Slaying Five Giants

Freedom from want cannot be forced on a democracy or given to a democracy. It must be won by them. Winning it needs courage and faith and a sense of national unity: courage to face facts and difficulties and overcome them ; faith in our future and in the ideals of fair-play and freedom for which century after century our forefathers were prepared to die ; a sense of national unity overriding the interests of any class or section. 

The Plan for Social Security in this Report is submitted by one who believes that in this supreme crisis the British people will not be found wanting, of courage and faith and national unity, of material and spiritual power to play their part in achieving both social security and the victory of justice among nations upon which security depends.

Closing remarks of the Beveridge Report, published 1st December 1942. Created the modern welfare state in the UK.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Tony Benn, Mk. II

War is easy to talk about; there are not many people left of the generation which remembers it. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup served with distinction in the last war. I never killed anyone but I wore uniform. I was in London during the blitz in 1940, living where the Millbank tower now stands, where I was born. Some different ideas have come in there since. Every night, I went to the shelter in Thames house. Every morning, I saw docklands burning. Five hundred people were killed in Westminster one night by a land mine. It was terrifying. 

Are not Arabs and Iraqis terrified? Do not Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die? Does not bombing strengthen their determination? What fools we are to live as if war is a computer game for our children or just an interesting little Channel 4 news item.

Every Member of Parliament who votes for the Government motion will be consciously and deliberately accepting responsibility for the deaths of innocent people if the war begins, as I fear it will. That decision is for every hon. Member to take. 

In my parliamentary experience, this a unique debate. We are being asked to share responsibility for a decision that we will not really be taking but which will have consequences for people who have no part to play in the brutality of the regime with which we are dealing.

On 24 October 1945--the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will remember--the United Nations charter was passed. The words of that charter are etched on my mind and move me even as I think of them. It says:

"We the peoples of the United Nations have determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life-time has brought untold sorrow to mankind".

That was that generation's pledge to this generation, and it would be the greatest betrayal of all if we voted to abandon the charter, take unilateral action and pretend that we were doing so in the name of the international community.

Tony Benn, speaking in the House of Commons when the Labour government proposed bombing Iraq to send a message to Saddam Hussein, 17th February 1998.

The Astonishing Wit and Wisdom of... Well, I Can Barely Believe It...

Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.

Speech by US President George W. Bush, 17th September 2001, at the Islamic Centre in Washington DC.

End of the Iron Lady

Today marks a quarter of a century since the game was up.

It was a day that dawned like many others. By and large, Britons went about their ordinary lives. In the centre of power, the Cabinet arrived at Number 10 for their meeting. And they were greeted by a bombshell. The Prime Minister was resigning. The Thatcher years were, at long last, coming to an end.

It had been a long few weeks. Rising discontent over the poll tax, European policy and the Prime Minister's style had come to a head when the Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe, resigned. In his excellent resignation speech, he threw down the gauntlet to the Conservative Party- decide or be damned. His call to arms brought Michael Heseltine, one time Defence Secretary and party conference darling, out of the shadows and into the arena against Mrs Thatcher. The first ballot was to be held on November 20th 1990.

It was in Paris that the news was broken to her. She had won the support of 54.8% of Tory MPs. Under the rules, she needed a mere two more votes. It was painfully close, and also badly damaging. She had promised that, were she to fall short, she would consult with party colleagues about what to do next. Instead, she marched out of the British embassy, straight onto BBC news, bowling over poor John Sargeant, and announced she was entering the second ballot.

But it was too late. When she returned to London, support for her was haemorrhaging. She was persuaded to consult her Cabinet, one by one. Some promised to fight with her to the end. A handful, notably Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind, told her that her time was over. Most said the same thing. They would back her, but she would lose; that would mean her arch-rival as Prime Minister. So she slept on it. Although whether she actually slept is not recorded.

Which brings us back to November 22nd 1990. She told the Cabinet as they met. "It's a funny old world," she famously remarked. And she had a point. She had been voted into office in 1987 by 13.7 million people, had won the support of almost 55% of Tory MPs, and nominally had the support of the Cabinet behind her. Yet she was the one heading off into the sunset, while the man who had dared to challenge her lived to fight another day.

But her time was up. And yet, many Conservatives now consider the Cabinet's decision to ditch Mrs Thatcher to be the wrong one. They feel that they should have allowed the electorate to deliver the killer blow. As it was, they created the myth of the Lady Betrayed, unbeaten and loved by the public. This myth was a wound in the Conservative party for years to come.

But all that was in the future. What was clear on that November morning in 1990 was that an era was passing. Nothing like it has been seen since.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Bill Clinton, Mk V

The real differences in our world are not between Catholics and Protestants, Arabs and Jews, Muslims, Croats, and Serbs; they are between those who embrace peace and those who reject it, those who look to the future and those who are blinded by the hatreds of the past, those who open their arms and those who are determined to keep clenching their fists.

We all have to choose. The people of Northern Ireland have chosen peace. They do not deserve to have a small group choose bloodshed and violence and wreck the peaceful life they long for. And the people of Great Britain do not deserve to have this violence wreaked upon them. 

We will not stop in our efforts until peace has been secured.

Bill Clinton, responding to the collapse of the IRA ceasefire and the bombing of Canary Wharf in London, 10th February 1996.

Europe Without Frontiers

The calls have started already. "Reinstate border controls!" cry many. "Schengen isn't working!" say the doom mongers. The carnage on the streets of Paris this weekend has led many to call for the end of one of the pinnacles of the European Union. Under the Schengen Agreement, countries in the Schengen Area removed border restrictions and controls. Citizens can travel freely between Berlin and Bordeaux, get the train from Paris to Poland, drive from Naples to Norway, without being required to show their passport or undergo checks at the border. Unfortunately, this system also enabled men to drive from Belgium and Germany to Paris last Friday, with horrific consequences.

Before writing off Schengen, though, it is worth pausing for thought. It was introduced in an early format in 1985, and finalised in the 1990s. This meant it was implemented after the Baader Meinhof Gang kidnapped West German industrialist Hanns-Martin Schleyer in 1977. He was kidnapped and initially held in West Germany, before being moved to Brussels and finally murdered in France, where his body was dumped. This in turn came three years after the same organisation had taken hostages at the West German embassy in Sweden, having planned and armed for the attack in West Germany.

Schengen was also introduced after the Provisional IRA had received huge quantities of weapons from Libya, and driven them to targets in Germany and Spain. After ETA had carried out its campaign for a Basque homeland in both France and Spain. After Black September murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. After the Secret Army Organisation, dedicated to overthrowing the French government, had operated out of bases in Spain. Or the Italian Red Brigades sought refuge in France.

My point is, a Europe with border controls did not stop terrorist attacks. It also did not stop the seeming ease with which these people travel across the Continent to carry out their murderous actions.

So let's not tear up the Schengen Agreement. There will, unfortunately always be idiots and lunatics prepared to commit harm. And sometimes, what we put in their way will not be enough. But that is no reason to reverse a quarter of a century of progress. As a school teacher, I know that punishing everyone for the actions of a few is bad practice, and breeds resentment.

Besides, the past we'd be returning to was not all it is being made out to be.

Pray for Vienna

The greatest thing that we can all do today is to send our prayers and messages of support... to Vienna.

