Scare Tactics, Anyone?

I was a bit dismayed this morning on glancing at the Guardian to see an article by Peter Hain under the headline 'Vote for the Lib Dems and you will risk a Tory victory'.

Hain has a point when he argues that most of those who would swing away from Labour towards the Lib Dems should be, in the main, happy with all Labour has achieved since gaining power in 1997. Further, he argues that a third Labour victory could cement 'progressive consensus ... [almost]... impossible for the extreme right to destroy.'

He's wrong, though, to claim that those who would turn away from Labour towards the Lib Dems would do purely because of their feelings about the war in Iraq, and the supposed weapons of mass destruction. Their feelings seem to run deeper than that; the new antipathy towards Labour seems to come down, primarily, to distrust. People have long doubted Blair, and their suspicions were - to their minds at least - confirmed by how he took Britain into that war.

One thing Hain doesn't do - doesn't even try to do - in his article, is to show why the Labour voters of the last two elections should trust the party, or its leader. That'll be a challenge.

But if they turn from Labour, the bulk of them could only really turn to the Lib Dems, the Tories having been even more keen on attacking Iraq than Blair had been; it's disingenuous of Howard and his henchmen to claim that they were misled by the government; if this is true, it merely confirms them as fools. Honest fools, perhaps, but fools nonetheless. 'Vote for Us! We're Gullible!' probably wouldn't catch them too many votes.

But, according to Hain, the nature of British politics means that the Tories could win the election by default, gaining '71 seats from Labour without winning a higher share of the vote than in 2001, simply by a swing to the Lib Dems splitting the progressive vote in our marginals,'

That, of course, would require the Lib Dems gaining votes from Labour in 71 constituencies, but never gaining enough to win, which might well happen, because in this de facto two-party system, lots of people perceive votes for any party other than Labour and the Tories to be squandered.

It always strikes me as funny that in the supposed interests of 'electoral reform', Labour have tinkered with the House of Lords. Surely a more honest interest in reform would involve changing the electoral system so that the composition of the Commons more accurately reflected the will of the people.

I mean seriously, think about it. In 2001, Labour got 40.7% of the popular vote, the Tories managed 31.7%, the Lid Dems earned 18.3%, and the rest garnered 9.3%. You might expect then that the Commons should break down, more or less, along the general lines of: Labour 268 seats, the Tories 209, the Lib Dems 120, and the others 61.

But no, despite only having 40.7% of the popular vote, thanks to the 'First Past the Post' system, Labour took 412 out 659 seats. That's 62.5%, a huge majority. In other words, the country is run according to the wishes of two-fifths of the country's voters. And 2001 was no fluke, in that regard. As a rule, all you need is around 40% of the vote and the right geographic spread to be guaranteed to rule the country despite three-fifths of the population having voted against you. Take a look at the previous few elections -

1997 - Labour get 63.6% majority, with just 43.2% of the vote

1992 - Tories get 51.6% mahority, with just 41.9% of the vote

1987 - Tories get 57.9% majority, with just 42.2% of the vote

1983 - Tories get 61.1% majority, with just 42.4% of the vote

1979 - Tories get 53.4% majority, with just 43.9% of the vote

1974 - Labour get 50.2% majority, with just 39.2% of the vote

Um, and earlier in 1974 Labour managed a minority government with 47.4% of seats, slightly more than the Tories, despite having only wangled, at 37.1% of the vote, a smaller vote than the Tories.

I'm not going to get into issues of turn-out, since with only 59.4% of eligible votes having cast their votes last time, you could argue that Labour are in government with the support of only 24% of the population. That argument has no ending, and if people don't show up when decisions are being made then they have to live with the consequences.

On the other hand, maybe if the U.K. adopted some kind of a Proportional Representation system, people might be more willing to vote. After all, there might be more of an incentive to vote if they thought their votes actually meant something.

Is building a 'Europe of the Spirit' such a bad thing?

