, complexity and weight doomed that last feature and the design was revised to use a conventional delta shape.  But, however advanced US engineering and science might have been, US accountancy was better still and what was clearly an financially unviable programme was in 1971 cancelled even before the two prototypes had been completed.

Lockheed L-2000.

Lockheed also entered the government-funded competition to design a US SST.  Similar to the Boeing concept in size, speed and duration, it eschewed the swing-wing because, despite the aerodynamic advantages, the engineers concluded what Boeing would eventually admit: that the weight, cost and complexity acceptable in military airframes, couldn’t be justified in a civilian aircraft.  As the military-industrial complex well knew, the Pentagon was always more sanguine about spending other people's money (OPM) than those people were about parting with their own.  Lockheed instead used a slightly different compromise: the compound delta.  After the competition, Boeing and Lockheed were both selected to continue to the prototype stage but in 1966 Boeing’s swing-wing design was preferred because its performance was in most aspects superior and it was quieter; that it was going to be more expensive to produce wasn’t enough to sway the government, things being different in the 1960s.  Reality finally bit in 1971.

Depiction of a Boom Overture in United Airlines livery.

In mid-2021 US carrier United Airlines (UA) announced plans to acquire a fleet of fifteen new supersonic airliners which they expected to be in service by 2029.  It wasn’t clear from the press release what was the most ambitious aspect of the programme: (1) that Colorado-based Boom (which at the time had not achieved supersonic flight), would be able by 2029 to produce even one machine certified by regulatory authorities for use in commercial aviation, (2) that the aircraft would be delivered at close to the budgeted US$200 million unit cost, (3) that what United describe as “improvements in aircraft design since Concorde” will eliminate, reduce or mitigate (all three have at various times been suggested) the effects of the sonic boom, (4) that it won’t be “any louder than other modern passenger jets while taking off, flying over land and landing”, (5) that sufficient passengers will be prepared to pay a premium to fly at Mach 1.7 in a new and unproven airframe built by a company with no record in the industry or that (6) Greta Thunberg (b 2003) will believe Boom which says Overture will operate as a "net-zero carbon aircraft".

Looking sceptical: Greta Thunberg.

The suggestion was the Overture will run on "posh biodiesel", made from anything from waste cooking fat to specially grown high-energy crops although whether this industry can by 2029 be scaled-up to produce what will be required to service enough of the aviation industry to make either project viable isn’t known.  Still, if not, Boom claimed "power-to-liquid" processes by which renewable energy such as solar or wind power is used to produce liquid fuel will make up any shortfall.  Boom does seem a heroic operation: they expect the Overture to be profitable for airlines even if tickets are sold for the same price as a standard business-class ticket.  One way or another, the flight-path (figuratively and literally) of the Boom Overture follows is going to become a standard case-study in university departments although whether that's in marketing, engineering or accountancy might depend matters beyond Boom's control.

Boom XB-1 in subsonic flight.

Boom’s progress can’t however be denied because on 10 February, 2025, its XB-1 “proof of concept” test platform accomplished what orthodox physics once deemed impossible.  On that day if flew over California’s Mojave Desert at speeds beyond the sound barrier without generating a sonic boom, the announcement surprising some sceptics but doing little to quell the doubts among analysts unable to build models which show a sustained profitable life for the project.  What Boom did with the XB-1 was use an implementation of “Mach cut-off” technology which exploits atmospheric conditions by manipulation, redirecting shock waves upward rather than toward the ground.  This is achieved by operating the airframe in a certain four-dimensional envelope (a window created by specific atmospheric conditions within a certain height range up to a certain speed).  Flying within these parameters, the airframe minimizes the unwanted effects of pressure waves, dispersing them without forming the concentrated pressure front that creates the dreaded sonic booms.  Whatever the sceptical economic modelers may conclude, it was an impressive display of Boom’s technology and engineering with the ground-level impact eliminated, at least in the ideal, controlled conditions of a test flight.

Scripps Climate Physics explains Mach Cut-Off.