There, foreign ministers and diplomats are locked in intensive talks, trying desperately to find a solution to the bloodbath in Syria. This vicious civil war is stoking the violence that we see on the TV every night, from Paris to the Persian Gulf. It is also driving millions of people from their homes, and forcing them to seek a better life elsewhere. Winter is coming, and thousands are still out there, struggling to safety.

Surely the best thing we can do for those who were murdered yesterday, in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad and across the world, would be to end the war that is driving the cycle of violence and human misery?

The Return of the Lady

As long as I have been alive, Aung San Suu Kyi has been a beacon for democracy and prisoners of conscience around the world. The daughter of Burma's founding father, she returned to her home country in 1988, as the military dictatorship which ruled it was struggling to hold on to power. In the 1990 elections, her National League for Democracy party took 57.8% of the vote, and 80% of the seats in parliament, crushing the military backed political parties. She seemed destined for power, to lead Burma into the light.

It never happened. The generals who ran the country were shocked, so they nullified the election results and launched a crackdown on the NLD. Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest. The following years were bleak. Her Nobel Prize for Peace, in 1991, was awarded to an empty chair, as the military refused to let her leave the country. In 1999, her British husband died of cancer, not having seen his wife in years. Periods of freedom were short-lived. She was often to be seen leaning over the gates of her Rangoon home, megaphone in hand, speaking to those brave enough to risk concentrating there.

But amongst ordinary Burmese, she became 'The Lady,' a symbol of the future that might have been. Around the world she was lauded as an icon, a symbol of the best of humanity. Burmese leaders could not travel to any Western democracy without being harangued about the fate of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Eventually, the generals relented. In 2010 a rigged election started a slow, painful transition to democracy. The Lady was released. Over a decade late, she collected her Nobel Prize.

But the process was fraught with tension. The generals were still calling all the shots. The Burmese constitution was written to deliberately exclude her from power. A quarter of all MPs were to be appointed by the army.

No matter. Last Sunday, Burma had its first free elections since that May day in 1990. Once again, the NLD smashed the army backed politicians. The generals have admitted defeat. Aung San Suu Kyi is finally headed for the prize many believed she would never get.

The way ahead is not easy. Many are worried that, now she is a politician and no longer a symbol, the shine will come off of The Lady, as she faces the real world dilemmas of governing. But I know which she would prefer. Governing, any day. Nelson Mandela proved you could be both a symbolic liberator and a healing politician. Let's let The Lady try too.

Aung San Suu Kyi stands as a beacon for democracy, prisoners of conscience, and human rights. I really hope her time as Burma's leader is successful. God knows she deserves it.

The 1990 Burmese Election

The End of the Rope

Fifty years ago today the UK Parliament passed a Private Members Bill into law. It ensured that no criminal in the United Kingdom would ever hear the following words again:

The sentence of this court is that you will be taken from here to the place from whence you came and there be kept in close confinement until [date of execution], and upon that day that you be taken to the place of execution and there hanged by the neck until you are dead. 

And may the Lord have mercy upon your soul.

In abolishing capital punishment, Parliament was miles ahead of public opinion. It took until March of this year for support for the return of hanging to drop below 50%. After many horrific murders, or terrorist attacks, or police officers dying on duty, there are often calls for the death penalty to be reinstated.

And yet it hasn't. So, thank you, Sydney Silverman, the MP who introduced the Bill. And thank you to every parliamentarian who helped to make Britain a more civilised place that day.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Yitzhak Rabin

I, serial number 30743, Lieutenant General in reserves Yitzhak Rabin, a soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces and in the army of peace; I, who have sent armies into fire and soldiers to their death, say today: We sail onto a war which has no casualties, no wounded, no blood nor suffering. It is the only war which is a pleasure to participate in — the war for peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, speaking before the US Congress, July 1994. On 4th November 1994, he was assassinated by an Israeli ultra-nationalist, for signing the Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. This is widely considered to have finished off the last best hope for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

One of the Most Important People You've Probably Never Heard Of

We teach children that in history things have long term causes and short term causes. It can't be true that the First World War broke out because an Archduke was assassinated; no one is that popular.

The spectacular collapse of the Eastern Bloc between 1989 and 1991 has many long term causes. The structural economic problems of command economies, political repression, the inability of the Soviet Union to keep pace with NATO's defence spending, the courage of a handful prepared to stand and fight, peacefully, for a better life. All helped to fatally undermine the Eastern Bloc.

And short term? On 9th November 1989, the East German government announced a package of measures, designed to relax border controls with West Germany. These were designed to be phased in over a series of months. But no one had thought to tell Guenter Schabowski, the government spokesman sent out to face the media. When asked when these measures were to be introduced, he replied:

"This occurs, to my knowledge... immediately... without delay."

The rest, as they say, was history:

Guenter Schabowski died over the weekend. His cock up on that November night stands as a reminder that, for all the deep underlying currents which drive history, sometimes individuals act as the trigger for massive change.

An Agincourt Carol

Owre Kynge went forth to Normandy

With grace and myght of chyvalry

Ther God for hym wrought mervelusly;

Wherefore Englonde may call and cry

Deo gratias! Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria!

He sette sege, forsothe to say,

To Harflu towne with ryal aray;

That toune he wan and made afray

That Fraunce shal rewe tyl domesday.

Deo gratias! Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria!

Then went hym forth, owre king comely,

In Agincourt feld he faught manly;

Throw grace of God most marvelsuly,

He had both feld and victory.

Deo gratias! Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria!

Ther lordys, erles and barone

Were slayne and taken and that full soon,

Ans summe were broght into Lundone

With joye and blisse and gret renone.

Deo gratias! Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria!

Almighty God he keep owre kynge,

His peple, and alle his well-wyllynge,

And give them grace wythoute endyng;

Then may we call and savely syng:

Deo gratias! Deo gratias Anglia redde pro victoria!

Early C15th song, commemorating the victory of the English army over the French at Agincourt, 25th October 1415.

Once again, I am reminded of the words of John O'Farrell:

Different eras are of course of varying historical significance: the English triumphs at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt are particularly important battles and should be pointed out over and over again; but after that the Hundred Years War becomes far less important, indeed hardly worth bothering about, particularly all the petty little details like who goes on to win at the end. That is why most people in Britain will not have heard much about the battles of Patay, or Formigny, or Castillon. They are not historically significant. England lost them.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Sir Geoffrey Howe

The tragedy is--and it is for me personally, for my party, for our whole people and for my right hon. Friend herself, a very real tragedy--that the Prime Minister's perceived attitude towards Europe is running increasingly serious risks for the future of our nation. It risks minimising our influence and maximising our chances of being once again shut out. We have paid heavily in the past for late starts and squandered opportunities in Europe. We dare not let that happen again. If we detach ourselves completely, as a party or a nation, from the middle ground of Europe, the effects will be incalculable and very hard ever to correct.

In my letter of resignation, which I tendered with the utmost sadness and dismay, I said :

"Cabinet Government is all about trying to persuade one another from within".

That was my commitment to Government by persuasion--persuading colleagues and the nation. I have tried to do that as Foreign Secretary and since, but I realise now that the task has become futile : trying to stretch the meaning of words beyond what was credible, and trying to pretend that there was a common policy when every step forward risked being subverted by some casual comment or impulsive answer.

