Which Ireland is it again?

Seeming as Ireland is in the news a lot at the moment, I am getting regular stress.

Why? Because people, even people I thought were well-versed in matters of the world, are apparently unable to call our nearest neighbour by its actual name.

So, after a week of listening to mistake, after mistake, I've snapped in the most me way possible. I've written a handy guide to 'which Ireland is it again?'

You're welcome.

Ireland- A large island next to Great Britain. Next.

Irish Republic- A polity made up of the whole island of Ireland. It was proclaimed by those who took part in the Easter Rising of 1916, and was then the legal basis for the uprising against the British from 1919 until 1922. At this point, the Irish Republic was replaced with the Irish Free State.

However... many in the Free State were outraged at what they saw as a betrayal of the republic for which they had fought for. In particular, the guerrillas who had styled themselves as the Republican Army were furious. They declared that the Irish Republic still existed, and its authority was vested in the Army Council; they then retreated into the shadows. Ever since, the various versions of the IRA have used this as their claim to represent the people of Ireland in their struggle against the UK, and to legitimise their armed activities in both the Republic of Ireland and the UK.

Southern Ireland- A polity made up of 26 counties in Ireland. It was created by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, and was a part of the United Kingdom. However, it was in direct competition with the Irish Republic, and barely functioned as a state. It was dissolved in 1922 and replaced with the Irish Free State.

Irish Free State- A polity made up of 26 counties in Ireland. It was a Dominion of the British Empire, headed by the King of the United Kingdom. Created by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, it was seen as a either stepping stone to real independence, or a betrayal of the Irish Republic (see above). It ended sometime between 1936 and 1948 (really, don't ask, it is complicated), and managed to sit out the Second World War in the process.

Republic of Ireland- A polity made up of 26 counties in Ireland. It is a completely separate country to the UK, having its own President and Taoiseach (prime minister) and everything. And has been since 1936, or 1948 (again, don't ask). It used to be known sometimes as Eire, because the UK had a strop about the name Republic of Ireland, as it made it sound as if the Republic also wanted to rule Northern Ireland. But since 1998 that's all water under the bridge, and now everyone calls it by its real name. Or should do...

Northern Ireland- A polity that is made up of six counties from the province of Ulster. A part of the United Kingdom, it opted out of inclusion in the Irish Free State. To borrow from Douglas Adams, this made a lot of people very angry, and is been widely considered to have been a bad move. The majority of the population of Northern Ireland were happy to stay in the UK; a significant minority were not, leading eventually to the Troubles and the subsequent peace process.

So although it may not seem to actually matter what you call the country to the west of the UK, it really does. The Irish Republic hasn't existed outside of the minds of the IRA for nearly a century. Southern Ireland barely got off the ground as an entity, it certainly isn't the proper name for the bit that isn't Northern Ireland.

If someone changed their name, you wouldn't persist in using their old name on purpose. When we talk to the Russians, we don't call them Bolsheviks, the Germans Prussians, the Vietnamese Indochinese (although it is only a matter of time before Boris Johnson manages all of these). We should extend the same courtesy to our neighbours. Especially as they have a veto on our smooth exit from the European Union.

Biting satire from 1914 on the Irish Question. Given the question now seems to be 'what is it called?' it clearly went swimmingly...

There he stood, he could do no other. Possibly.

Today marks an anniversary of truly historic proportions. Five hundred years ago today, a priest sent a letter.

That is all we can say with confidence definitely happened on October 31st, 1517. There is another story, that he hammered a copy of the same letter to the door of his local parish church. But while it makes for an excellent story, it cannot be proved.

The contents of the letter, sent to his bishop, were explosive, although no one at the time realised it. They tore apart just over a millennium of unity in Western Europe. In 1500, you could go from Norway to Italy, from Spain to Poland, and pretty much everyone would profess the same beliefs. They believed in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth... and so on.

The letter sent on Allhallowtide 1517 changed all that. The medieval Catholic Church, fairly popular and reflective of the beliefs of the people, was destroyed, emerging as the modern Roman Catholic Church. Arrayed against it was the bewildering array of Protestant denominations. In the process, millions of Europeans butchered each other in the name of Christ.

Our story begins hundreds of miles away from the sleepy little town in northern Germany, in Rome. Pope Julius II was out of money. Constant wars, and the rebuilding of St Peter's basilica, had finally caught up with him. Luckily, Julius had a plan to raise the cash he so desperately needed. He launched a sale of indulgences. These were essentially a 'Get out of jail free' card from Monopoly, only they weren't free. In exchange for a fee, the indulgence would shorten the time spent by the purchaser in purgatory, the gateway to heaven in Catholic teaching where sins are burnt away before entry to paradise.

In the Holy Roman Empire, the most mis-named state in all human history, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was not viewed kindly by many. For years, resentment at money being taken from Germany and ecclesiastical corruption had fuelled anti-clericalism. Julius' blatant use of the Church as a cash cow for his world ambitions provoked more ire. In Saxony, there was fury when an indulgence salesman showed up and began peddling his wares. These complaints were taken to an Augustinian monk, a professor at the University of Wittenberg. Martin Luther's challenge to the indulgence seller to defend his position would have massive implications.

