Who Killed Laura Palmer?: Twin Peaks Series 1

So I have momentarily paused the X-Files, leaving Mulder and Scully standing in the charred remains of their office, torched by the Smoking Man to announce his return from the dead.

The truth may indeed be out there. I still want to believe. But for the moment, I am pausing.

Instead, I am returning to the year of my birth. In 1990, David Lynch unleashed Twin Peaks onto an unsuspecting public. I am almost as in the dark as the original audience was. I know a few bits. I know it's weird, I know it was amazing until it suddenly wasn't, and (unlike the original audience) I know it shall return.

So, much like I did for the first series of the X-Files, here are my thoughts on Twin Peaks.

Come, fire walk with me.

Pilot

• I've not even started yet, but the DVD is giving me the option between 'With or Without the Log Lady Intro.' Those are not words I expected to see when I woke up this morning...
• Oh, *that's* where this music is from...
• That's a very specific number of people. But then again, 1990 was an American census year.
• Stunning scenery.
• Well, these all seem like nice normal balanced people.
• It's so 80s. I mean obviously it is, it's from 1990, so everything would be very 80s. Nice reminder that the past isn't easy to compartmentalise.
• Correctly calling out the actor who played Scully's father in the X-Files episode 'Beyond the Sea.' I need to get out more...
• The realisation of the family is utterly heart breaking.
• Was there a person wearing a legitimate tin hat?
• Bobby's hair...
• The Sheriff is called Harry S Truman. No, really...
• Ah, someone crossed the state line. At least that explains why the FBI are involved.
• Special Agent Dale Cooper seems as balanced as the townsfolk...
• They all need speaking to about their ties.
• Who the hell is Diane?!
• Well, it isn't the boyfriend. Otherwise this would have made a terrible series.
• My guess was Swedish, turns out they're Norwegian.
• I tell you what, this Dale Cooper bloke is good.
• The FBI appear to have a good contract with providers of ridiculously effective torches.
• The safety deposit box company seem to have ended up with the moose that Basil Fawlty tried to put on the wall.
• 'Who is the lady with the log?" "We call her the Log Lady." Names apparently aren't their strong point in Twin Peaks...
• The fight scene was only missing a 'POW' to make it 60s Batman.
• I jumped at the end. Flipping heck...

Episode 2

• Confirms my view of Dale Cooper as a nice normal bloke.
• I love the music.
• Seriously, what the hell has this girl got herself into?
• Bloody big clue from a bloody shirt
• Flipping heck, those drapes...
• That fog horn is creepy as anything.
• Damn, Cooper is good...
• How did that fish get in the percolator?!
• Is there anyone in this town living a normal life?!
• Note to self- Mrs Palmer= jumping time.
• Them clothes, so 80s.
• Back when threatening someone with going to Bulgaria was a serious threat...
• Bobby's father is a real bundle of joy
• Cherry pie- I gather this is important...
• Is Dale Cooper going to just flirt with every woman in sight?
• I mean, it's a town based on logs. What is so special about this one?
• "My log saw something that night"- I hope she got an Emmy for that.
• Woah, domestic abuse lobbed in...
• Talk about jumping in your best friend's grave.
• Woah, doctor...
• Did I mention how great the music is?

Episode 3

• I'm confused, is this episode two or three?!
• If they had hipster uncles in 1990, the guy whose just walked in would be one.
• Perfectly capturing the awkwardness of having your other half round to your parents.
• The bar. Quad. The. Actual.
• There's a One-Armed Man. I hear that Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones are in hot pursuit...
• I thought it was a while since the drapes had put in an appearance.
• I recognise the way they all leaned in off their seats from my students.
• I want to start a lesson with Tibet anecdotes...
• Next time I need to find out something, I'm going to lob rocks at a bottle...
• Love the men from the FBI.
• Woah, there's an apostrophe? No one said anything about that...
• Jesus, this became one heck of a lot more confusing very quickly.
• Has Cooper aged? Lucky that, if in 27 years time anyone wants to make a sequel, that'll be really helpful...
• WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!?!?!
• I'm sorry, is this 70s light entertainment, with a pointless confusing dance routine in it??