The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real--and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned. In doing so, I have done what I believe to be right for my party and my country. The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long.

Sir Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech to the House of Commons, 13th November 1990. The loss of her last original Cabinet colleague precipitated the downfall of Margaret Thatcher.

The Prime Minister Who Never Was

It is often said that Denis Healey was the greatest Prime Minister that never was. I would agree. This blog is littered with worlds in which he became Prime Minister at some point in the 1970s or 1980s.

And I genuinely believe that Britain would have been a better place for it.

But instead, history conspired to deprive Denis Healey of the ultimate prize. But the legacy he leaves is of a life lived to the full. A West Yorkshire schoolboy, an Oxford student politician as Europe began the slide to war, an officer in the Royal Engineers during the Second World War, a firebrand leftist who built links with half of Europe's political left, Harold Wilson's defence minister as Britain's commitment East of Suez came to an end, Chancellor of the Exchequer during the 1970s economic storm, the bulwark of the Labour moderates as the party came close to collapse in the 1980s... there are many Denis Healeys.

Outside of politics, he had his famous 'hinterland,' interests ranging from poetry to photography to swimming to music. He appeared on the Morecambe and Wise Show Christmas special, and alongside Dame Edna Everidge. And in the graphic novel Watchmen, he was named as Britain's Prime Minister. Never has a politician defied the stereotype so fully, and demonstrated that the best politicians are those with a real life.

And today he has passed away. A link with the past has gone into the twilight.

Normally I would try and find a single quote to sum up someone. But for Healey this is impossible. He really was too great, and his acid tongue too sharp.

But I can find two:

I am going to negotiate with the IMF on the basis of our existing policies, not changes in policies, and I need your support to do it. [Applause] But when I say "existing policies", I mean things we do not like as well as things we do like. It means sticking to the very painful cuts in public expenditure [shouts from the floor] on which the Government has already decided. It means sticking to a pay policy which enables us, as the TUC resolved a week or two ago, to continue the attack on inflation. [Shout of, "Resign".]

Denis Healey before the Labour conference in 1976, justifying his decision to enter negotiations with the IMF before a hostile Labour party.

And, most tellingly for today:

What almost halved the support for the Labour Party was the feeling that it has lost its traditional common sense and its humanity to a new breed of sectarian extremism

Denis Healey's take on the 1983 general election.

For more brilliant Healeyisms:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/denis-healey-dies-the-best-quotes-and-quips-from-the-labour-giant-a6678361.html

Major Healey addressing the 1945 Labour conference.

Budget Day, 1977

Showing the Labour left exactly where they could go, 1981

America, 2016- 13 Months To Go...

It seems hard to believe, but three years have passed since Barack Obama was re-elected as US President. At the time, I was a severely under-employed recent graduate, and with nothing better to do with my life, I followed the twists and turns of the campaign avidly, including staying up most of election night to watch the results. Despite all his trials and tribulations, Obama pulled the rabbit out of the hat a second time, and managed to hang on to his presidency.

But somehow, here we are, gearing up to go through it all again. And what a race 2016 is shaping up to be.

First, to the Republican party. With the US economy stuttering and struggling, an unpopular incumbent, and a long spell out of office (long enough to forget the previous Republican president), the GOP should be measuring up the curtains and furniture for their return to the White House.

Instead, they are at the beginning of what is looking like the mother of all punch ups. The race has been thrown into chaos by the entry of Donald Trump, businessman, TV personality, political hurricane. The Donald has seemingly turned things on their heads, overtaking more conventional candidates, like Jeb Bush, and your usual bunch of Republican nutters, like Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. Although I doubt that Trump will actually win the nomination, he has wreaked havoc with the attempt by the GOP to present itself as a kinder, gentler party. Whoever emerges as the winner of the primaries will be brusied and battered. Never a good start to a national election shot. The division between the party establishment and the grassroots is about to split open. And that's before the issue of the split between Trump and his hair comes into play...

With the Republican party on the brink of tearing itself apart, you'd have thought the Democrat would be laughing. After eight years in office, they've been thrown a lifeline for another shot. But they are not trouble free either. Their choice of candidate has long been obvious. Ever since she was pipped to the post in 2008, Hillary Clinton has been waiting in the wings for 2016. No candidate has ever gone into a primary race with so much support from their party, so much money behind them, so great an experience of government.

And yet... Clinton is starting to look less and less like the formidable election winning machine she once seemed to be. A bizarre, complex scandal that no one really understands is starting to hurt her. As far as I can work out, she used personal emails for work business. Seemingly not a problem, but not when you're the US Secretary of State, handling classified documents. But the problem lies in the twisting and turning to try and pretend she didn't do anything wrong. All the problems Hillary had in 2008 are starting to appear again: she's cold, she's aloof, shes' arrogant, she's married to Bill.

And it is starting to show. Her poll numbers are slipping. Most voters now say she isn't to be trusted. The Democrats are also having their own Trumpesque performance in the form of Bernie Sanders, the 'Independent Socialist' senator from Vermont, who is firing up the Democratic base, and eating into Clinton's support. Although Sanders is a rubbish presidential candidate (older, limited appeal outside of young, white, Northeastern liberals, not even an actual Democrat), he highlights Hillary's central problem. If he can be presented as a realistic challenger, what hope has she got against whoever emerges from the Republican brawl?

But, I think I have a solution. What the Democrats need is a candidate with impeccable leftist credentials. Someone with legislative and executive experience, but who can bill themselves as a Washington outsider. A politician with a proven record of electability, preferably on a national level, but who is not contaminated by recent troubles. A person who can appeal to better times.

I know what you're thinking. And yes, Jimmy Carter's cancer probably does rule him out. But there is another suggestion. If only there was another Democrat from better times, a Nobel Prize to their name, who had been elected nationally* but hasn't been mired in politics recently...

Well, it's just an idea...

*Of course, the suggestion that Al Gore has been elected US President is clearly nonsense. I'm sure that Jeb Bush was just as surprised by the result in Florida in 2000 as the next person... albeit the next person was Dubya...

And So It Begins...

Before I go any further, there are two things I must stress. Firstly, I wrote this post on Thursday. This is not the ramblings of a person bitter on the day.

Secondly, I hope that I am wrong. I hope that on Friday 8th May 2020 there will be a change of government. Whoever the Conservative Party have selected to replace David Cameron will be whisked off to the Palace to tender their resignation. A little while later, the new Prime Minister will cycle into Downing Street, dismount outside the steps of Number Ten, and announce that he is forming a new administration. A Labour administration.

I genuinely hope that will happen. I want nothing more than the Tories out, and the left back in.

Today has seen Jeremy Corbyn elected Labour leader. He is now the man who bears the responsibility of trying to end Tory rule in Britain come 2020. Corbyn has ridden an enormous wave of support from the left, as those sick and tired of Blairism and Brownism have revolted, hoping for a return to plainer, less polluted socialism. Many people I know are really excited. The most left-wing leader of a major UK political party ever is certainly a leftist's dream, and part of me would like to see him in Downing Street, doing what he says he would.

And yet I don't think he can do it. As part of the Labour selectorate, I know I am barely representative of the British public. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn is who Labour activists wanted. But I know in my heart of hearts that when confronted with a choice between Jeremy Corbyn and George Osborne/Boris Johnson/ Theresa May/ Whoever the Tories pick, the vast majority of ordinary voters will opt for safety. And it seems to me that a political party in purist opposition is, well, a bit pointless. A charitable, active pressure group, little different to the RSPCA, the Scout Association, or the National Trust.