What the economists noted was the XB-1 was able to achieve the much vaunted “silent-supersonic” at around 1,200 km/h (750 mph) and the math indicates the means to implement Mach cut-off when travelling faster (certainly the 2,100 km/h (1300 mph; Mach 1.7) which apparently remains Boom’s target) doesn’t yet exist, even at the level of theory.  On land, sea or air, for centuries what has determined commercial viability is the speed-cost trade-off and notional profitability was for at least some of Concorde’s years of operation achieved because it offered a quicker trans-Atlantic flight-time (typically the Concorde at Mach 2.04 (1,350 mph, 2,180 km/h) would take 3 hours 30 minutes while at Mach 0.85 (565 mph, 910 km/h), a Boeing 747 would need 7-8 hours).  In truth that profitability was a fudge subsidized by taxpayers (a remarkably common phenomenon in modern capitalism) because the French & British governments “wrote off” the development costs (some Stg £1.3 billion by the late 1970s at a time when a billion pounds was still a lot of money and even that may have been a deliberate under-estimate to conceal the true cost which has been estimated (in 2023 Sterling value terms) as high as Stg£21 billion).

Boom XB-1 taking off.

Rich customers or those with tickets paid for by OPM (other people’s money) were prepared to pay the significant premium charged for a seat on Concorde just to avoid sitting an additional 4-5 hours on a wide-bodied subsonic aircraft and that’s the market Boom is interested in for a trans-continental (New York City (NYC) to Los Angeles (LA)) US service.  Subsonic flight times on the NYC-LA route are typically 5-6 hours while Boom will be able to achieve that in under two hours if their silent subsonic plans can be realized; that would mean the road transport components of a trip elements to and from the NYC & LA airports could be longer than the time in the air.  If able to offer a 3-4 hour reduction in NYC-LA travel time, genuinely that’s a marketing advantage but one which can be leveraged only if there are enough customers willing (with the required frequency) to spend somebody’s money to fill the seats of UA’s 15 silentsonics.  If, as Boom once indicated to venture capitalists (VC) and others (JAL (Japan Airlines has reportedly invested US$10 million), the tickets on the NYC-LA route would retail at around the subsonic business-class level, then few doubt their model will work but it remains to be seen whether what’s necessary can be achieved (1) by 2029 or (2) ever.  Hopefully, Boom does succeed so delta-winged supersonics can make a (quieter) return to the skies though it’ll be a shame if the marketing department insisted on changing the corporate name to something like “Boomless”, “No Boom”, “Boom-Free” or whatever.  “Boom” is a really good name for an aviation outfit has some history in the field, “Boom” the nickname of Marshal of the Royal Air Force Hugh Trenchard (First Viscount Trenchard, 1873–1956) who was instrumental in the formation of Britain’s RAF (Royal Air Force) although he gained the moniker because of the tone of his voice rather than anything to do with fluid dynamics.

Condign

Condign (pronounced kuhn-dahyn)

(1) Well-deserved; fitting; suitable; appropriate; adequate (usually now of punishments).

(2) As condign merit (meritum de condign), a concept in Roman Catholic theology signifying a goodness that has been bestowed because of the actions of that person

(3) As “Project Condign”, a (now de-classified) top-secret study into UFOs (unidentified flying objects, known also as UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon)) undertaken by the UK government's Defence Intelligence Staff between 1997-2000.

1375–1425: From the late Middle English condign, & condigne (well-deserved, merited) from the Anglo-French, from the Old French condign (deserved, appropriate, equal in wealth), from the Latin condignus (wholly worthy), the construct being con- + dignus (worthy; dignity), from the primitive from Indo-European root dek- (to take, accept).  .  The Latin con- was from the Proto-Italic kom- and was related to the preposition cum (with).  In Latin, the prefix was used in compounds (1) to indicate a being or bringing together of several objects and (2) to indicate the completeness, perfecting of any act, and thus gives intensity to the signification of the simple word.  It's believed the UK's MoD (Ministry of Defence) chose “Project Condign” as the name for its enquiry into UFOs (1) because (1) the military like code names which provide no obvious clue about the nature of the matter(s) involved and (2) in the abstract, it conveyed the notion the investigation would provide a measured, proportionate, and sober assessment of the issue (ie a response commensurate with the evidence, not an endorsement of unsubstantiated speculation or explanations delving into the extra-terrestrial or supernatural).  Condign is an adjective, condignity & condignness are nouns and condignly is an adverb; the noun plural is condignities.