I'm a bit slow on this one, but bear with me. Do you remember, a good year-and-a-half back, I shredded a ludicrous article by one Adrian Hilton, a Tory parliamentary candidate who is utterly convinced that the European Union is a Catholic conspiracy? I know, that'd be news to Rocco Buttiglione, but there you have it.

Anyway, it seems that Adrian, who is head of politics and philosophy at Slough Grammar School, has been forced to withdraw his candidacy for the coming election, with Michael Howard, his party leader, saying that Hilton's anti-Catholicism is 'completely unacceptable'. Howard decided to block Hilton from running over a week ago, but like I said, I'm a bit behind on this one. It does seem like the tide is already starting to turn against the Tories, though, especially with them having had to get rid of their deputy chairman since he'd said what they'd really do if they got elected.

The Feast of the Greatest Briton

And so it is that Lá Féile Pádraig has wheeled its merry way around again, for the fourth time since I've moved here. I think I spent the first one down in Berkshire with my sister, but for the last two I've been firmly planted here in Mancville.

There's been some manner of Irish festival on here, but I've not been attending. I dunno, I never really know what to make of Patrick's Day. When I was growing up, it was a fairly subdued affair - mass in the morning, a trip into town to watch the (decidedly underwhelming) parade, and a family dinner, with boiled potatoes, ham, and cabbage (or peas for contrary whelps like myself) being the staples of the day. It was a nice day off, a day for family more than anything else, not the alcoholic orgy it can tend to be now.

And no, that wasn't just my family, though my brother will back me up, in Kansas City's entertainment monthly, no less. Despite our stereotype, until the 1970s, Saint Patrick's Day was, along with Good Friday and Christmas Day, a day when pubs had to stay shut. Things have changed.

Mass today was fairly long, with a homily on Patrick that was at least the equal of last year's. It's striking, really, to think how influential a figure Patrick was. Unlike his near-contemporary Augustine, Patrick was no theologian; what he was, however, was almost certainly, with the exception of Paul, the most important missionary in the history of the church.


Greater than Churchill? Go on, pull the other one...
Despite what people often assume, Patrick was a real person, and though his tale has become enshrouded by the mists of myth and legend, its historic core as told in his own Confession is fascinating. A raiding party kidnapped the adolescent Patrick from his home in Roman Britain, taking him to Ireland where he was sold into slavery, spending six years tending sheep in Antrim. Eventually he escaped, and returned to his home, to train as a priest, and eventually return to Ireland.

Palladius, another bishop, was sent to minister to the Christians of Ireland in 431 -- so there must have been a few in the land -- but he was martyred within the year, and in 432 Patrick replaced him. Patrick treated the native Irish with respect, honouring their traditions while interpreting them through Christianity. His message spread like wildfire, as tribe by tribe he recruited a local clergy and converted the nobles, whose tribesmen followed their example. By 461, when he died, it seems that the greater part of the country -- certainly the northern half, where his ministry was concentrated -- had converted.

His death ushered in a new era, as, inspired by Patrick's holiness, and possessed by a thirst for knowledge, hungry for the wisdom and literature of the dying classical world, Ireland entered into her 'Golden Age', at a time when the old Roman Empire was becoming enshrouded in darkness.

I've talked before about Thomas Cahill's exaggerated but lyrical account of the enormity of Patrick's achievement, How the Irish saved Civilization, but it's worth mentioning again anyway. Think of how, following the old tribal system and inspired by the monasteries of the East, Irish monks established their own monasteries which became centres of Christian learning, as the monks gathered together what they could of Rome's wisdom...

Ireland, at peace and furiously copying, thus stood in the position of becoming Europe's publisher. But the pagan Saxon settlements of southern England had cut Ireland off from easy commerce with the continent. While Rome and its ancient empire faded from memory and a new, illiterate Europe rose on its ruins, a vibrant, literary culture was blooming in secret along its Celtic fringe. It needed only one step more to close the circle, which would reconnect Europe to its own past by way of scribal Ireland. Columcille provided that step.

Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare current
If, as Apostle to the Irish, Patrick was perhaps the first great missionary successor to Paul, Columcille was the second, a missionary pioneer whose first overseas monastery -- in Iona, off the coast of Dal Riada, the Irish kingdom in Scotland - inspired a wave of Irish missionary activity that continues to this day, everywhere in the world.

And in taking the faith to the German tribes who had conquered the Roman lands, Columcille's successors restored to the successors of Rome the Faith and the wisdom of their predecessors...

There is much we do not know about these Irish exiles. Their clay and wattle buildings have long since disappeared, and even most of their precious books have perished. But what they knew - the Bible and the literatures of Greece, Rome, and Ireland - we know, because they passed these things on to us. The Hebrew Bible would have been saved without them, transmitted to our time by scattered communities of Jews. The Greek Bible, the Greek Commentaries, and much of the literature of ancient Greece were well enough preserved at Byzantium, and might be available to us somewhere -- if we had the interest to seek them out. But Latin literature would almost surely have been lost without the Irish, and illiterate Europe would hardly have developed its great national literatures without the example of the Irish, the first vernacular literature to be written down. Beyond that, there would have perished in the west not only literacy but all the habits of mind that encourage thought. And when Islam began its medieval expansion, it would have encountered scant resistance to its plans - just scattered tribes of animists, ready for a new identity.

I reckon Columcille would have fair claim to the title of 'Greatest Ever Irishman', if such a term has any meaning; certainly, I'd argue that Patrick could comfortably rival Shakespeare, Chaucer, Newton, Darwin, Churchill, and any other Briton for the title of Britain's greatest child.

English friends of men should bear that in mind when they grumble half-heartedly about how people in England celebrate Saint Patrick's Day, but hardly anyone celebrates Saint George's. True enough, but then again, unlike the Romano-Syrian George, Patrick was at least British.

On the other hand, I celebrated the evening by having the stodgiest, and most gloriously English meal imaginable - Toad in the Hole followed by Treacle Pudding with Custard. Was it delicious? Absolutely. Could I walk afterwards? Not for a while, and even then with difficulty.

Magnificent. Thank you, Ro.

Myers on a Monster

I'm a bit concerned. Far too often this year have I found myself reading Kevin Myers's column in The Irish Times and generally agreeing with it. Considering that I normally agree with Myers about once a year, my current sympathy with his columns is extraordinary. I normally find him pompous, odious, self-righteous, and indeed wrong; all too often his columns are poorly researched rants, opinion pieces with no evidence to back them up. You know, the sort of thing that's normally classed as bigotry?

Today's piece, on the other hand works around as fine and eloquent attack on the myth of Churchill you'll ever find in just one column. To see one of the most Anglophile and Atlanticist conservative pundits in Ireland taking this approach is extraordinary. Maybe Kevin is simply doing penance for his infamous 'bastard' article of a few weeks ago.

"Which do you want to be remembered as," asked Jason Fitzharris of the Taoiseach last week: "Chamberlain or Churchill?" Well, I can't speak for Bertie - why, even he sometimes has trouble doing that - but speaking for myself, I think I'd rather be Neville Chamberlain.

He recognised realities and did not base his policies on dreams. Churchill both evolved policy and governed by fantasy and, moreover, thirsted for war, repeatedly, throughout the 20th century. In the full measure of time, though not in my lifetime, Churchill will be seen as one of the greatest warmongers of the 20th century, an abominable man with an insatiable appetite for conflict.

Neville Chamberlain acknowledged one central truth: the British people in the 1930s did not want to go to war. Warning them of the dangers of the Third Reich, as Churchill was doing, did not incline them to seek a return to the breastworks of Flanders or the trenches of Picardy. Chamberlain knew that he could not induce those people to fight in a war which was not of their vital national interest, any more than Dev could have done here in 1939.

Chamberlain did all he could to prepare to protect the British national interest and prepare against war. The Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito and Manchester (the precursor of the Lancaster) were ordered when he was prime minister. So too were radar and the first jet engine. The British army was reorganised into becoming the first all-mechanised army in the world.