If the point of politics is to take power and exercise it in the interests of those you represent, then winning elections seems a fairly crucial part of the process in a democracy. If this means actually having a leader who can win elections, that tends to help. I've not yet seen a shred of evidence that Labour, or anyone else for that matter, can build an electoral base to Labour's left which would carry them to victory. As much as the man is reviled by many leftists, floating voters think Tony Blair was the best Labour leader since Harold Wilson. We have to engage with that. At least some of Labour's future support will, like it or not, have to come from people who have drifted to the Tory party under Cameron. That means persuading them to come back. We may not like it. But we also have no choice.

Things will get much worse for many people in this country in the near future. Those Neil Kinnock powerfully summed up as the losers of Thatcherism will suffer; the young, the old, the ill, the unemployed, the ordinary. The effects of colossal, and arguably unnecessary, public spending cuts will soon begin to show their true colours. Already it can be felt in certain places. I work in a school. My girlfriend is a debt counsellor. My mother is a midwife. Try telling me that cuts to the bloated state have saved money with no detrimental effect. I once heard it described as being like a patient bleeding. They can lose some blood without feeling any pain. But lose too much and they die.

It should be Labour's job to end this appalling state of affairs on Thursday 7th May 2020. Instead, I reckon I will be nearing forty by the time they recover and get back into office.

But as I said, I hope I am wrong. But if Jeremy Corbyn does not ride a wave of left-wing support to Number 10 in 2020, then those of us who have participated in this leadership election must bear some responsibility for having contributed to letting down those who most need a Labour government.

One way or another, the long night has begun. Let us hope it is not as long nor as dark as I fear.

The Wit and Wisdom of... David Trimble

But the realisation of peace needs more than magnanimity. It requires a certain political prudence, and a willingness at times not to be too precise or pedantic. Burke says, "It is the nature of greatness not to be exact." Amos Oz agrees, "Inconsistency is the basis of coexistence. The heroes of tragedy, driven by consistency and by righteousness, destroy each other. He who seeks total supreme justice seeks death." Again the warning not to aim for abstract perfection. Heaven knows, in Ulster, what I have looked for is a peace within the realms of the possible. We could only have started from where we actually were, not from where we would have liked to be.

And we have started. And we will go on. And we will go on all the better if we walk, rather than run. If we put aside fantasy and accept the flawed nature of human enterprises. Sometimes we will stumble, maybe even go back a bit. But this need not matter if in the spirit of an old Irish proverb we say to ourselves "Tomorrow is another day."

... Now, winter is here, and there is still no sign of spring. Like John Bunyan's Pilgrim, we politicians have been through the Slough of Despond. We have seen Doubting Castle, the owner whereof was Giant Despair. I can certainly recall passing many times through the Valley of Humiliation. And all too often we have encountered, not only on the other side, but on our own side too "the man who could look no way but downwards, with a muckrake in his hand".

Nevertheless, like one of Beckett's characters "I will go on, because I must go on." What we democratic politicians want in Northern Ireland is not some utopian society but a normal society. The best way to secure that normalcy is the tried and trusted method of parliamentary democracy. So the Northern Ireland Assembly is the primary institutional instrument for the development of a normal society in Northern Ireland. Like any parliament it needs to be more than a cockpit for competing victimisations. Burke said it best: "Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and an advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where not local purposes, nor local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole."

David Trimble, former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. This is taken from his speech after receiving the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume, for their work on the Good Friday Agreement.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Neil Kinnock, Mk IV

I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council—a Labour council—hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers. 

I'm telling you - and you'll listen - you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services.

The voice of the people, not the people in here, the people with real needs is louder than all the boos that can be assembled. The people cannot abide posturing. They cannot respect gesturing generals or tendency tacticians.

It seems to me that some of them become latter day public school boys. It seems to them it does not matter if the game is won or lost but how you play the game. 

Those games players end isolated and try to blame others - the workers, some of our leadership, trade unions, the people of the city, for not showing sufficient revolutionary consciousness or somebody else. 

Who is left in the ring? The casualties are left, not to be found among the leaders or some of their enthusiasts, but among the people whose jobs have been lost, whose services have been destroyed and whose standard of living has been crushed down.

Neil Kinnock, addressing the Labour party conference, 1st October 1985. Kinnock was launching an attack on the activities of Liverpool's Labour council, which was run by far-leftist Militant Tendency.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Neil Kinnock, Mk. III

If anyone wants to know why we must conduct ourselves [realistically and with commonsense], just remember at all times, with all temptations, how you, each and every one of you sitting in this hall, each and every Labour worker watching this conference, each and every Labour voter, yes, and some others as well, remember how you felt on that dreadful morning of the tenth of June. 

Just remember how you felt then, and think to yourselves: 'June the ninth, 1983, never ever again will we experience that.'

Neil Kinnock's first speech to the Labour Party Conference as Labour leader, October 1983, in the aftermath of a crushing defeat for Labour.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Roy Hattersley, Mk. II

The tragedy has been for the people out there who needed a Labour government. Certainly the years since 1979 have been a tragedy for my constituents: black, poor, unemployed, badly housed. The defeats, and therefore our performance, have been a tragedy for the lowest paid 10-20% of the population, and we must feel some guilt about having behaved in a way which prevented us from coming to their assistance.

Roy Hattersley, speaking in 1995 on BBC 2 documentary Labour in the Wilderness

Labour Pains

It is a bewildering time to be on the British left.

2015 began full of hope. All the opinion polls were saying that David Cameron was not long for this world; although Labour had failed to decisively overtake the Tories, in the expected hung parliament parties of the left and centre-left were predicted to dominate. After only a single term, the Conservatives were heading back into opposition.

And then came the election. At 22:01, what I'd always said would probably happen was duly forecast; the Conservatives had improved on their 2010 showing. Within hours, it was clear that they'd done even better than that. Halfway through Friday, it was confirmed that the Tories had clinched an outright majority in the House of Commons. Not even the humbling of Nigel Farage in South Thanet could lift my spirits. Five more years of David Cameron. I'll be days off my 30th birthday before there's even a chance of seeing the Conservatives out of office.

Clearly, this called for a deep analysis of what had gone wrong for the parties of the left. How had their apparent support not translated into votes? For some parties, this was easy. The pseudo-leftist Scottish National Party didn't stand outside of Scotland, which certainly hampered their chances of further advance. For the centre-left Liberal Democrats, I reckon going into coalition in 2010, with all the compromises and u-turning that this entailed, may have lost them a vote or two. Certainly it lost them mine. The Greens? A mixture of the injustice of Britain's first past the post electoral system, and the injustice that the rest of us suffered in having Natalie Bennett unleashed upon us.

And what about that centre-left behemoth, the apparent alternative government in waiting? To have lost seats whilst gaining votes, shedding support in Scotland whilst picking it up in England and Wales presents Labour with a difficult message from the electorate. Clearly, this requires deep analysis, whilst not allowing the Tories to set the agenda and the message of the years ahead.

Instead, what Labour appears to have taken leave of its senses, simultaneously abdicating its responsibility as the Official Opposition to Her Majesty's Government, whilst plunging headlong into a leadership contest which threatens to ignite a civil war in the party.