Episode 4

• Whoever did the decorations in the hotel needs speaking to.
• Dale Cooper really is brilliant (I think I'll make this observation a lot). 
• "Suddenly, it was 25 years later." How. Bloody. Convenient. 
• Good thing he can't remember who the killer is, would have made a crap series if he did. 
• The pathologist got what he deserved... 
• Oh my goodness, there's a TV series in a TV series, how very Hamlet. 
• But for all the pathologist is not pleasant, he is Good. 
• At least this woman's life revolves around more than the bloody runners. 
• Of course there are secret tunnels. Why wouldn't there be secret tunnels... 
• Funerals are horrible, there’s just no getting away from it. 
• Bobby is really showing himself to be a lovely, pleasant young fellow. 
• But maybe in his anger, he has a point to make… 
• Overall, I think we can conclude the funeral went swimmingly… 
• He is very specific with his pie requirements. 
• It’s only taken till this episode before someone mentioned a secret society dedicated to fighting the totally mental goings on in the forest. Surely that borders on obstruction of justice? 
• And bugging too, honestly the felonies these people are racking up is horrendous. 
• Add to that a safe, a secret bookcase, and a secret writing desk. 
• I do love a good bit of Native American philosophy. 
• But I feel it won’t help a bit in solving what on Earth is going on here.

Episode 5

• Having consulted Wikipedia, the fifth episode is apparently Episode 4. I mean, seriously, even the episode structure is confusing...
• Well the doctor doesn't seem suspicious in the least.
• Why does the doctor have two glasses lenses that are different colours?!
• I'm glad that Cooper is on Harry Truman's side.
• The one-armed man has been found. Tommy-Lee Jones is in hot pursuit.
• THE ONE-ARMED MAN'S NAME IS GERRARD.
• The background noises are so strange. It's really hard to explain why, they just are.
• Hank bears more than a passing resemblance to Jorah Mormont.
• There's an alpaca. Why is there an alpaca?
• Bobby is definitely in way over his head.
• Andy definitely needs some training on that gun of his...
• Alphabetically by pet is a terrible way of organising files.
• That there is a mobile phone.
• Why are they so determined to get Scandinavians into Washington state?!
• It has also taken until this episode for a firearm to be drawn. Good stuff.
• They are clearly building towards a climax. Thing is, I know there isn't one yet.
• Much like any woods in the X-Files, no one should go into them at night.
• WHAT IS THAT ANIMAL ON THE WALL?!
• Someone seriously needs to talk to them about taxidermy.
• Dominoes. Because what I really wanted was another complex layer of Plot.

Episode 6

• Some real humanity shown by Audrey and Cooper from the off.
• Lucy! Long time, no see.
• Solid encyclopaedia use...
• Are they questioning the bird?! (Yes, they are...)
• Ah yes, the tape.
• I'm guessing the department store manager is in on all this too, then?
• I really hope the TV show within a TV show isn't important, its lost me...
• Can you use FBI money to gamble with for investigative purposes?
• Cooper is onto Josey, isn't he?
• THAT FOG HORN.
• And the bloody bird as well?
• Their evidence is a tape recording of a bird recounting the murder; I will enjoy watching that stand up in court.
• Their cover identities are Barney and Fred. No, really...
• Well, One Eyed Jack's is the place to be tonight...

Episode 7

• What are the Log Lady intros actually for?!
• Oh yeah, the Doctor's office, forgot about him...
• Cooper still has his Clark Kent glasses on.
• Good shot Andy.
• Oh Shelly, that's not good...
• Real sense of events moving, after weeks of slow pace.
• Josey hasn't been a good girl...
• Andy and Lucy are adorable.
• Well, *that* announcement was unexpected...
• To say that shit is going down in this episode is the understatement of the 90s...
• Well now the TV series in the TV series makes a bit more sense at least.
• I mean, between the murdering, the arson, the running around, this night in Twin Peaks is completly manic...
• Revising an earlier statement, to say that shit is going down in this episode is the understatement of the 20th century...
• WHAT A CLIFFHANGER!!!

Overall... I'm hooked. How you could watch it rise to a cliffhanger like that, and then decide "Nah, not for me,' I cannot imagine. Looks like my summer watching is sorted...

I mean, what in the name of God is that doing there...

Did you notice there's been an election?