In Middle English, condign was used of rewards as well as punishment, censure etc, but by circa 1700 it had come to be applied almost exclusively of punishments, usually in the sense of “deservedly severe”.  Thus used approvingly, the adjectival comparative was “more condign”, the “superlative “most condign”.  That means the synonyms included “fitting”, “appropriate”, “deserved”, “just”, “merited” etc with the antonyms being “excessive”, “inappropriate” & “undeserved”, the latter set expressed by the negative incondign.  However, a phenomenon in the language is that words which have, since their use in Middle English, undergone a meaning shift so complete as to render the original meaning obsolete, can in ecclesiastical use retain the original sense.  In the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, meritum de condigno (condign merit) is that due to a person for some good they have done.  As a general principle, it’s held to be applied to “merit before God”, the Almighty binding Himself, as it were, to reward those who do his will; a kind of holy version of social contract theory.  Among the more simple aspects of Christian theology, the conditions for condign merit are: (1) holding oneself in a state of grace and (2) performing morally good actions.  Not transferable, the beneficiary can be only the person who performs the good act with condign merit based on the revealed fact that God has promised such a reward and as a reward it’s accumulative, each individual condignly meriting an increase of the virtue of faith by every act of faith performed in the state of grace.

Pragmatic parish priests probably are inclined to explain condign merit as a way of encouraging kindness to others (linking it to the notion of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which is the essence of the Christian morality) but the theologians stress the significance of meritum de condign is it refers to merit based on justice rather than mere generosity of spirit.  It seems a fine distinction and doubtless is, both to doer of deed and beneficiary but, because the act is performed in a state of grace and is proportionate by God’s own ordinance to the reward promised, it’s a genuine claim based on justice, God rewarding such acts not out of mere benevolence but because freely He has so bound himself.

Project Condign: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region (in three volumes).  It turns out they're not out there.

The theologians manage to add layers by stressing meritum de condign can apply only to an individual in a state of grace (and thus justified and acting under sanctifying grace); without grace, no strictly meritorious claim on God is possible.  God may still be generous, but the reward will be granted under another head of power.  Additionally, the act must freely be performed and motivated by charity (love of God); mere kindness in the absence of this love not reaching the threshold.  Unusually, the reward of condign merit is by virtue of a Divine promise, the “justice” not “natural” but “covenantal”, God having imposed upon himself the obligation of reward, therefore it would be incongruum (from the Latin, an inflection of incongruus (inconsistent, incongruous, unsuitable)) for him not to do so and unlike the state in the social contract, God regards Himself truly as bound and the proportion is by divine ordination (ie the proportion between act and reward exists only because God has established it; it is not intrinsic to the act itself.

In certain aspects, the comparison with later legal traditions is quite striking.  Condign merit can apply variously to (1) an increase in charity, (2) an increase of sanctifying grace and (3) heavenly glory (eternal life), insofar as it is the consummation of grace already possessed but crucially, even condign merit presupposes grace entirely: the grace that enables the act is itself unmerited.  In other words, God and the church expect a certain basic adherence and this alone is not enough to deserve condign merit.  The companion term is meritum de congruo (congruous merit) in which a fitting or appropriate reward may be granted but that will be based on God’s generosity rather than being the self-imposed obligation that is condign merit.  If searching for a metaphor, condign merit may be imagined as something given according to a salutatory schedule while congruous merit is more like an ex gratia (a learned borrowing from Latin ex grātiā (literally “out of grace”)) payment (a thing not legally required but given voluntarily).