Part of the problem is that Labour has no clear idea why it has lost. Was it too left-wing, or not left-wing enough? Was Ed Miliband really doomed because of his image problems, or did voters see through that and really reject his message? Have they ignored their working class base for too long, or failed to reach out to new constituencies? And what on Earth went wrong in Scotland? But in the rush to select a new leader, these questions have all been drowned out.

And what a race it is turning in to. The first person in was a Blairite, who has subsequently found out that saying things which go against the grain of the party's thinking hasn't endeared her to the members. Two well meaning but dull technocrats, who represent what so many voters detest in modern politics. And Jeremy Corbyn.

Ah yes, Jeremy Corbyn. A bastion of Labour's socialist wing since the early 1980s. Initially scraping onto the ballot, nominated by MPs who wanted to see his ideas debated and destroyed, Corbyn has created merry hell ever since. His hard-left ideas and policies are hugely exciting to party members, who feel this is their best chance to overthrow years of control by the Labour moderates and right-wing. Corbyn's support has surged, fuelled by many leftists, young and not so young, joining the party to get him elected. The token sympathy leftist might be about to win.

I'm torn over what to make of this. Much of what Corbyn says is music to my ears. I agree with much of his analysis over what is wrong with modern Britain, economically and socially. And I'd be happy to see many of his solutions implemented. And yet...

I know in my heart of hearts that Labour would not win under him in 2020. There is no evidence that the British electorate would flock to an avowedly socialist party. Labour has never been a socialist political party. The closest it has ever come was in 1983. That year, their hard-left manifesto was derided as "the longest suicide note in history." By a member of the Shadow Cabinet, a senior Labour MP. Labour crashed to a heavy defeat at the 1983 election, polling a mere 27.6%.

This was Labour's worst showing since 1918, an election fought in the fevered aftermath of the First World War, when Labour was barely a national political party anyway. They were only 2.2% away from coming third, behind the moderate SDP-Liberal Alliance. Many voters told the party they had backed Labour despite the hard-left policies it espoused, not because of them. This struggle between the hard left and the moderates spanned nearly twenty years in all, and the chaos and division on the left enabled 18 years of Conservative government to go virtually unchallenged. At no point did it seem that a more left-wing Labour party was the way back to power.

There's no more recent evidence either. Despite what it claims, the SNP is not a socialist political party; a cursory glance at its record running Scotland will show that. The nationalist fervour gripping Scotland means that Labour could have put Keir Hardie and Karl Marx up as candidates, and they'd still have lost. The 'Green surge' failed to materialise, and the far-left parties mustered only a handful of votes between them.

Underlying all this is a twofold issue. Of course activists and members are delighted by Jeremy Corbyn. After years of seeing a party preach social democracy and practice capitalism, here is their chance to vote for 'One of Us.' The problem is, while he is an activist's dream leader, does your next-door neighbour want his finger on the button? The taking and exercising of power to advance its interests. Labour's interests are supposed to be speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves, to paraphrase the late, great John Smith. They may have not always done it well, but at least they tried. I don't doubt Jeremy Corbyn's aims to do so, they are beyond reproach. But I do doubt his ability achieve this aim.

It's safe to say that the last Labour government hasn't had much good press recently. Even Labour MPs and members are given to kicking it. Apparently invading and destroying a Middle Eastern country, dragging the region into over a decade of conflict and destruction, wasn't exactly the smartest move, let alone the most moral. Neither was the dramatic assault on civil liberties, nor the slavish adherence to neo-liberal economics which brought the economy and the country to its knees.

And yet... What about the record investment in schools, hospitals, the welfare system, reversing two decades of underspending? Tax credits, the most redistributive measure introduced by any government since the 1940s? The National Minimum Wage, which has transformed the bottom of the labour market beyond recognition? Doubling maternity leave, let alone paternity leave? The Human Rights Act? Freedom of Information, Sure Start? Devolution? A ban on fox hunting? The smoking ban? Advances in LGBT rights which turned social and cultural attitudes on their heads in barely a decade? Peace in Northern Ireland? Hell, they should even be proud of the deficit, not racked up by government largesse, but by a textbook approach to a financial and economic crash to prevent recession becoming depression.

Crucially, these radical measures were often brought in without much fanfare. Labour can help its core supporters and interests, without spooking Britain's right-wing electorate. Having a populist right-winger as Prime Minister didn't stop progressive politics, at least at home. Overseas? That's for the International Criminal Court to decide, not for me. But the key is still the same; you do not need a socialist messiah to bring in leftist measures which help millions of Britons at the bottom end of society.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of the alternatives to Jeremy Corbyn are election winning material. But they offer a better chance of taking Labour forward on the road back to power, in helping those without a voice to have one at the heart of government. Jeremy Corbyn's heart is in the right place. His ideas are fantastic. But faced with the choice of a perfect left-wing opposition or a flawed left-wing government, I know which I would prefer.

That is why this morning I paid my £3 to become a registered supporter of the Labour party. I must be the only person signing up to vote against Jeremy Corbyn. But before Labour can help to save the country, it apparently needs saving from itself.

Dear Mhairi Black...

Dear Mhairi Black,

Like millions of others, last week I was enthralled by your maiden speech in the House of Commons. First of all, I wanted to say well done. It really was a fantastic speech, delivered with passion and incisive wit. Had you been standing in my constituency, I'd have voted for you hands down. I reckon anyone on the English left would be lying if they said they wouldn't have done the same.

But, Mhairi Black, there were parts of your speech that troubled me. Your account of the constituent who was forced to choose between travelling for food or travelling to the job centre movd me to tears. But, I am troubled. The picture of Scotland that you painted was of a country that is hurting. A country that is suffering, not just under the burden of austerity, but suffering under a cruel and oppressive government. Given that Scotland stopped backing the Conservatives a generation ago, it is easy to see the rage that is felt by many, that a government they never voted for is forcing austerity upon them. And yet, who else rules north of the border? Who else has at least contributed to the creation of this cold, uncaring land that you so passionately denounce? That would be the Scottish National Party, in power at Holyrood since 2007. Your party.

Now, hold on, you may say to me. Yes, the SNP has governed Scotland for eight years. But it has been subject to austerity from above, first by Labour, then the coalition, and now from the Conservatives. The SNP administration has been forced to do more with less, as the bloc grant from London has been cut. The only solution to this, you might add, is for Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom and go it alone. Released from the Westminster shackles, the SNP would able to throw money at all problems and solve them.

Let's take a step into the distant past. 1997. I was seven, you were three. I doubt either of us took much interest in the Scottish devolution debate that year. Certainly, it doesn't rank alongside the victory of the No More School Party in my primary school elections, which brought Tony Blair to power (I might be mixing two events there...). But there was a referendum in Scotland, and by 75% to 25%, the Scottish people voted to restore a legislative assembly to Edinburgh.

They also voted on another question. To ensure that the new Scottish Parliament would be more than a talking shop, the Labour government granted it the power to vary the rate of income tax in Scotland by 3 pence in the pound. This 'Tartan Tax' was where the opponents of devolution chose to do battle. The Parliament was a foregone conclusion. But tax-raising powers weren't. In the end, it too was passed, by 63% to 37%.