Yet Luther was not the first person to raise his voice against these practices within the Church. In the 1300s, Oxford University lecturer John Wycliffe had said many of the same things. In the early 1400s, these writings came to the attention of Jan Hus, a Czech university lecturer. Neither man met a good end. In Wycliffe's case, English law protected him, and he died in his bed in his mid-60s. However, shortly after, a heresy law was introduced in England, and Wycliffe's remains were exhumed and burnt; his ashes were tipped into a local river.

Hus' fate was even more dramatic. He was summoned to the Council of Constance in 1415, to debate his ideas before a general council of the Catholic Church. He was promised safe conduct; however, on his arrival, he was imprisoned, put on trial, and burnt at the stake. In response, Bohemia rose in revolt against the Holy Roman Emperor, and the revolt took twenty years to be put down.

What Wycliffe, Hus, and the numerous heretics who had gone to their deaths in the centuries before Luther all lacked was the ability to communicate their ideas widely. But since the flames that had consumed Hus, an invention had arrived in Europe that would transform the world. The printing press reduced the time taken to complete a book. Already, some authors were being widely read- Erasmus, and Thomas More. But the exciting nature of Luther's ideas, his clear and plain prose, catapulted him onto the bestseller list. Erasmus grumbled that soon it was impossible to find a book that wasn't by Luther or about him. This ability to spread his message and get it heard was the making of Martin Luther.

Eventually, Luther would find himself excommunicated from the universal Church, condemned to suffer in hell for eternity. He would ramp up his attacks, from being merely anti-indulgence to anti-papal, and finally breaking with key elements of Catholic doctrine. Fanned by the printing press, political power grabs and popular anti-clericalism, Luther's message eventually spawned the European Reformation, destroying Christian unity in Western Europe and condemning countless numbers to die in the religious conflicts that wracked Europe for the rest of the early modern period. For Christianity, the split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism was made immeasurably more complicated, as the Protestant denominations split from the Western Catholic Church. These divisions still matter today, as one look at Ireland will make clear. They certainly provoked centuries of conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism.

But all that was in the future. As the sun set on Wittenberg on that autumn day in 1517, an obscure German monk could not have had any idea what he had just set in motion. Whether he really did hammer the 95 Theses to the church door, or simply sent them as a letter to his bishop, he had set in motion the biggest historical upheaval since the end of the Roman Empire.

"Yes Martin, just pose nicely" said the illustrators from the Ladybird books

In Praise of... Podcasts

So today is apparently International Podcast Day. Yes, there is now even a day for that it would seem.

But I love podcasts, as anyone who has listened to me for more than 30 seconds may know. As a teacher, they really help me to do my marking; it turns out I can't mark in silence, and get easily bored with radio and music in the car, so these gems have been helping me to get through some of the tedium.

Here is what keeps me going:

FiveThirtyEight Politics

In 2012, I remember using this website to try and stay calm as Obama's re-election looked to be on the rocks. Got last year less wrong than other political analysts. Amazing how something as dry as sample sizes can be made into something really interesting.

BBC Friday Night Comedy

Not always good, not always finished. But often making me absolutely crack up.

In Our Time

Bringing expert views on an overwhelming range of historical, literary and philosophical topics to a wider audience since 1998.

The Documentary

A selection from the BBC World Service's documentaries that week. Can be easy to get bogged down, but some real gems about topics you'd never even considered thinking about.

History Extra

The BBC history magazine's podcast. Interviews with historians are well worth listening to, and goes into far more depth than the magazine seems to.

The History Hour

Using the BBC archives to compile a 'This week in history' feature. Some excellent coverage of events from around the world.

Analysis

Hard thinking about the major problems of the 21st century.

The New Statesman Podcast

It is nice to know that, in a world in which everything I believe is seemingly under siege, that I am not alone.

The National Archives Podcast Series

Fascinating insights into the treasure trove of documents that the UK government has been amassing since the Norman Conquest.

The Folklore Podcast

We may pretend to ourselves that we are modern, sophisticated people with no fears and worries about that which we don't understand. But who are we kidding? Everyone is fascinated, and not to mention slightly afraid, of the things that exist on the edge of our explanation, and that go bump in the night.

Pod Save America

Four people who used to work for the Obama administration rip into the Trump presidency twice a week. It is as funny as you'd expect.

Slate's Whistlestop

Although only on number 45, the American presidency has already seen many ups, downs, highlights and lowlights. American political journalist John Dickerson is an expert guide through the years, and shows that Trump is only different in tone and style to those who have gone before him.

Diane: Entering the town of Twin Peaks

I've been watching Twin Peaks for a couple of months now, and it is really nice to have some people flesh out what on Earth they think I've just watched!

Diane...

Brexitcast

Over the next 18 months, the UK is going to attempt a geopolitical challenge that will dwarf anything we have done before, and likely anything we ever try again. Am mighty glad someone is around to explain it.