Santo Tomás de Aquino (Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1476) ,egg tempera on poplar panel by Carlo Crivelli (circa 1430-circa 1495) in a style typical of religious portraiture at at time when some Renaissance painters were still much influenced by late Gothic decorative sensibility.  This piece was from the upper tier of a polyptych (multi-panelled altarpiece) which Crivelli in 1476 completed for the high altar of the church of San Domenico, Ascoli Piceno in the Italian Marche.

Even among the devotional, in the twenty-first century all that may sound mystical or a tiresome theological point but there was a time in Europe when many much were concerned about avoiding Hell and going to Heaven with the Medieval church was there to explain the rules and mechanisms.  The carefully crafted distinction was made by the Italian Dominican friar, philosopher & theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in the Summa Theologiae (Summary of Theology, a work still unfinished by the time of the author’s death) and re-affirmed, essentially unaltered, during Session VI (Decree on Justification) of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).  In modern practice, priests don’t much bother their flock with Aquinas’s finely honed thoughts and instead exhort them to acts of kindness, rather than dwelling too much on abstractions like whether God will reward them by virtue of obligation or generosity, the important message being the Almighty remains sole source of both grace and reward, thus the importance to keep in a state of grace with him.

Google ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure): Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

So while it has always implied “deserved”, Roman Catholic theologians thus still use “condign” in the context of a “reward for goodness” but in secular use it has for centuries been associated only with punishment and, the more fitting the sentence, the more condign it’s said to be.  As Christianity in the twentieth century began its retreat from Christendom, condign became a rare word and some now list it as archaic although as late as 1926, in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Henry Fowler (1858–1933), no great friend of “decorative words” and “elegant variations” though it still worth a descriptive (and cautionary entry: “Condign meant originally ‘deserved’ and could be used in many contexts, with praise for instance as well as with punishment.  It is now used only with words equivalent to ‘punishment’, and means deservedly severe, the severity being the important point, and the desert merely a condition of the appropriateness of the word; that it is an indispensable condition, however, is shown by the absurd effect of: ‘Count Zeppelin’s marvellous voyage through the air has ended in condign disaster’”.

Boris Johnson (right) handling a prize bull (left), Darnford Farm, Banchory, Scotland September, 2019.

Quite what old Henry Fowler would have made of the way the language of Shakespeare and Milton is used on social media and the like easily can be imagined but he’d have been heartened to learn the odd erudite soul still finds a way to splice something like “condign” into the conversation.  One, predictably, was that scholar of Ancient Greek, Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) who, during his tumultuous premiership, needed to rise from his place in the House of Commons to tell honourable members that the withdrawal of the Tory Party whip (“withdrawal of the party whip” a mechanism whereby a MP (Member of Parliament) is no longer recognised as a member of their parliamentary party, even though in some cases they continue for most purposes to belong to the party outside the parliament) from a member accused of sexual misconduct was “condign punishment”.

Mr Johnson was commenting on the case of Rob Roberts (b 1979; MP for Delyn 2019-2024) and while scandal is nothing novel in the House of Commons (and as the matter of Lord Peter "Mandy" Mandelson (b 1953) illustrates, nor is it in the upper house), aspects of the Roberts case were unusual.  In 2021, an independent panel, having found Mr Roberts sexually had harassed a member of his staff recommended he should be suspended from parliament for six weeks.  The panel found he’d committed a “serious and persistent breach of the parliament’s sexual misconduct policy” and although the MP had taken “positive steps”, he’d demonstrated only “limited insight into the nature of his misconduct”, the conclusion being there remained concerns “he does not yet fully understand the significance of his behaviour or the full nature and extent of his wrongdoing.”  Politicians sexually harassing their staff is now so frequent as to be unremarkable but what attracted some interest was that intriguingly, Mr Roberts had identified the problem and it turned out to be the complainant.  When alone together in a car on a constituency visit, the MP had said to him: “I find you very attractive and alluring and I need you to make attempts to be less alluring in the office because it's becoming very difficult for me.”  So it was Mr Roberts who really was the victim and the complainant clearly made an insufficient effort to become “less alluring” because the MP later told the man the advance he had made in the car was “something I would like to pursue, and if you would like to pursue that too it would make me very happy”.  From there, things got worse for the victim (in the sense of the complainant, not the politician).