So last month there was an election. You may have noticed.

Until now, I've been too busy for this. But note I've been grinning all the time I wrote this post, and for the last two weeks really.

Theresa May

Oh, dear, me. When Theresa May called the election, I was not alone in quaking in fear. She had used the single most disruptive event in living political memory to seize the top job in the land, and then had ruled her party with an iron fist ever since. Her mastery of the political landscape made an impression. Many people had positive opinions of her. I could pick these up at work; the political opinions of children are usually the refracted views of their parents. The moment I twigged there was no royal seal on the podium outside Downing Street, I presumed she was going in for the kill.

The Conservative party made one fatal flaw in 2016's leadership election. It didn't run the process to the finish. Had they done so, they would have spotted May's indecision, and wooden campaign nature. What comes across as strong and decisive in some circles comes across as ridiculous in others. By having a coronation, the Tories had to learn May's flaws under the full glare of the media spotlight.

And now we are familiar with them. Painfully so.

It must be hard for her. She is only human. But the transformation of her image in the last few months is total, and the clock is ticking for Theresa May.

Theresa May's Team (AKA The Conservatives)

I think the Conservative party must be rueing the day that they decided to bill themselves as 'Theresa May's Team.' All through the election, Theresa May left her party label behind her, as she was polling massively ahead of the Tories. The best encapsulation of this for me was when I got a letter from the Conservatives (heaven knows why I'm in their database as a swing voter). The gushing phrases and rhetoric from the Prime Minister were clear. The fact it was from the Conservatives was limited to the legal small print on the back. Plus the fact I'm vaguely politically aware. But the implication was clear. May was an asset, the party was a drag.

And then suddenly she wasn't an asset any more. By the time the Conservatives threw the reverse gear on the campaign, and desperately tried to shore up their position, by moving from a quasi-presidential contest to a more traditional party campaign, it was too late. 'Theresa May's Team' lost seats, their majority knocked out from underneath them.

But, underneath the loss of their majority, the Conservatives are still in a fairly strong position. They took 42% of the vote, the best share for any governing party since 1997, and the best Conservative vote since 1987. They are over fifty seats clear of Labour, enough to really govern alone as a minority government. In many parts of the country, there was a swing to them. They even picked up seats in Scotland. A small swing to the Tories will give them their majority back. The beast may be injured, but it is not finished.

Jeremy Corbyn

Ok, hands up. I was wrong.

My biggest objection to Jeremy Corbyn was that he was leading the party to destruction. The primary objective of the Labour party is to secure the election of Labour representatives, to enable the formation of a Labour government that will advance the interests of working people. I genuinely believed that history showed us that to put a hard-left leader in charge of the Labour party would not allow that to happen. In fact, all the precedents pointed to this being an absolute disaster. The one consolation would be the chance to get the whole thing over and done with.

And then it wasn't a disaster at all. For all many scoffed at a Corbyn surge, there was one. Turns out, a life long campaigner for left wing causes was quite good at campaigning for left wing causes. Who'd have thought?

When that exit poll dropped at 22:00 on polling day, it became obvious that Corbyn had earned his right to remain leader as long as he wanted. There's more below about the campaign, but Corbyn had run a great campaign, and it has paid off handsomely.

Labour

Much of the Labour stuff stands as above. Just one extra thing. I never thought I'd live to see the day that Labour, gain, and Canterbury, were all words that appeared in the same sentence. The last non-Conservative MP for Canterbury was a Gladstonian Liberal. If there was any better proof that labour is now far more competitive than at any point since 2005, this was it. Yes, they came second. But a close second is infinitely better than an electoral wipeout, and it left the party in a strong jumping off position for next time round.

Liberal Democrats

Who? Oh yes, the orangey ones, who were going to ride a wave of anti-Brexit sentiment back to power? Bless.

What this campaign has shown for the Lib Dems is that they need to think like the party they were in the 1950s and 1960s, at least for a while. Having grand national ambitions is all well and good, but the next few years are going to be about a fight to survive. This election has shown they can cling on, but not much else.

SNP

The SNP have gone from being the dominant political party in Scotland to a step away from wipeout. Yes, they are still the largest party in Scotland in terms of seats and votes. But both tallies are well down on 2015, and many of their seats were held on narrow majorities. Another election like that could see them back down to their pre-2015 levels, when they piled up votes across Scotland but were only strong enough to take 6 or so seats.