Britain is (partly) to blame for North Korea's nuclear threats.

I'm going to say something controversial here.

The UK has helped to make the current spat with North Korea happen.

Now, on the surface, this seems daft. While Britain is certainly 'on South Korea's side,' having fought under the UN banner in the Korean War to defend it from North Korea's invasion, we also have diplomatic relations with North Korea, which not all countries do. However, these relations do not amount to very much. We have no military forces in the region, and although we regularly join in the condemnation of the North's nuclear programme, there isn't much Britain actually does to counter it.

So how is this our problem?

We need to travel back to a very different time to understand how this is our fault. Well, to 2003 at any rate.

The world was still stunned by the devastating terrorist attacks that had rocked the United States in September 2001. As I've written before, the international reservoir of goodwill that America had accumulated was enormous. It had enabled the USA, alongside other countries, to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; the Taliban had provided support and cover for Al-Quaeda. The Americans had narrowly failed to capture Al-Quaeda's leader, Osama Bin Laden. But no matter, the Taliban was down and a fledgling Afghan democracy was supposed to be under construction. No one could begrudge the Americans that operation.

But yet the USA was on the brink of squandering the goodwill. As 2003 dawned, it was hurtling into a confrontation with Iraq. Since the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq under Saddam Hussein had been an international pariah. Sanctions had reduced the country to poverty, the Americans and British regularly pounded Iraqi installations with air strikes, large chunks of the country were under US and British no-fly zones. As part of this international pressure, Iraq had been forced to open up its military facilities to international inspection. During the 1980s, and the long war with Iran, Iraq had developed a host of chemical and biological weapons. Had the Israelis not attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor, there is a good chance that Saddam would have had nuclear weapons too. During the Gulf War, there was a tremendous fear of this arsenal. But by the late 1990s, it was widely assumed that, despite Iraq's efforts to block inspections, their arsenal of weapons of mass destruction had been eliminated.

And then September 11th happened. The Bush administration considered Saddam Hussein to be unfinished business; the younger George Bush would finish off what the elder George Bush had not. Suddenly, there was a drumbeat to war, as some Western intelligence agencies worked hard to prove that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programme was continuing in the shadows. Many who did not believe accused the Americans of using the weapons as cover to settle old scores. Fear of outside attack being exploited to provide cover for an extension of democracy and oil grabbing. In the absence of hard proof, it became a matter of belief.

The USA was unable to convince the United Nations that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the global order. So instead, a 'coalition of the willing' was created, splitting the international community. Britain agreed to support the United States, in the midst of huge controversy. In March 2003, the coalition went ahead and attacked Iraq, with the pretext being that they had clear authority from previous UN resolutions to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

We all know what happened next. The weapons were never found. Iraq had indeed surrendered nearly all of its weapons of mass destruction during the 1990s. A tiny amount remained, but it was useless. The fact Saddam hadn't used the weapons when confronted with the overwhelming might of American military power was probably a bit of a clue. Saddam was later to be hanged, and his country slid into sectarian carnage.

But the world was watching. The message was clear. Even if you engaged with the United Nations, and went along with the idea of disarmament, it was not enough to save you. The message was rammed home painfully in 2011, when Colonel Gaddafi was toppled in Libya, by most of the same countries that had destroyed Iraq. In 2003, Gaddafi had given up his nuclear weapons programme in the 2000s, in return for being brought in from the cold. It didn't do him any good, and his fate was to be shot and killed in a gutter as his regime crumbled under NATO airstrikes.

North Korea has been watching. In the 1990s, there were moves by North Korea to engage with the rest of the world, partially motivated by a crippling famine and the end of Soviet aid after the end of the Cold War. But since the early 2000s, this avenue has been closed. In 2006 they tested their first nuclear weapon, and the rest has brought us to today.

Had we refused to support US action against Iraq in 2003, I'm sure the Bush administration would not have changed its mind, it would have still attacked Iraq anyway. North Korea may still have decided it's future security lay in pursuing the nuclear route. But by lending our support to the Americans, and showing the dangers of being a disarmed country, Britain helped to persuade North Korea to arm itself.

The Iraq War is continuing to have impacts that we cannot understand, and certainly couldn't imagine.

Anti-war protesters in London, 2003.

How useful is a statue in learning about American history? (12 marks)

I went on holiday last week. When I left, I was still slightly concerned I'd be coming back to a world in which Donald Trump had pressed the button, and gone to war with North Korea. Instead, when I came back, it was to find out that the Nazis were back, and the US Civil War was still being fought. Talk about travelling back in time; next week, he will try and restart the Thirty Years War, or the Wars of the Roses...

The USA, and the internet, has split over a statue. This isn't new. In recent years, public monuments have caused enormous and passionate controversy across the world. Statues that were put up to celebrate the achievements of people in the past are now being contested, due to shifts in attitudes and changes in values that have taken place in the intervening years.