Official portrait of Rob Roberts, the former honourable member for Delyn.

Mr Roberts had “come out” as gay after 15 years of marriage, the panel noting he’d been “going through several challenges and significant changes in his personal life”, adding these “do not excuse his sexual misconduct”.  Despite his announcement, he also propositioned young female staff members (perhaps he should have “come out” as bisexual), suggesting to one they might: “fool around with no strings”, assuring her that while he “…might be gay… I enjoy … fun times”. In April 2021 the Conservative (Tory) Party had announced that the MP had been "strongly rebuked", but would not lose the whip. Apparently, at the time, it was thought sufficiently condign for him to “undertake safeguarding and social media protection training”.  The next month however, the panel handed down its recommendations and he was “suspended from the services of the house for six weeks”, subsequently losing the Tory whip and had his party membership suspended.  In a confusing coda, after (controversially) returning to the Commons in July 2021, he was re-admitted to the party in October 2021 but was denied the whip, requiring him to sit as an independent until the end of his term.  In the 2024 general election, he stood as an independent candidate in the new constituency of Clwyd East, coming last with 599 votes and losing his deposit.  Privately as well as politically, life for Mr Roberts has been discursive.  After in May 2020 tweeting he was gay and separating from his wife, in 2023, he re-married.

The word even got a run on Rupert Murdoch’s (b 1931) Fox News, an outlet noted more for short sentences, punchy words and repetition than words verging on the archaic but on what the site admitted was a “slow news day”, took the opportunity to skewer Jay Robert “J.B. Pritzker (b 1965, (Democratic Party governor of US state of Illinois since 2019), noting the part the wealth of the “billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotels fortune” had played in defeating a Republican opponent (it couldn’t resist adding that “money in politics” was something crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) “could tell you more about”).  Fox News’s conclusion was “…the shamelessness and even braggadocio with which Pritzker sought to buy the governorship could be a harbinger of things to come.  But, we suppose, having to serve as governor of Illinois is condign punishment for the offense…”

In happier times: But wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!  Mandy’s (pictured here in dressing gown, tête-à-tête with Jeffrey Epstein) entry in the now infamous "birthday book", assembled for the latter’s 50^th birthday in 2003.

The matter of condign punishment has in Westminster of late been much discussed because of revelations of the squalid behaviour of Mandy and his dealings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019).  Undisputedly, one of politics great networkers, Mandy’s long career in the Labour Party was noted not for any great contribution to national life (although he did good work in the project which was "New Labour" but whether he now should regard that a proud boast or admission of guilt he must decide) or achievements in policy development but blatant self-interest, conflicts of interest and repeated recovery from scandal; twice he was forced to resign from cabinet because of matters classed as “conflict of interest” and his whole adult life has been characterized by seeking association with rich men who, for whatever reason, seem to become anxious to indulge his desire to receive generous hospitality and large sums of cash.  Sir Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007), clearly seeing talent where many others did not, was most forgiving of Mandy’s foibles, twice re-appointing him to cabinet after decided a longer exile would be most incondign and famously once observed his "mission to transform the Labour party would not be complete until it had learned to love Peter Mandelson."  Even Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010) who is believed to have existed in a state of mutual loathing with Mandy, was by 2008 in such dire political straits he brought him back to cabinet, solving the problem of finding a winnable seat in the Commons by appointing him to the upper chamber, the House of Lords.  While the presence of the disreputable in the Lords has a tradition dating back centuries, it was thought a sign of the times that Brown “ennobling a grub like Mandelson” to take a seat in the house, where once sat Wellington, Palmerston and Curzon, attracted barely an objection, so jaded by sleaze had the British public become.