Why the digression into history? That tax-altering power has never been used. Since 1999, when the Parliament first sat and the Scottish Government began work, no extra monies have been raised by Scotland, in Scotland or for Scotland. Were the SNP really the left-wing crusading firebrands they claim to be, they could have raised taxes in Scotland, to help the poorest in society, through tax credits, extra public spending, or even direct subsidies. This is called redistribution, and is the oldest socialist tool. It wouldn't solve all of Scotland's problems. But it would alleviate the suffering of thousands of Scots. Instead, as the bloc grant from Westminster shrinks, the SNP administration has applied austerity. The only political institution with the power to ease the cuts, apart from the mighty Treasury, has chosen not to do so.

I don't know why, Mhairi Black, your party has chosen to follow this course of action. I have a few ideas. It is easier to paint Westminster as the villain. It also helps your cause of separating Scotland from the Union. But what you cannot do is attack Westminster for the state of the nation, when the Scotland you represent is equally of the SNP's making.

You also identified Tony Benn as your all time political hero. I had to watch that bit again, so surprised was I. Tony Benn? A Labour stalwart for so long that he probably knew the Tolpuddle Martyrs? Labour, the party you and the SNP are committed to destroying, both in Scotland and apparently here in England as well?

I can only presume you were drawn to Tony Benn due to the fact that, during the 1980s, his insurgent campaign to make Labour more socialist ignited a civil war in the party that brought it to the brink of collapse. Of course, as a result he was partly responsible for a split in the left vote, which kept the Tories in power for nearly two decades. Is that what you want? Another eighteen years of single party, right wing rule?

In spite of his actions, Benn was Labour to his core. He opposed Scottish independence, on the grounds of class solidarity and familial ties. Do not claim that you are inspired by him, when all the evidence suggests that the SNP is devoted to destroying much of what he stood for.

There is another reason you should be cautious about appropriating the legacy of Tony Benn. Above all else, even above socialism, Tony Benn loved democracy. Specifically, he loved the democratically expressed sovereign will of the British people, as expressed through the men and women that they returned to represent them in the House of Commons. Parliamentary sovereignty was everything to him. This is where his opposition to the EU came from (incidentally, SNP policy is to join the EU so fast no one will notice you left; how does that fit?); not just because he saw the EU as a capitalist cabal, but because Britain's membership deprived the House of Commons of supreme sovereignty. There is a colossal irony in you choosing to identify with a figure who believed passionately in an institution that you and your party have shown nothing but contempt for, and have made clear you think has no place in governing the people of Scotland. I just wonder, how do you square that circle?

But once again, I must congratulate you on your achievements. The youngest MP since God knows when. A maiden speech that showed left-wing fire, eloquence and passion. A fantastic riposte to the idea that all MPs have to have life experience, or that young people don't care about politics.

But do not use your new found prominence to promise a Scottish socialist utopia, if only the shackles of Westminster were thrown off. The SNP is incapable of delivering that, and I suspect it doesn't want to either. Certainly it has not tried to in it's near decade running Scotland. A little more honesty from the SNP would endear it to millions of English people like me.

Yours,

A fellow progressive traveller.

Srebrenica at Twenty

Never again. 

In the aftermath of the Second World War, this was the promise made by the victorious Allies. As Nazi Germany collapsed, and the Allies over-ran vast swathes of Europe, they uncovered the horror of horrors. The Nazi state, and its collaborators, had systematically undertaken an attempt to completely destroy entire groups, purely based on ideology. Jews, Roma, disabled people, Poles, Soviets, communists, religious minorities. For not fitting in with the 'Master Race', their punishment was to die. This was death on an industrial scale.

Never again. As the United Nations was established, a set of universal rights was written in to international law. The perpetrators of the Holocaust were put on trial for crimes against humanity. Some were hanged, others were imprisoned. Justice was seen to have been done. The United Nations would bestride the globe, and ensure that never again would be a reality, and not just hollow words.

And so we reassured ourselves, this would not happen again. Of course, there were acts of genocide after 1945. Cambodia, in the 70s. The Congo in the 60s. Rwanda in the 90s. But these were in faraway places, and so 'didn't count'. Or 'were different.'

And then it happened. Genocide returned to the developed world. In the early 1990s, the country of Yugoslavia was tearing itself apart, as nationalism and religion fuelled a vicious cycle of conflict. The international community was virtually powerless. Certainly, it did little beyond hand-wringing and stern words.

These were not enough. The town of Srebrenica, in Bosnia, was home to thousands of Bosnian Muslims, in an area dominated by Christian Serbs. Before the war, they had been neighbours. Now they were enemies.

On 11th July 1995, the Serbs captured the town. Over the next few days, 8000 men and boys were murdered. What was the worse, the town was supposed to be under UN protection. The UN peacekeepers, outnumbered and outgunned, handed over more people to the Serbs. The peacekeepers were then taken prisoner, and used as human shields by the Serbs, to prevent other UN forces from intervening. No greater failure of the principle of never again can be imagined. The UN was tantamount to complicit in genocide.

Eventually, word got out about the horrors unfolding in Bosnia. Belatedly, the international community responded. The UN asked NATO to protect the Bosnian Muslims. Peace keeping became peace making, as NATO airstrikes forced the Serbs to the negotiating table. Out of this horror came peace, a peace which has lasted.

This event happened within my lifetime. Well within living memory. And yet it has been largely forgotten. It is easy to see why. It was an example of the failure of the post-war dream; that liberal democracy and international institutions would prevent a repeat of mass slaughter. Never again had become never again, until the next time.

But yet this makes it more important to remember. For the appalling events of Srebrenica serve as a reminder that we must never be complacent in our attitudes towards prejudice. My parents went to Yugoslavia in the 1980s, and had you told them they were visiting a country where neighbours would be murdering each other within the decade, they would have laughed you away. Treating people as the Other can lead to bloodshed, now matter how remote that possibility seems at first.

Srebrenica also shows what the international community can achieve. Those responsible are in the process of being tried by an international war crimes court. The Dutch state, which provided the peacekeepers who handed over their charges to be slaughtered, has been found guilty of negligence and has been ordered to pay compensation. Too late, yes. Too slow, yes. But it shows that genocide does not go unpunished.

Since 1995, the Balkans has flourished. The former Yugoslavia is now an incredibly popular holiday destination. The different parts are in the process of joining the EU. The peace which flowed from Srebrenica has lasted. Now, the chances of another outbreak of bloodshed is remote. International bodies and organisations have cemented that peace.

The last lesson of Srebrenica is one I'm reluctant to accept, but accept it I must. The Dayton Accords, the peace deal which ended the war, did not happen because of a sudden outbreak of goodwill. Nor did they happen because the Serbs suddenly saw the error of their ways, or even because the Bosnians had fought them to a standstill. The Dayton Accords were signed because the Serbs were bombed to the conference table by NATO. After the images of Srebrenica were beamed around the world, the international community was forced into action. This dreadful event should never have been allowed to happen. Sometimes only the use of force can prevent even more killing. Had the UN asked for force to be used in 1994, or 1993, or any other year, many of those 8000 men and boys may have lived to see today.