I have kept my peace on this. Up until very recently, I wasn't entirely sure what my position was. But now the argument has strayed onto turf I know a fair bit about.  Specifically, the teaching and learning of history.

Here is Trump's views on the matter, the views that have added fuel to the fire (Ignore the fact you have to read it backwards, because for a man who uses Twitter a lot, Trump is still very poor at how to get it to actually work).

Trump's argument is that removing the statues and memorials is preventing people from learning about the past.

Let's get one thing straight. No one has ever learnt about the past from a statue. I spend the bulk of my waking hours getting people to learn about the past, and about history. Not once have I ever relied on them solely looking at a statue. There is a good reason we don't get GCSE or A-Level students to make sculptures as part of their course. My head of department would be down on me like a tonne of bricks (although we'd be able to double enter students for technology...). As a purely pedagogical technique, looking at a lump of metal on a piece of rock is rubbish. At most, you can learn about some specific art history things, but what statues have to tell you in and of themselves is nothing. Unlike in Night at the Museum, Robert E Lee is not going to come to life and tell us about the Civil War, or lead us on adventure.

However, as historical sources, the statues are useful, incredibly so. We teach students to judge the usefulness of an historical source using a technique called NOP- Nature, Origin, Purpose. So, how do these statues stand up?

Nature- Statue; art form. Seems obvious, doesn't it? And yet, this opens up a series of problems. These monuments are pieces of art. They are not designed to necessarily convey the truth, but to celebrate the subject. They will promote an idealised image of the subject, and are potentially open to some serious biases on the part of the artist or those who commissioned it.

Origin- Now things get even more interesting. Many of these statues are *not* from the Confederate era, when the Southern US states rebelled against the federal government in an attempt to maintain slavery and uphold their rights to largely govern themselves. Instead, the monuments tend to be from after Reconstruction. After the American Civil War, the federal government deployed the US Army to the South to uphold the law and protect black Americans. But in 1871, the army was withdrawn. The politicians who came to power in the Southern states drove through measures to deprive black Americans of their new-found rights, and introduced a series of measures to segregate them from white Americans, known as the Jim Crow laws. The other major period of Confederate monument building in the South was in the 1950s and 1960s, when the civil rights movement, the Supreme Court, and federal legislation were starting to smash down many of the barriers that Jim Crow had imposed. So the statues are not from the time they represent. They were mainly commissioned by those with an interest in imposing or maintaining segregation.

Purpose- The purpose of monuments such as these is generally to celebrate the life, achievements or contributions of the subject. However, in these cases, the origin gives the purpose an extra, hidden element. These statues were put up to celebrate the individuals depicted, yes. But they were also put up to reinforce the doctrine of segregation, either when it was in the ascendancy or when it was under attack. Their mission is to remind a white audience that things were better when they were the masters, and to remind a black audience that their proper place is on their knees.

Overall, I think my students would conclude that these statues are only partially useful for a historian studying American history, because of the late nature of the sources, the highly subjective view that they take of the past, and because without all this contextual knowledge they are very difficult to interpret, and very easy to misappropriate.

So there you have it. As a technique for teaching the American public about their past, statues of Confederate icons in public places has been found severely lacking. Their role is dubious at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

But these statues do have a place in the analysis of history. They belong in museums, with proper contextual explanation and analysis, much like I have done above. But to allow them to fulfil their original purpose, of celebrating slavery and reinforcing the ideals of Jim Crow, is not history. It is politics.

I can't best the point I've seen bandied about on the internet as a summary. There are no statues of Osama Bin Laden or Mohamed Atta at the 9/11 memorial in New York. Holocaust memorials haven't got statues of Hitler and other senior Nazis at them. They are incredibly important to the story of those events. But their place is not on display, with an equal standing to those who suffered and perished at their hands. It is in a museum, set alongside some proper context and analysis, that these belong.

This has been very long and heavy, and so to round off, here is something else that "belongs in a museum"

Out with the old, in with the new: the East Clare by-election of 1917

A century ago, there was a by-election in East Clare, in Ireland. It represented a clash between two very different worlds, two very different visions of Ireland.

The party defending the seat was of the old order, the way that things had always been done. The sitting MP had been killed in combat on the Western Front. But he was no bull-headed imperialist. He was a scion of the Redmond family, who had carried the banner of Irish nationalism through the late 19th century and the early years of the 20th. His party, the Irish Parliamentary Party, had managed to get Home Rule for Ireland recognised as an issue. It had been about to go onto the statute book, when the shots fired in Sarajevo in June 1914 threw everything into chaos. The Irish Volunteers, the armed group determined to implement the law against unionist resistance, were encouraged to enlist in the British army, to prove to Britain that they were no threat, and to earn their autonomy in the eyes of the world. It was this that had led to the vacancy in East Clare; Major Willie Redmond had been killed leading Irish units into enemy gunfire at the Battle of Messines Ridge. As a symbol of an Ireland and a Britain that could yet be, the unit created from the Irish Volunteers fought alongside the Ulster Volunteers, who had armed themselves to divide the country in a civil war that had never come. It was a Protestant Ulsterman who carried Redmond back to the British lines.