Still, even by the standards of Mandy’s troubled past, what emerged from the documents released by the US DoJ (Department of Justice) was shocking.  Not only did it emerge Mandy had lied about the extent of his connections with Epstein but it became clear they had, despite his repeated denials, continued long after Epstein’s 2008 conviction in Florida on charges of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution for which he received an 18 month sentence.  So well connected in the Masonic-like UK Labour party was Mandy (and there have been amusing theories about how he has maintained this influence), it might have been possible to stage yet another comeback from that embarrassment but his life got worse when it was revealed large sums of cash had been passed to him (or the partner who later became his husband) by Epstein, transactions made more interesting still when it emerged Mandy appears to have sent to Epstein classified files to which he gained access by virtue of being a member of cabinet.  More remarkable still was Mandy, while a cabinet minister, appearing to operate as a kind of lobbyist in matter of interest to what was described as: “Mr Epstein and his powerful banking friends”.

In happier times, left to right: Tony Blair, Gordon Blair & Mandy (left) and the mean girls: Karen Smith (Amanda Seyfried, b 1985), Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert, b 1982) & Regina George (Rachel McAdams, b 1978) (right).

In the early 1990s, detesting the Tory government, the press were fawning in their admiration and dubbed the New Labour trio "the three musketeers" but they came also to be called: "the good, the bad and the ugly, a collective moniker which may be generous to at least one of them.  There is no truth in the rumor the threesome provided the template for the personalities of the "plastics" in Mean Girls (2004, right) although the idea is tempting because both photographs can be deconstructed thus: Tony & Karen (sincere, well meaning, a bit naïve); Gordon & Gretchen (insecure, desperately wanting to be liked) and Mandy & Regina (evil and manipulative). 

All this was revealed in E-mail exchanges during the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) which unfolded between 2008-2012 after the demise of US financial services firm Lehman Brothers (1850-2008), Mandy giving Epstein “advance notice” the EU (European Union (1993)), the multi-national aggregation which evolved from the EEC (European Economic Community), the Zollverein formed in 1957) would be providing (ie “creating”) a €500bn “bailout” to prevent the collapse of the Euro (the currency used by a number of EU states).  Those familiar with trading on the forex (foreign exchange) markets will appreciate the value of such secret information and, given the trade in global currency dwarfs that in equities, commodities and such, the numbers (and thus the profits and losses) are big.  Pleasingly, in the manner commercial arrangements often are, it was a two-way trade, representations to the UK and US Treasuries arranged in both directions.

Mandy also acted as Epstein’s advisor about “back channel” ways to influence government policy (ie the government of which he was at the time serving in cabinet) and political scientists probably would concede his advice was sage; he suggested to Epstein he should arrange for the chairman of investment bank J.P. Morgan to “mildly threaten” the UK’s chancellor of the exchequer (the finance minister).  What a cabinet minister is by convention (and implied in various statures) obliged to do is promote and defend government policy while assisting in its execution; should they not agree with that policy, they must resign from government.  Clearly, Mandy decided what is called “cabinet solidarity” was a tiresome inconvenience and in an attempt to change cabinet’s policy on a bankers’ bonus tax, made his suggestion which Mr Epstein must have followed because J.P. Morgan’s Jamie Dimon (b 1956; chairman and CEO (chief executive officer) of JPMorgan Chase since 2006) indeed did raise the matter with the chancellor although opinions might differ on whether what he said could be classed as “mildly threatening”.  In his memoir, Alistair Darling (1953–2023; UK Chancellor of the Exchequer 2007-2010) described a telephone call from Mr Dimon and recalled the banker was “very, very angry” about the plan, arguing “..his bank bought a lot of UK debt and he wondered if that was now such a good idea.  I pointed out that they bought our debt because it was a good business deal for them.  He went on to say they were thinking of building a new office in London, but they had to reconsider that now.”  The lobbying didn’t change the chancellor’s mind and the bonus tax was imposed as planned.  Mandy can’t be blamed for that; he did his bit.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.