The problem is, another US-led use of force against another country has clouded minds, mine included. As much as it pains me to say, those on the left should accept that Dubya's revenge-fuelled attack on Iraq in 2003 should not mean the end of interventionism. Unilateralism has ruined Iraq, a unilateralism based on a desire to 'finish off Saddam.' Multilateralism under the banner of the UN, a war conducted as the lesser of two evils, did not.

I know this is long, and very rambling. I'm good at long and rambling. And having written this, I'm no clearer in my mind what Srebrenica  means for me today. But please look beyond that.

Remember the men and children of Srebrenica. If we do not, we never shall learn the lessons it has to offer, whatever they may be.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Teddy Kennedy

My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
 

Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world. 

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not

Senator Edward Kennedy, speaking at the funeral of his brother, Senator Robert Kennedy, June 8th 1968. 

Three days earlier, Bobby Kennedy had won another primary race in his bid to run to be President in 1968. Leaving the victory announcement, he was assassinated as he made his way through hotel kitchens.

The Wit and Wisdom of... The Venerable Bede

I warmly welcome the diligent zeal and sincerity with which you study the words of Holy Scripture, and your eager desire to know something of the doings and sayings of great men of the past, and of our own nation in particular. 

For if history records good things of good men, the thoughtful hearer is encouraged to imitate what is good: or if it records evil of wicked men, the good, religious listener or reader is encouraged to avoid all that is sinful and perverse, and to follow what he knows to be good, and pleasing to God.

Should the reader discover any inaccuracies in what I have written, I humbly beg that he will not impute them to me, because, as the laws of history require, I have laboured honestly to transmit whatever I could ascertain from common report for the instruction of posterity.

I earnestly request all who hear or read this history of our nation to ask God's mercy on my many failings of mind and body. And in return for the diligent toil that I have bestowed on the recording of memorable events in the various provinces and places of greater note, I beg that their inhabitants may grant me the favour of frequent mention in their devout prayers.

Bede, from the introduction to The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, c. 730 AD.

First page of The Ecclesiastical History

The Day After

In my defence, I always said I thought the Tories would do better than expected. But I am still in a state of shock. I honestly didn't expect the Tories to win outright, or the SNP to do as well, Labour to fall back, or the Liberal Democrats to suffer such a spectacular collapse.

This is a new phase for people of my age. The last Conservative only government was in 1997, on the edge of my childhood memories. And they'd lost their majority in December 1996. All my coherent memories are of either Labour in power, or the Coalition. I've never had any experience of direct Tory rule. And on a personal note, this is the first time I saw the party I voted for not win; my previous general election vote was for the Liberal Democrats, who ended up in power. As a person on the left, I am gutted.

But... moaning aside, I do have a few observations.

1) Didn't Cameron do well?- Credit where it is due. David Cameron seemed almost disinterested through the campaign. I thought that even if he did well yesterday, he would be hounded out by the Tories for failing to win again. But today he stood on the steps of No. 10, having seized a majority in the Commons. He took over 11 million votes, more than Tony Blair in 2001 and 2005, beating his own total from 2010 too. The last Prime Minister to increase their strength whilst in government was Mrs Thatcher in 1983. If nothing else, he will go down in the history books for one of the surprising election comebacks of all time.

2) But not that well...- Let's crunch some numbers. Cameron's vote rose by a pathetic 0.8%. His 36.9% support represents the second lowest vote share for a government since 1832, when the first stirrings of democracy began to creep into our system. The only person to do worse was Blair in 2005, and when that government, by then under Brown, faced the voters in 2010, it was badly battered. Treating a little over 1/3 of the vote as majority support is dangerous. Cameron would do well to remember that.

3) Labour; as bad as it looks?- Yes. For Labour, the result was a catastrophe. After five years of Opposition, it managed to do worse than in 2010, amidst the Great Recession. It trails the Tories by 99 seats. Obliterated in its Scottish heartlands, stagnant or in retreat in England. Big names gone. Ed Balls out in Morley and Outwood. Jim Murphy defeated in Scotland. Douglas Alexander out-voted by a 20 year old student, who in three weeks will sit her university finals. An entire generation of Labour politicians have been swept aside. What is left needs to think long and hard about where it goes from here.

But... Labour's share of the vote rose, by 1.4%. They closed the gap between them and the Tories, from 7.1% to 6.5%. If not for the rise of the SNP, Labour would have many more seats. Ed Miliband fought a bloody good campaign. Obviously, Labour are in deep trouble. But there is some light amidst the dark.

4) The Lib Dems- I really felt for Nick Clegg. The party has paid the price for putting country before party. And what a price. The party has been devastated. It lost 86% of its seats last night. Its vote share collapsed from 23% to 8%. Big names out of office, in seats held for decades. I was expecting the local factor to help keep some Lib Dem MPs in. But so total was the collapse that this did not save them. 

Is this the end for them? The Liberal Democrats can trace a history back to the 1600s. They've been down to single figures of MPs before. They'll be back. Good luck Tim Farron, I'm sure you'll make an excellent leader.

5) The force unleashed- What happened in Scotland last night was mind boggling. The SNP took 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland, and half the Scottish vote. They have set themselves up as the authentic voice of Scotland. They alone speak for the Scottish people.

Unless, of course, you come from the 50% of Scots who didn't back the SNP. You have the choice of a Tory, a Lib Dem, and one Labour MP. As Gerry Fitt, the lone pro-Nationalist MP in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, used to say, he spoke for half of Ulster, while ten Unionists spoke for the other half. Our electoral system tends to exaggerate large leads when turned into seats. The Lib Dems actually got substantially more votes than the SNP. But the difference in seats is 48 in favour of the SNP. Under a fairer voting system, the SNP would still be happy, but not quite as much.

The big flaw in the SNP's plans was always evident. They would get rid of the Tories, and make Labour more radical. Of course, this depended on a Labour government they helped to prevent, and a hung parliament that never materialsed. Now what? Will the Scottish electorate be satisfied by very radical complaining?

The SNP's success is down to many reasons. But a big one is because, after the independence referendum last year, they successfully managed to equate 'Scottishness' with the SNP. Minor details like facts just bounce off the SNP, because they're not interested in trivial things like that. They are interested in beliefs. To be a true Scot, you must back the Nationalists. And nationalism is a troubling thing. It preaches division and sectarianism, and can end in dark places. This is an ugly force let loose in the UK, and the SNP may find in time that they have released a monster they cannot control.

6) Tee hee hee- Only time I've been pleased with the result first past the post gives. Yes, it denied voices to millions of people. But UKIP need to be fought and shown for what they really are, and if them not having a platform to preach their vicious message is part of that, then so be it.

There is a lot for those on the left to be afraid of in the next five years. Billions worth of further cuts, considerably more than we saw in the last five years The potential exit from the EU. A diminishing of Britain's voice in the world. Further pain for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. The very existence of the UK.

But I will end on a positive. When I was born, Britain was just over halfway through a long period of one party rule, particularly partisan right wing rule at that. Yes, there was misery and suffering for many. But the country didn't end. The left did (eventually) bounce back. And that was when the Conservatives were led by their most electorally successful leader ever. For all he looks it today, David Cameron is no Mrs Thatcher.

Keep hoping, keep fighting.

I've Made My Decision

I can't remember exactly when I decided how to vote this coming Thursday.

Perhaps it was right at the start. In the twilight hours of May 11th 2010, as David Cameron took office at the end of the first general election I'd ever been part of.