If the party defending the seat represented the old world, then the challenger definitely represented the new. It was a miracle he was even alive, the young man chosen to take on the power and authority of the Redmonds. He had also been a member of the Irish Volunteers. But he had been inducted into the secretive Irish Republican Brotherhood, and had taken part in the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916. Here, he was the only battalion commander to be spared the firing squad. A late trial, growing outrage at the executions, and his American background, had sifted him from amongst the martyrs of the Irish Republic. After leaving prison, he joined Sinn Fein, and stood for election.

On offer were two competing visions of Ireland's future. Was it to finally become an autonomous part of the United Kingdom, and retain a relationship of nearly seven centuries? Or was it to turn its back on its nearest neighbour, and strike out its own course as an independent republic?

The verdict of the voters was decisive. By 71.1% to 28.9%, they opted for the future offered by Sinn Fein. The violent crackdown by the British military in response to the Easter Rising had caused support for the Union to collapse across much of Ireland.

This was not Sinn Fein's first electoral victory; that had come earlier in 1917. But this result is unique from another point of view- there can't be many examples of a government leader or head of state of one country being elected to the parliament of another country, and yet that is what we have here. For the young victor was Eamon de Valera, future head of state of the rebel Irish Republic, future leader of the Irish Free State, future Taoiseach and President of the Republic of Ireland. Given momentum by his victory, de Valera became Sinn Fein's leader. The clock was ticking for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Part of Eamon de Valera's election literature

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.

Oklahoma City

The time is 09:02. The date is April 19th, 1995. In Oklahoma City, in the heart of America, a truck bomb detonated beneath an office building used by the federal government. A third of the building collapsed in the explosion. Among the 168 dead were 19 children; the bomb had been placed beneath the creche. It was then the largest terrorist attack in American history, and today has only been surpassed by the unparalleled September 11th attacks.

As the news of the carnage came in, many pointed to the Middle East. The attack had all the hallmarks of recent atrocities in Palestine and Lebanon. After all, it was Middle Eastern terrorists who had bombed the World Trade Centre in 1993. The US President, Bill Clinton, was urged to close down US airports, to stop those responsible from escaping the country. The biggest question was why on Earth these killers had travelled all the way to Oklahoma.

And then someone looked at the date. April 19th.

In 1993, federal law enforcement agents had got into a showdown with an extreme Christian cult in Waco, Texas. The cult leader, David Koresh, was amassing weapons for the end of the world, which he believed was soon. He was also accused of abusing the children in the compound; Koresh was practising polygamy. When law enforcement agents attempted to seize the weapons, the cultists fired on them. This led to a long stand-off between the FBI and those inside. With no end in sight, the FBI began to try and force their way in on April 19th, 1993. The building burnt down, set on fire by Koresh and his followers. 76 people burnt to death.

The Waco siege, along with another armed standoff at Ruby Ridge in 1992, became celebrated causes on the American right. Many saw the federal government as their enemy, and elements of the Christian right began to claim that the end of days would come in a conflict between citizens and the federal government. Fed by talk radio hosts, this toxic atmosphere fed into mainstream politics. In 1994, the Democrats were hammered at the midterm elections by the Republicans, who brought a hard-edged, obstructionist rightist politics into Washington DC. The federal government was blamed as the cause of all ills, and treated as beneath contempt.

One of those influenced by this tide of bile was Timothy McVeigh, an army veteran who had come to mistrust and hate the government. Driven by the chorus of voices claiming that something had to be done, McVeigh did just that, packing a truck full of explosives and fertilisers, and parking it underneath the Alfred Murrah building.

The person intent on bringing death and misery had not traveled 'all the way to Oklahoma.' He'd driven up the road.

What is the point of marking this anniversary? The Oklahoma City bombing stands as a warning to us all. When you create a toxic atmosphere by bashing others, whoever they may be, you bring a moment like this nearer. When you dehumanise people, you make it easier to justify extreme measures against them. When you issue a call for action, those who are troubled, disturbed, or full of anger and hatred may well respond to your calls. Last year, a Labour MP was shot dead in the streets of her own constituency, by a person with far-right views, who shouted "Britain First" as he carried out his attacks. The media and political screams of 'Take Back Control' during the EU referendum had played out in awful terms.

As we prepare to go through yet another fractious election campaign, remember that. Remember that words can have consequences. And sometimes those consequences can be utterly horrific.

If you want to find out more about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, I cannot recommend this documentary enough:

Another Election? We could try these instead...

As we're plunged back into the campaign trail, many in Britain are bemoaning that we're being asked to vote *again*. So, here is a whistle stop tour through history to see what some of our better alternatives have been...

Roman Empire

Back in the good old days, things were much easier. If you fancied having a stab at being emperor, you got your soldiers to proclaim you. Easy really.

I mean, there was then the small issue of then fighting off all the others who had done the same, and then holding power against all those who tried to do the same to you. But it was a very meritocratic system, and these days there is a lack of social mobility, so definitely something to consider.