For all they would detest the comparison, the SNP may be suffering from a very New Labour problem. Promising radical reform may win you elections to start with, but when people realise it is all talk, and limited delivery, then they will desert you in droves.

DWhoP? (Sorry)

Whenever British elections are polled or predicted, there's always a bit that says '18 others.' Those 18 others are the Northern Irish MPs. Northern Ireland exists in a vastly different political world to the rest of the UK. It's politics is essentially still influenced by your opinion on a treaty from 1922. Should Northern Ireland be a part of the UK, or join with the Republic of Ireland?

The ending of large-scale violence through the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 is one of the resounding political success stories of the last two decades. It is now almost out of political memory what it was like to live with a conflict in the UK with seemingly no end in sight. But, the peace process has destroyed those parties who originally engineered it. The more moderate UUP and SDLP have been swept aside, replaced by political parties with links to the one-time men of violence- the Democratic Unionist Party (with dodgy loyalist associations) and Sinn Fein, whose leader Gerry Adams was NEVER A MEMBER OF THE IRA (unlike most of the rest of the Sinn Fein leadership).

Turns out, hardliners are pretty hardline. Constitutionally, Theresa May gets a shot at remaining PM because she is the incumbent, and in theory it is fine for her to use any combination of parliamentary arithmetic to pass a Queen's Speech and command the confidence of the House of Commons. There's no problem on paper with her using the DUP. Other than the fact they're fairly awful hardliners, with some pretty unpleasant views.

Actually, there is a problem on paper after all. The Good Friday Agreement commits Britain to remaining as a neutral arbiter in Northern Ireland. How the government can be neutral broker and dependent on one of the involved parties remains to be seen.

Oh, and I am going to instigate a ban on people talking about Northern Irish politics unless they can name at least two MLAs. If you've just had to check what MLA stands for, your entry is void from the start.

The Campaign Matters


A year ago, I felt as if the country I lived in suddenly became foreign. The politically motivated slaughter of an MP, the appalling bile of the EU referendum campaign, the decision to tear up half a century of partnership with our nearest neighbours, motivated by a hunger for an abstract concept, the apparent enfeeblement of the parliamentary left. All had me in a real gloom. So when Theresa May called her election, I thought this would be the final nail in the coffin. And, despite claims since, I was not alone. In fact, virtually everyone predicted she would win, and win well.

What changed? The campaign mattered, for the first time in a quarter of a century. The public saw May's frankly dreadful performances, the stilted soundbites, the refusal to debate and engage, the manifesto that could have been drawn up on the back of an envelope. Contrasted with that was a man for whom campaigning is his lifeblood. A clear, crisp manifesto from Labour, as well as an extraordinary online effort. It was a solid Labour performance, set against the worst political campaign run by any British political party since 1945. The result reflected that. In the weeks between calling the election and polling day, the British people got to see a lot more of Theresa May's brand of Conservatism, and found it wanting. A short campaign would have enabled her to get away with it. The long one was to prove fatal.

For the first time in a long time, I have political hope. I can see a route out of the long, dark tunnel we have been in these past few years. It will take time to get there, and the road ahead is still long and painful.

But it is there. We shall overcome.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Anthony King

I think that the problem the Labour party has is, that for a quarter of a century, it was dominated by the left, it was associated with the loony left, associated with the trade unions, with inflation, with strikes, with the Winter of Discontent. And the Tories were right all along, it turns out, when they said to themselves that, at the last minute, when voters saw the whites of Labour's eyes, they said to themselves 'we cannot have those people in government.'

Anthony King, Professor of Government at Essex University, on BBC One, in the early hours April 10th 1992, as Labour went down to a fourth straight election defeat.

Labour's polling recovery is not enough to save it

I've started to notice a really irritating trend on my Facebook recently. People trying to point out that during the election campaign, Labour's share in the opinion polls has risen.