Or maybe it was the next morning, when the man I had given my vote to stood next to Cameron amidst the May sunshine and the flowers, laughing and joking about their exciting new venture.

Maybe it was November 2010, when the party I had voted for went back on centuries of progressive principles, and its own claims of honesty, and saddled future generations with mountains of student debt.

Perhaps May 2011, when dreams of a fairer voting system were shattered by Tory duplicity.

Or March 2012, as I listened in disbelief to the Chancellor deliver his budget, putting taxes on lunches whilst cutting the top rate of income tax.

From September 2012 until February 2013, I was a near- NEET, working barely a few hours a week on a zero hours contract. Nothing will stoke your anger like unsocial hours, poor pay, a crappy job, and lots of time sat at home in despair.

Maybe it was the documentary I watched about foodbanks, in November 2012, which left me so angry I couldn't sleep that evening, so incensed was I at the thought that people were going hungry in a 21st century Western democracy.

And since 2013, the relentless rise of a political party which represents the most abhorrent parts of the body politic, which plays on the fears of the vulnerable, the poor, the exploited, and blames it on those from a different country. And the government, rather than taking the high ground, has pandered to the xenophobes.

That's not even counting the stuff I can't pin down. Bedroom taxes, badger culls, the EU. This government has not represented me in the slightest.

So sorry, Nick, but on Thursday you will not be getting my support again. I thought your party still had the remains of the Social Democratic Party in it. I was wrong.

Where does that leave me? The right wingers are out. Just on principle. Any political idea that sees the creation of money as being more important than the well being of the people can just sod right off.

The Greens. Ah yes. They have complicated things a lot. I am sorely tempted. But for every nine great policies, there is one fairly crazy one. No, I don't want Britain to leave NATO, have they seen what's happening in Ukraine? Actually, nuclear power stations are fine unless they were built by the Soviet Union. In fact, I think that being a member of Al-Quaeda, the IRA, or other internationally condemned criminal organisations is probably a crime, as I can't imagine they get many members who join for the benefits package. The Greens also surprisingly illiberal, with a nice long list of things that they would ban. I suppose my fear is that they've become a haven for idealistic, middle class lefties, who can campaign in poetry, but can't govern, to borrow from the late Mario Cuomo in the US. Oh, and Natalie Bennett. Most likely in the future, Greens. But not this time.

For 115 years, the left on this country has had Labour. God knows it hasn't always been perfect, or as left-wing as it could be. But in terms of real imporvements in the lives of millions of people, Labour has the track record, it has the ideas, it has the nouse. Hell, in Ed Miliband, it may even have the leader.

Now, I live in a safe Tory seat. But, in the midst of the mess of the morning after the night before, when the people will have spoken, but their message won't be clear, Ed Miliband is going to need every vote he can get in his quest for legitimacy. He's got mine.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Bobby Kennedy, Mk. II

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some -- some very sad news for all of you -- Could you lower those signs, please? -- I have some very sad news for all of you, and, I think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black -- considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible -- you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.

We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization -- black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion, and love.

For those of you who are black and are tempted to fill with -- be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.

But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.

My favorite poem, my -- my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:

Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget

falls drop by drop upon the heart,

until, in our own despair,

against our will,

comes wisdom

through the awful grace of God.

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King -- yeah, it's true -- but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love -- a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.

We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, but we -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.

And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.

Senator Robert F. Kennedy, informing a crowd of people in Indianapolis about the assassination of Martin Luther King, 4th April 1968. Indianapolis was the only major city in the USA not rocked by race riots that night. Bobby Kennedy was himself shot and killed on 6th June 1968.

Why the SNP won't be 'holding the country to ransom' on May 8th

Imagine for a moment. It is 8th May, the morning after the night before. Once again, David Cameron has failed to win a majority for the Conservative Party. His Liberal Democrat coalition partners have paid the price for going in to government, and have been slaughtered at the polls. Between them, they cannot form a majority government in the House of Commons. If they're brave, they could try and face the Commons with a Queen's Speech. Either way, Cameron will not survive in government. And so he advises the Queen that she invites Ed Miliband to seek to form a government.

But then what? If opinion polling is anything to go by (and remember, it's not a million years since this howler showed why opinion polling isn't always reliable), then Labour will have suffered an electoral wipeout in Scotland akin to the collapse of the Scottish Conservatives in 1997. Polling currently shows the SNP taking somewhere in the region of 40-50 seats in Scotland, nearly all of them from Labour. Even if they take a 'mere' 25-40, this seriously hampers the chance of a Labour majority government, or even of Labour having more seats than the Tories.

Now, what I think of those polls isn't the issue. But they have dragged the entire election campaign sideways, and now the airwaves and the internet is obsessed by what demands the SNP will extract from a future Labour government, and what Labour will sacrifice in order to get back into power.

I can answer that. The SNP repeatedly say they want nothing from a future Labour government. Oh, it may look like they're demanding more money, or an end to Britain's nuclear weapons, or slowing down the pace of austerity. It sounds like they have demands aplenty, and that Labour will be dragged into promising the Earth. But it seems to me they are actually asking for nothing, and will probably get nothing.

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, keeps on saying she will never allow a Tory government to survive at Westminster. That means that the SNP would vote down any attempt by the Tories to remain in government. That would put Labour in power, even if they had fewer votes and seats than the Tories. This sounds like the nightmare scenario for many; a weak Labour government at the mercy of Nationalist demands. But just stop and think for a second. Labour don't have to do what she says, or even pay any attention to it. Why? Because, having put Labour into power, the SNP will be trapped. They can't vote against any Labour ideas, because that will give the Tories a second shot. Scotland doesn't do the Tories. Are the SNP prepared to act in a way which brings them back? No. Labour can carry on as before, safe in the knowledge that the SNP have put them there, and are now stuck supporting them. All talk of policy concessions will vanish when it comes down a choice between a Labour government or a Tory one. The SNP will be a victim of their own success.

But suppose the SNP does use its nuclear option, and votes down Labour on a motion of no confidence. Then what? Even under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which is supposed to stop Prime Ministers calling an election whenever they like, I cannot see any way a Parliament could carry on if neither of the two largest parties could command the confidence of the House of Commons (technical term for 'get stuff through Parliament'). That would mean a second election, possibly as early as September, certainly way closer than 2020.

Is Ms Sturgeon really willing to fight two elections this year? To go back to the Scottish people, with Labour crying that the SNP have proven they cannot be trusted at the high table of power? Or face voters after bringing down Labour and letting the Tories back in? Either possibility would be catastrophic. Nicola Sturgeon laughed in the debate last week when Ed Miliband reminded her this is what happened in 1979, and the SNP was shattered for 18 years. She'd have done far better to listen.

Even if the Westminster Parliament staggers on, the Scottish Parliament is up for election in 2016. I reckon it would take some explaining if the SNP ran on an anti-Labour platform there, whilst its MPs propped up a Labour government in London. Or even worse for Scots, had allowed the Tories back in. The SNP certainly won't want to fight two elections in 2016; the contradictions between conduct at Westminster and Holyrood would cost the party dearly.

The SNP certainly are on a roll. I reckon they'll take a huge share of the Scottish vote, and a large number of Scotland's seats, on May 7th. But they've started to believe their own propaganda about what they can achieve, and it could yet be their undoing.