However, governments can mobilise technological change, but they cannot, in a democracy, change popular will. Chamberlain knew that the people of Britain, and therefore a popular army drawn from such a people, had no stomach for real war, as events were to testify. In essence, the British army cut and ran in May 1940, no less than the French, and but for the naval genius of Sir Bertram Ramsey - in every sense the match of Nelson, and more - it would have been left stranded in France; and aided by their his chums in the IRA, Hitler's command would inevitably have soon reached to Slieve League and the Cliffs of Moher.

But by this time, Churchill was prime minister, and though his speeches of the summer and autumn of 1940 contain some of the greatest rhetorical flourishes in the English language, it was not he alone who caused the people of Britain to fight on. By this time, they knew there could be no dealing with Hitler. After all, Poland had entered an alliance with Hitler in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, and its reward was the Nazi compact with Stalin, and its utter destruction.

National survival is one thing; assertion of national will abroad quite another. Just as the British army was no match for the Nazi armies in France in 1940, nor was it a match for the outgunned, outnumbered, under-equipped Afrika Korps from 1941 on.

Organisationally, culturally, psychologically, the armies of the Third Reich were infinitely superior to those of the United Kingdom.

Chamberlain knew this in 1938; he knew that he could not induce the British people to fight for a country they could not find on a map. This is not the absurdity it is often held to be but an inviolable truth which holds today as much as it did then.

Only a bellicose old fool like Churchill would maintain the opposite.

At the close of the 19th century, from Sudan to South Africa, he had sought bloodshed. In 1914, as first lord of the admiralty, he conceived the folly of attacking Turkey and used all his bullying and debating skills against the war cabinet, whose members could not cope with his overbearing mendacity and ferocious will-power. The result was just about the greatest defeat of British arms in history, and it is why an uncomprehending generation of Irish children was raised to sing, "It was better to die 'neath an Irish sky, than in Suvla or Sud el Bar". Of course that wasn't his only contribution to Irish musicology. Where would all the ballads be without the Black and Tans, which came into existence at Churchill's behest even as he levied a quite wicked war against the infant Turkish state? His later tenure as chancellor of the exchequer proved to be disastrous, until the backwaters and the back-benches very properly beckoned.

From there he was rescued by war, and at the admiralty again he promptly repeated his Turkish folly, this time in Norway, his intention being to secure supply routes to help Finland against the Soviet Union. For, not content with taking on the Third Reich, he also wanted to fight the Reds too. In other words, a barking lunatic beyond remedial care, whom the British people properly dumped at the first chance in 1945, before he led them to war against India.

So Bertie, Neville Chamberlain was a good man who dreaded a repeat of the first World War, just as you have dreaded a repeat of the past 30 years. But he did prepare for the worst, even if his timing was poor - though how could it be better when faced with the monomaniacal genius of Hitler?

Nonetheless, it was he, not Churchill, who prepared the RAF for the Battle of Britain and the British army for modern warfare. Moreover, he knew that when a peaceful man plays cards with a crook, the day will come when he must reach for his gun and come out fighting. That's a lesson always worth bearing in mind, Bertie, but never more than now.

It strikes me that the emphasis on Churchill and Chamberlain is of crucial importance nowadays, especially at a time when Munich is seen as a codeword for short-sighted cowardice, while the cult of Churchill as a champion of freedom grows ever stronger, particularly on the far side of the Atlantic.

A racist, imperialist brute who understood the world in primary colours, where every nation had its place - and for plenty of nations that place was beneath the feet of the European powers - Churchill was also no friend to England's poor, recommending in the 1920s that striking workers be shot. His career up to his becoming Prime Minister was a lenghty catalogue of blunders and bloodshed. Frankly, he was a monster who was lucky enough to have lived in a time of monsters far worse than himself.

And yet, despite all this, we tend to buy the myth of Churchill he composed himself.

And who said you couldn't fool all of the people all of the time?