Probably the most amusing of Mandy’s reactions to the revelations about his past related to payments he received from Epstein in 2003-2004 (US$75,000 to Mandy and Stg£10,000 to his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva (the couple married in 2023)).  When late in January, 2026 he resigned from the Labour Party (it’s believed he’d been “tapped on the shoulder” and told he’d be expelled if no letter of resignation promptly was received), he used the usual line adopted these circumstances, saying he wished to spare the party “further embarrassment” and added: “Allegations which I believe to be false that he made financial payments to me 20 years ago, and of which I have no record or recollection, need investigating by me.”  Few seemed to find plausible a man who has such a history of “money grubbing” could fail to recall US$75,000 suddenly being added to his bank balance and, unfortunately for Mandy, various authorities have decided the matters “need investigating by them”. 

In happier times: Mandy (left) with Sir Keir Starmer (right).

One who seems to be taking the betrayals personally is Sir Keir Starmer (b 1962; prime-minister of the UK since 2024) who appointed Mandy as the UK’s ambassador to the US, the prime minister making clear his outrage at the lies Mandy (more than once) told him and his staff during the (clearly inadequate) vetting process.  In one of his more truculent speeches, Sir Keir contrasting himself with Mandy, pointing out that while he’d come late to politics and entered the nasty business with the intention of trying to improve the country, he contrasted that high aim with the long career of Mandy who, it had become clear, viewed “climbing the greasy” pole of public office as a device for personal enrichment.  Hell hath no fury like a prime minister lied to.  Mandy has already resigned his seat in the Lords (now something separate from his possession of the life peerage conferred by Gordon Brown) although, all things considered, that probably was one of history’s less necessary letters.  However, as well as referring his allegedly nefarious conduct to the police and other investigative bodies, the government is said to be drafting legislation to eject Mandy from the Lords and strip him of his noble title: Lord Mandelson.  Given that over the past century odd members of the Lords have been jailed for conduct such as murder, perjury and what was in the statute of 1553 during the reign of Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) called “the detestable and abominable vice of buggery” yet not been stripped of their titles, the act will be a bit of a novelty but constitutional experts agree it’s within the competence of parliament, needing only the concurrence of both houses. Not since the passage of the Titles Deprivation Act (1917) have peerages been stripped and that statutory removal happened in the unusual circumstances of World War I (1914-1918) when it was thought the notion of Germans and Austrians holding British titles of nobility was not appropriate though it was a measure of the way the establishment resists change that the war had been raging three years before the act finally received royal assent.

The irony of a gay man becoming entangled in the scandals surrounding a convicted child sex trafficker who allegedly supplied men with girls younger than the age of consent has been noted, some dwelling on that with unseemly relish; it was with both enthusiasm and and obvious relief that members of the Labour Party felt finally free to tell journalists (or anyone else who asked) just what they really thought of Mandy, their previously repressed views views tending to a thumbnail sketch which could be précised as: “evil and manipulative”.  More generally, although it was the English common law which did so much to establish the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, in parliament and beyond, the consensus seems already reached that Mandy is “guilty as sin”; it’s a question of to what extent and what’s to be done about it.  That will play out but what may happen sooner is that Sir Keir could be the latest of the many victims of Mandy's machinations over the decades.  For matters unrelated to Mandy, the prime minister had anyway been having a rugged time in the polls and on the floor of the house and all that that has thus far ensured the survival of his leadership is thought to be (1) the lack of an obvious contender in the Labour Party and (2) the ineptitude of the Tory opposition, the talents of its MPs now thought to be as low as at any time in living memory.  Sadly, when discussing the travails of Sir Keir, it notable how many commentators have described him with terms like "decent", "integrity" and "honorable" (not qualities much associated with Mandy) but it remains unclear if the prime minister's commendable virtues will prove enough for his leadership to survive in the clatter of one of the moral panics the English do so well.  Over the thirty-odd years, quite often the Labour Party apparatchiks have had to ponder: “What are we going to do about Mandy?” but this time it’s serious and there will be much effort devoted to combining “damage limitation” with what the baying mob will judge at least adequately condign.