Anglo-Saxon England

Two possible variations here. The Anglo-Saxon king of the English was semi-elective; in theory the Witan (the collection of powerful Earls and bishops who advised the king) could chose whoever they wanted to be king. In practice it was normally the son of the previous monarch. Not always the eldest son, mind you. Sometimes brothers got a look in, even when there were children still alive. Alfred the Great only became king of the West Saxons after three of his brothers had been king. Alfred's son, Edward the Elder, later had to see off a rebellion by his cousin, Æthelwold, who made a bid for power on Alfred's death in 899; Æthelwold used the fact that his father had been king before Alfred to legitimise his bid for power. Sons born to the sitting king often jumped the order of precedence over any children he'd had before he became king.

The elective nature of the Anglo-Saxon kingship is perhaps best seen in the crisis of 1066. Edward the Confessor died childless, and the nearest related member of the House of Cerdic was only a child. Instead, the Witan elected Harold Godwinson as king, off the back of his military and governing experience. The flaw in this system is also shown in 1066; once you've established the idea that anyone can become king, anyone can give it a shot. And so it was that William the Bastard, the Duke of Normandy and a distant relative of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, launched a long shot bid for the throne. Harold Godwinson went down to defeat at Hastings, and the rest, as they say, was history.

The Holy Roman Empire

The Holy Roman Emperor was chosen by an electoral college, made up of three bishops and four princes. The winner (who was always magically the son of the previous Emperor) was then crowned by the Pope (until 1530, at any rate). An electorate of seven people is a hell of a lot easier to talk to directly, and the rest of us can get on with our lives without having to worry about all these important things. It'd certainly make political advertising much simpler.

But this was only from the late Middle Ages onwards. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West by the Pope during Christmas Day Mass in 800, apparently without any warning. Still I reckon he'd have settled for a new jumper or something. Must have been pretty awkward, as I don't think he'd bought the Pope anything in return.

The first US Election

The framers of the US Constitution had a very clear idea of who the first president was going to be. Only George Washington could bridge the gaps between the various segments in American society that had emerged under the original system of government that had bumbled along since independence from Great Britain. And so once he agreed to have the job, the actual election was a formality. No one ran against him, any many states just nodded the approval through. Washington certainly didn't do anything as unseemly as campaigning for the job or anything. How times differ...

Modern Papal Elections

You lock 120 elderly men inside an art museum, and when 2/3 of them agree on a replacement, they start a fire to signal to the outside world they can be let out. But it's ok as the Holy Spirit keeps an eye on things.

No, really.

Shadowy Conspiracy Government

I am still wading my way through The X-Files. Every few episodes, there is a smoky, shadowy room shown. From this room, a cabal of rich men direct world affairs from behind the scenes. They alone know what is good for the world. The democratic facade they allow to continue is not that actually wields any power.

Now, leave aside how easy it would be to read some dreadful anti-Semitism into this. Or how quaint it is that these people rig elections with ease, but are seemingly incapable of finding Mulder at any given point without visiting Scully and asking her.

No, look at the world around you. Switch on the TV. Open the BBC News website. Does this look like a world that is being organised and planned?

Nope, didn't think so. I'd highly recommend Jon Ronson's book Them: Adventures with Extremists. You'll soon be worrying more about the people who believe this than those apparently running the show...

Which leaves...

There is an awful quotation, attributed to many of the usual suspects, that says that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others we've tried. Well, perhaps.

And we have tried many others. Not just the weird and wonderful systems outlined above, but corrupt oligarchies, restricted democracies, and despotic dictatorships. None has served the common good well. None has benefitted ordinary men and women.

But government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Abraham Lincoln really did say, ensures a say in the future by each and every one of us. Yes, we may be fed up of elections. Yes, we may be unsure of the ability of the individual to shape the process.

But unless you want you future determined by clerics, soldiers, people who claim they are gods, or David Icke's lizards, then you are stuck with democracy and elections. Make the most of it. Many of those who came before us weren't even given this tiny say in their futures.

Register, and wait for June 8th. Then go out and have your say. Because you're bloody lucky to have the chance to go and do so. Lizards or not.

Here We Go Again...

And today was supposed to be a productive day. I was going to do some marking, some planning, some cleaning.

And then Theresa May decided to go and ruin it by announcing that she was calling a general election for June 8th.

For those of us on the left, be it in the disintegrating Labour party, the shattered remains of the Liberal Democrats, the idealistic cocoon of the Greens, or floating somewhere in between, there can only be one reaction to this announcement:

The good news is that, unlike 2015, there won't be a shock outcome. Unlike 2010, there won't be a chance after the election to keep the Tories out. Even if the Lib Dems make gains (as predicted), the collapse of Labour will put Theresa May back into Number 10, possibly with a majority of over a hundred. Labour will almost certainly do worse than they did in 1983, under Michael Foot, when they slid to 209 MPs. They may even drop to the total that John Major got in 1997, 165 survivors of the Blair landslide. There are whispers they may go below that. 