There a couple of problems with this fact. Firstly, opinion pollsters in this country have traditionally over-rated Labour. In the last thirty years, for example, the margin of error between Labour's eve of poll rating and their actual vote share has been on average 3.2% points:

1987- Final polling day average of 33.5%. They won 30.8%, so a gap of 2.7% points.
1992- Final day polling average 39.3%. They won 34.4%, so a gap of 4.9% points.
1997- Final day polling average of 45.3%. They won 43.2%, so a gap of 2.1% points.
2001- Final day poll put Labour on 47%. They won 40.7%, so a gap of 6.3% points.
2005- Final day poll put Labour on 38%. They took 35.3%, so a gap of 2.7% points.
2010- Final day polling average of 27.6%. They took 29%, so an underestimate of 1.4% points.
2015- Final day polling average of 33.0%. They took 30.4%, so a gap of 2.6% points.

Only once have the opinion pollsters underestimated Labour's vote share. Every other time, it has been overstated. This has led to some embarrassing mis-predictions. In 1987, the BBC forecast from their polling that Mrs Thatcher's majority would be cut from 145 to 20; she got a majority of 101. In 2015, Ed Miliband was as stunned as the rest of us at his defeat. And most famously of all, in 1992, all the opinion polls missed a late surge in Tory support, at Labour's expense. Even in the exit polls, voters wouldn't admit to voting for John Major, and so the predicted hung parliament never materialised, and Labour went down to a record fourth election defeat.

The problem here is that, even with a current polling average of 32%, Labour are likely to do slightly worse than that on the day itself. They could do significantly worse, especially if Theresa May and the Brexit deal are activating a case of 'Shy Toryism.' Nothing the opinion pollsters have done with their methodology has managed to correct this flaw, yet.

The second problem with Labour's rise in the polls is that they are not alone. Since the campaign started, another party has enjoyed a polling bounce. The Conservatives. The collapse of UKIP support, from the low teens down to below 5%, has seen those voters largely migrate to the Conservatives. The Tories are looking at taking nearly half the vote. I'll be amazed if they don't take above 45%, a feat last achieved by Ted Heath in 1970 (Incidentally, the last Conservative leader to stand with a clear commitment to changing Britain's relationship with Europe, although Heath is doubtless turning in his grave at what is going on).

It is highly likely that this government will get the best electoral mandate of any UK political party since the 1960s or 1950s. When he added 0.8% points onto the Tory vote share in 2015, Cameron was lauded as an electoral wizard. And he had presided over five years of dull but effective government (at least for his supporters). God knows what that makes Theresa May, who has achieved this surge in support whilst presiding over the upending of half a century of foreign policy, amidst an extremely divisive and inflammatory atmosphere.

Even if both party vote shares are rising, the Tories are still miles ahead of Labour. Whereas a share of 32% for Labour would be pretty decent, and enable them to hold a Conservative party on 35%-37% to a virtual tie, a rise as high as 35% would be utterly meaningless when the Conservatives have gobbled up nearly half the electorate. Some Labour candidates may gain ground and lose their seats simultaneously, even sitting MPs. But Labour's boats will not be raised by the tide when there's a tidal wave sweeping through the harbour at the same time.

And I'm not even going to engage with the idea that if Corbyn matches Miliband's vote share he should stay. That would tear Labour apart. But that's for another day.

So, sorry to disappoint, people who seem to think that Labour getting to 32% in the opinion polls is something to get excited about. It should be, and I'm glad they're doing a bit better. But there is an avalanche coming down the mountain towards us. Don't kid yourself your snowman will reduce you from it.

Edward Heath, entering Downing Street as Prime Minister, June 1970. Theresa May, who was 13 at the time, may be about to be the first PM since then to be elected with more than 45% of the vote.

1974, 1983, and 2017: A Tale of Three Manifestos

In 1983, Labour was fighting for its political life. It was riven by splits between the hard-left quasi Marxists and the centre-left social democrats. Two years earlier, a fair chunk of the centre-left bloc had left Labour entirely, forming a new Social Democratic Party. The SDP, in alliance with the Liberals, were snapping at Labour's heels. And confronting them both was Margaret Thatcher. Written off in 1981 as the Prime Minister who had presided over economic catastrophe and social collapse, by 1983 she was riding victory in the Falklands, and belated economic recovery, to a victory of her own.