If you care about progressive politics, or even having a functioning opposition to the government, this election could be a bleak milestone. Brexit aside, the vision that May has laid out in the last few months has been ugly and regressive. And it is about to be endorsed by millions.

I normally relish elections. They're what politics junkies live for. But not this one. I cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel. This is going to be a bloodbath. Let's get it over and done with.

How Long the Night?

Myrie it is while sumer

ylast with fugheles song.

Oc nu neheth windes blast

and weder strong. Ei, ei!

what this nicht is long. And

ich with wel michel wrong

soregh and murne and

fast.

It is pleasant, indeed, while the summer lasts

with the mild pheasants' song ...

but now I feel the northern wind's blast—

its severe weather strong. 

Alas! Alas! This night seems so long!

And I, because of my momentous wrong,

now grieve, mourn and fast.

How Long the Night, c.13th century English poem.

Rockin' in the Free World?

Since November, I've noticed a trend. The American presidency is once again being referred to as the 'Leader of the Free World.'

This is an expression with a long history. It first emerged in the Second World War, when American and British propaganda proclaimed that the conflict was a grand struggle between the 'free world' and the tyranny of Nazism. This did rather gloss over the fact that the largest contribution to defeating Nazi Germany was the USSR, a totalitarian dictatorship, led by a paranoid megalomaniac. In a fairer world, someone at the time would have pointed out the similarities between Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler...

But, as the victorious Allies looked down on the ruins of the conquered Nazi state, the expression lingered. Within a few years, it became obvious that the Soviet promises of open and fair elections in Central and Eastern Europe were worthless. By 1949, the countries of Western Europe and North America had created a military alliance, NATO, to oppose Soviet expansionism. But the world was much bigger than the North Atlantic, and so the 'free world' became shorthand for US allies. And, by virtue of his position as the elected head of state in the USA, the President of the United States became known as the Leader of the Free World.

To push the claim of the United States to take global leadership in opposition to the communist bloc, the phrase was heavily used in American foreign policy rhetoric. The American allies who fought in Vietnam were even grouped together as the 'Free World Military Forces.'

And in a way, it made sense. The lives of those behind the Iron Curtain, or in the People's Republic of China, were demonstrably less free than those in, say, the UK, the USA or France. They lacked the freedom of expression, freedom of political organisation, freedom of religious belief, and freedom based around impartial justice, than many took for granted.

Awkwardly, though, the Free World often contained many countries that were not free. Military dictatorships, strongman democracies, and various illiberal regimes were often counted amongst the Free World. But at face value, it was a vaguely useful way of dividing the world.

But then suddenly the distinction became irrelevant. In a short, two year period, the entire apparatus of communist rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union spectacularly collapsed. Years of repression and economic stagnation sunk the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. In China, it only clung on because of the regime's willingness to use brute force to crush the opposition. When Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union, on Christmas Day 1991, it seemed as if the whole world was free.

At this point, the use of the rhetoric dropped off sharply. Partly this was because of the fact that, if we were all democracies now, and history had indeed ended, as Francis Fukuyama confidently proclaimed, then there was no need to distinguish between the free and unfree world. We were all free. Also, the expression 'Leader of the Free World' had been adopted by elements of the anti-capitalist left, and was used as a term of scorn and derision against the United States. Far better to drop it.

As a replacement, we hear far more about the 'international community,' or 'the West.' Bland expressions, designed to convey a sense of a united world, and to take the edge off of America's claim to lead that bloc of countries.

But the term has survived. A quick check on Google Trends shows a spike in interest in November 2008, when Barack Obama was elected to the US Presidency. But that jump is nothing compared to the number of people who Googled it last November, when Donald Trump was coming in to office.

For if there was ever anyone unqualified to be described as the Leader of the Free World, it is Donald Trump. The United States, for better or for worse, is the sole global superpower. It is the most influential country in the Western world, both in terms of hard power and soft power.

But Trump isn't fit to be the Leader of the Free World, as he openly flouts the values it used to claim to stand for. That's fine. He isn't interested in it anyway. 'America First' is his battle cry. He doesn't really care about the rest of the planet.

All the hand wringing from politicians, and the return of the phrase, seem to be more of a realisation that the United States is retreating from its active role in the world. The last time that happened, the planet was plunged into a world war. But that doesn't justify the return of a misleading phrase, to describe a job that the President of the USA doesn't really have.

The final words go to Neil Young. If this is the 'free world,' then it needs an awful lot of work:

Petition to Restore John Major as Prime Minister

Seeming as this is the age of the protest petition, I'd like to test one of my own.

John Major should be returned as Britain's Prime Minister.

Now before you laugh, hear me out.

Did you know that he won the 1992 general election with 14 million votes? That is the most that any British political party has ever taken! No one has ever gained more votes than John Major has. His mandate to lead was unprecedented, and remains unbeaten since.

On top of that, it was the highest turnout for a very long time. Not since February 1974 had turnout been higher, and before that you had to go all the way back to 1959 to see a time when more people had come out to vote. Millions of people who had long ago lost interest in the political system, and had no interest in voting, came out to show their support for John Major's vision of Britain.

It has been twenty years since the British people last had the chance to express their opinion on him at the ballot box. Yes, they may have decisively rejected him on that occasion. But things have changed since then. The government and the Conservative party are not the same, and neither is the country or the world.

In light of this feeling that things have changed, it is only right that the British people should be given a fresh chance to express their will, especially given John Major's unprecedented mandate in 1992.

John Major on the campaign trail in 1992, amassing a record vote and high turnout. Should definitely still be Prime Minister...

To clarify, I don't really think that John Major should be brought back as PM (Although I reckon he'd do a decent job of it). But hopefully, it underlines the absurdity of the following claims:

- The number of votes amassed in one election or vote doesn't mean that is a permanent mandate.

- Increasing turnout is desirable, but also doesn't mean that is a permanent mandate.

- Subsequent votes or elections that represent a changed mandate or wish are fine, and indeed normal and natural.

The next time you hear them, point out that John Major should still be Prime Minister. And then explain why. See how that goes down...

Trump's Muslim Ban- Saving up to 2 lives since 1990

Donald Trump has managed to outrage much of the world yet again this week. He has introduced his much vaunted Muslim ban, which he promised on the campaign trail after a string of terror attacks in Europe and the USA in late 2015.

Of course, banning an entire religion from entry to the United States would have been a blatant breach of the Constitution, so instead the White House has announced that all nationals from 'terror-prone' countries will be denied entry for a certain period. The new 'Axis of Evil' is made up of:

Syria
Iran
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
Yemen
Somalia

Which got me wondering. How many people would still be alive today if previous US presidents had introduced such a measure?

I decided to start in 1990, purely because it was the year I was born. I will admit, I did use the Wikipedia list of terror attacks in the USA. However, like the good historian I try to be, I did check the footnotes. It appears to check out reasonably well.

There is no common definition of what constitutes a terror attack, so doubtless there are some incidents on the list that don't deserve to be there, and some missing that really should be included.

But, using what data I had, I discovered that:

• There have been 71 terrorist incidents in the United States since January 1990.

• They resulted in 3372 deaths (with 2996 of those deaths on September 11th 2001).

• Muslims carried out 24 of those attacks, killing 3118 people. Take 9/11 out of the picture (and I'll explain why below), that becomes 122 deaths.

• Muslims from the countries covered by the Trump ban carried out between 1 attack (on the strictest possible interpretation of the ban) to 3 attacks (broadest possible interpretation). These attacks killed 2 people under the broad definition, and 1 under the strict one (that being the attacker).

• The American far-right (which I have taken to include ultra-libertarians, Christian extremists and violent anti-abortion activists) committed 27 attacks and killed 227 people (168 of them being in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing).

• The remaining 20 incidents, which killed 30 people, were carried out by people whose motives were unknown, who have never been caught, or who don't really fit into any other category (the Earth Liberation Front featured heavily, as did the Unabomber).

Trump's Muslim ban would not have stopped many terror attacks that made headlines around the world:

• The person responsible for the 1993 CIA shooting was from Pakistan.
• The World Trade Centre bombers of 1993 were from Egypt, Pakistan, Kuwait, Jordan and the USA.
• The US Army officer who carried out the 2009 Fort Hood shootings in Texas was from West Virginia.
• The Boston Marathon bombers were from Chechnya, which is in Russia.
• The three men who attacked an art gallery in May 2015, claiming to be ISIS inspired, were all from the USA.
• The San Bernardino attackers were from the USA and Pakistan.

Most importantly of all, Trump's executive order names the events of 9/11 as the rationale behind his executive order. The 9/11 hijackers came from Egypt, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, and the largest contingent came from Saudi Arabia. The masterminds behind the plot had met in Hamburg, in Germany, and travelled to Afghanistan to plan and prepare their attack. Had Trump's Muslim ban been in place in 2001, it would not have stopped a group of Middle Eastern students coming from Germany. The destruction of the World Trade Centre would still have gone ahead.

This all begs the question. What on Earth is Trump up to? He is inflaming world opinion against the United States, in a manner that makes George W Bush look like Mother Teresa. He is breaking a fundamental norm of liberal democracy, indeed one that is enshrined in the US constitution- that there is freedom of religion.

Instead, this is policy as determined by cable news and conspiracy theorists. Islam is the enemy, in the mind of Fox News, Alex Jones, and Donald Trump. So better ban it, quick. Even if it turns out what you're doing is totally illogical and nonsensical.

___________________________

My reluctance to include 9/11 in these statistics is because it was clearly such a one-off event, the mother of all 'spectaculars,' as Al-Quaeda used to refer to them. Yes, it was awful, painful, ugly, and has shaped the world since in ways we still do not really understand. But it is also incredibly atypical, an event that was more akin to an act of war than a terrorist attack. However, as it did happen, and there is no getting around that, I have included it, but also provided the non-9/11 figures for a slightly more nuanced comparison.