Amidst this crisis for Labour, came the day when they needed to decide what was going to go into the election manifesto. Instead of being a protracted fight, the party leadership decided to adopt the various policy documents produced over the last few years and just put them together. What they got was a document which promised a drastic break from the Britain of the early Eighties. It proposed unilateral nuclear disarmament, immediate withdrawal from the European Economic Community and NATO, the imposition of exchange controls, the creation of a 'siege economy' (whereby British jobs and firms would be protected by the state against external markets, the abolition of the House of Lords, renationalisation of BT, shipping and aerospace companies, and the reunification of Ireland against Unionist wishes.

It had nearly been worse. Until the last minute, it contained a policy on the regulation and inspection of puppy farms.

Roy Hattersley, a leading figure on the centre of the party, was one of those appalled by the document. He went to see the head of the NEC, and demanded to know what the hell they were playing at, nodding this through. The party official replied grimly, that this was (leading left-winger) Tony Benn's election, and so it would be fought on his terms.

The strange thing is, it wasn't even the most left-wing Labour manifesto ever. In February 1974, Labour went before the electorate promising to impose price and pay controls, allow workers a huge say in how their companies operated, vast nationalisations, including the top 100 companies, and:

Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families.

Eliminate poverty wherever it exists in Britain, and commit ourselves to a substantial increase in our contribution to fight poverty abroad.

On polling day 1983 Labour slumped to it's worst result since it had become a truly national party. It's 209 seats (to Mrs Thatcher's 397 seats) hid the terrifying reality that Labour had only taken 27.6% of the vote, a mere 2% ahead of the Liberal/SDP Alliance. It could have been worse; some Labour figures feared if the election had carried on for another week, they would have come third. Many Labour voters told the party they had voted for the party despite the programme, not because of it. The manifesto was already known as 'the longest suicide note' in history, a name given to it by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman.

By comparison, the election of February 1974 produced a much less clear result. Labour won 301 seats, to the Tory's 297; confusingly, the Conservatives polled 200,000 more votes than Labour. Both were well short of the winning post of 318, and in a fractured Parliament, neither party was able to cobble together a coalition. Harold Wilson formed a minority government, and struggled on until the autumn, when he won a narrow election victory on a more nuanced programme.

So why has 1983 gone down as the 'longest suicide note in history,' and not 1974? Probably because of the result. In 1983, Labour crashed to a catastrophic defeat. In February 1974, they got into government, although this masked their tumbling vote share and underlying electoral problems. How 2017's manifest will be judged by history is unknowable until the voters have delivered their verdict on June 9th.

But if the effect of 1983's manifesto was intended by some to show the hard-left a lesson, then it worked. This grim strategy had nearly destroyed the Labour party, but it had taken the hard-left with it. Most importantly of all, Tony Benn had been ousted from his Bristol seat, preventing him from standing in the leadership election. The slow process of rescuing Labour as a party of power began. But those ideas were beyond the pale. Many of them were actually brought in by New Labour in 1997-2010. But they didn't shout about it. My fear is that, by tying all of these ideas, many of which are a left-wing dream, to Cornyn's electoral prospects, his team are pushing them out of contention yet again.

Oh, and at 124 pages, 2017's manifesto is a bit longer than the 39 pages of the 'longest suicide note in history.'

Vote the Liberal Elite, Not The Fascist!

Back in November, I wrote that the United States of America had to undergo a long, dark night of the soul, as it faced the wait to find out whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton was to become president. That dark night has since transformed into a living nightmare for the United States.

Yet all of that could be a picnic in comparison to what could happen this weekend. The French are undergoing a presidential election which is more like an existential crisis than a dark night of the soul. On Sunday, the electorate faces a choice between Emmanuel Macron, a former Socialist economy minister and investment banker turned independent centrist, and Marine Le Pen, leading a 'reformed' version of the Front National, a political party founded by former Nazi collaborators, Holocaust deniers, and those who wanted France to keep hold of Algeria by whatever means necessary.

The French political spectrum is in chaos, with neither of the two 'main' political parties having made the run off round of voting. Les Republicains have been punished for the scandals of the nominee, Francois Fillon. And the Parti Socialiste is paying for the troubled presidency of Francois Hollande; the wound is possibly fatal. France has economically stagnated for years, and faces deep and chronic social and cultural fissures. Elections at moments like these can be defining.

However, this should not be a hard choice. One of the two in the final round is a fascist, no matter how they dress it up. The other is not. Even if you disagree profoundly with Macron's programme, as many in France do, when confronted with a ballot paper showing only a fascistic and a non-fascistic option, there can only be one choice. Those on the French hard-left who are unable to stomach Macron are playing with fire in choosing Le Pen.

In 2002, a splintered voting scene saw Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine's father, ease into the second round against Jacques Chirac. The result was extraordinary. 'Vote the crook, not the fascist,' was the left's rallying cry. The cordon sanitaire held, and Chirac destroyed Le Pen in a landslide, as voters from the centre-left and hard-left flocked to his candidacy. They didn't do so because they were enthused by another five years of Gaullist right. They did so because they realised that to put the Front National into power would be profoundly damaging to themselves, France, and the rest of Europe.

An anti Le Pen rally, 2002

I am not going to predict what will happen tomorrow. A look back on this blog will confirm that I've been caught on the wrong side of reality once too often to feel comfortable doing that. But I really hope that tomorrow the French electorate consign Marine Le Pen to the scrap heap, and send the Front National back into the pit it came from. The slogan 'Vote the liberal minded former economy minister and investment banker, not the fascist!' may not have the same ring to it, but I hope it is what the French people think as they go into the polls tomorrow.

Things did get better; don't try and pretend otherwise

I clearly remember my friend John being very worried. He was warning as many people as he could that, because of it all, we were going to have to work much harder than before. I have to admit, he got me worried. After all, I had no idea what the word labour meant. It could mean work, for all I knew. I was seven.

And then it turned out all ok. As the No More School Party swept to power in our class election. No surprises really. I can't even remember who else was on the ballot. Or, in fact, if Mrs McGregor even counted the votes. But I do remember having the result whispered in my ear, to announce to the whole of my Yr 2 class. I made a fine returning officer, if I say so myself.

Oh, and it was sunny. But then, don't your memories of childhood always seem sunnier in comparison?

That's it. That's what I remember about the general election of 1997. I was way too young to realise that, around the country, a political earthquake was taking place. In 1992, there'd been talk that Labour may never hold office again. But within five years, the situation was completely different. Labour won 418 seats, and led the Tories by 12.5 percentage points. A Labour majority of 179. The Conservative party destroyed, slumped to its worst election defeat since 1832. Tony Blair later admitted that he felt he had done something wrong, so great was the scale of the electoral slaughter of his opponents.

I don't want this to turn into a retrospective analysis on the whole New Labour government. I did one of those, a long time ago. Go and read that (and laugh at me in my student years). I'm not sure I still agree with bits of it, but overall it holds up fine.

No, what I want to say today is a couple of things. Firstly, the Blair and Brown governments were the most redistributive in British history. No government before them took as much money from the top and gave it to those at the bottom. They should have shouted more about it, they should have pointed it out again and again and again. That they didn't is a crying shame, but they had their reason, a fear of being defeated. By avoiding defeat, the Blair/Brown governments managed to sustain this improvement in the lives of working people, until the financial crash knocked them off course and set the kaleidoscope in motion.

But for those of you who say there's no difference between a Labour government and a Conservative government, wake up and grow up. There is patently a difference. There is all the difference in the world. If the purpose of the Labour party is to ensure a Labour government in office that can improve the lives of working people, then 1997-2010 were indeed good and productive years, all the rest of it aside.

Lastly, is the point that always terrifies me. As the polling stations opened on that sunny May morning, twenty years ago today, millions of 18-23 year olds went to cast their ballots for the first time. None of them had known a Labour government within their memories. The last Labour government had fallen in March 1979, brought down in a vote of no-confidence on the floor of the House of Commons. The last Labour election victory had been in October 1974. Many of those first time voters hadn't been born then. A handful had lived every day of their lives under a Conservative administration.

At a time when Labour is staring into the abyss of electoral wipeout, more akin to 1931 than 1983, it is a sobering thought that the voters who may one day end the Conservative regime are at most 12 years old. The youngest are six or seven. We may have a long way to go again until there is another new dawn, until the same sense of optimism and hope propels the left back into power in this country.

And I hope it will be sunny.