Porter’s Pensées

This blog was supposed to be political and general, or at least professional, rather than personal, but of course you can’t always keep the two apart. Just think of all the people who vote Conservative in order to stay rich. I feel very personally affected by a number of political developments just now. Or at least, political developments as they are filtered through to me in Sweden by BBC World News – through my ‘pillow speaker’ in bed at night – and the Guardian internet site the next morning. Years ago I used to worry that while I was abroad important things could have happened back home which would shock me when I returned. (I remember telling a friend this as we were flying back from a ski-ing holiday: ‘for all we know there could have been a revolution.’ When we landed we found there had been. Martin Peters had been transferred to Spurs.) Now of course we can keep abreast of it all. I almost wish we couldn’t.

Are things really as bad as they seem from here? I’m thinking of course of Trump; but also of recent developments in my own British Labour Party. The last general election result was both a shock and a tragedy, and also profoundly undemocratic (an extreme Conservative government being allowed to get its evil way on the basis of 30-odd per cent of the vote); but then along came Jeremy, an unlikely saviour, I grant you, but one who seemed to be doing pretty well, and in particular keeping his dignity and developing a reputation for honesty which had been thought to be rare in politicians, against fearsome opposition, in a way that led some of us old Labourites to hope that he might, just, and with the world going the way it is now, triumph in the long run. We’d begun to recoup some hope again. And hope, after all, is one of the two main secrets of political success; the other being fear, whose repercussions don’t bear thinking about.

It’s this, the ‘fear’ factor, playing on the apparent hopelessness of our times, which appears to be dominant now. Trumpists fear Mexicans and liberals, and resent the loss of American ‘greatness’. In Britain we fear immigrants, terrorists, and Muslims generally: the last being the key line taken by the Conservative candidate in the London mayoral election just now against Sadiq Khan, the Labour man. (‘Would you trust London in the control of a friend of extremists?’- superimposed on a picture of a bombed London bus.) It’s as a result of this that people respond to politicians presented as ‘leaders’, who can defend them against these terrors. That way, of course, lies fascism, of whatever hue; the ‘hue’ differing according to culture. (Trumpists are unlikely to do the goose-step for example.)

‘Leadership’ is a problematical idea. It emerged in British politics first, I think, in the 1960s: partly under the influence of certain new Business – ‘managerial’ – ideologies; and partly because the ’60s were now far enough away from the war for its inevitable association with the ‘Führerprinzip’ of Hitler. Mussolini, and the rest to become blurred. Harold Wilson, sensing this, used to complain of how ‘leadership’ was coming to be identified with strong, tough, even bullying control, as against the encouragement of consensus and compromise, which was his preferred way. His successor-but-one, Margaret Thatcher, of course, exemplified this to the hilt. After her it has been difficult to deviate from that pattern. (Tony Blair used to say how much he admired her.) Before her, however, there had been examples in British history of prime ministers who had none of her qualities, yet were arguably more effective and certainly more beneficial in office. The obvious one is Clem Attlee; ‘a modest man’, as Winston Churchill is supposed to have said of him, ‘who has much to be modest about’; yet arguably the greatest peace-time prime minister in our history. By miles.

Which is what distressed me about a feature in the Guardian yesterday accepting that Jeremy Corbyn was, of course, not anti-semitic, but doubting whether he had ‘leadership qualities’. This of course is in connection with the current crisis in the Labour party over its alleged ‘anti-semitic’ elements, which has been mainly contrived by enemies of Labour, and within Labour by enemies of Corbyn, forcing the latter to set up an inquiry into it, chaired by an ex-Chair of ‘Liberty’: a good choice, by the way. I’m pretty confident that that Inquiry will substantially exonerate the party (of course there must be a few genuine anti-semites there, as everywhere); but by then – in about two months, I believe – it will be too late. The mud has been flung, and some will remain sticking. It is bound to affect the ‘narrative’ against which this week’s (local government) elections, and then the later EU referendum and general election, will be fought. It’s the headlines that stay in the public mind, sometimes for years. I have a friend who still thinks that MI5 ‘must have had something on’ Harold Wilson; and another close friend (a relative, actually) who believed that Jean Charles de Menezes really did leap over the barrier at Stockwell underground station in July 2005 (before being killed by police in mistake for a terrorist): in both (utterly false) cases because that’s what the newspaper headlines said at the time. The damage has been done.

All of which fills me with despair; and – to get back to the personal – a growing feeling that I can no longer bear to live in Britain just to be enraged and disappointed like this continually. Kajsa and I talked this morning about my moving to Sweden permanently. I would be a kind of refugee. I’d keep a small base back in the UK, of course, after downsizing drastically (anyone interested in loads of books, CDs and my old research notes?); but we’ve more or less decided which room in her house I’d have as my study. It will double as a guest room, so friends from Britain (and anywhere else) will be welcome to come, bearing jars of Marmite, and tales of how much worse things have got ‘back home’.

Meanwhile I’m back in Blighty tomorrow, partly to help out with the election in Hull. Maybe I’ll find that things aren’t so bad after all. Or that the company of other Labour ‘tellers’ will cheer me up. Or persuade me that by leaving, I’d be choosing the cowards’ way. But in the meantime, it’s good to know that I have a bolt-hole. Most of my fellow Labourites won’t. (And we can’t fit them all in here.)

*

On the ‘Anti-Semitism’ thing, this letter in the Guardian yesterday, signed by 82 Jewish writers, artists, academics and actors who are all members of the Labour Party  (one as it happens an old friend of mine), was I think excellent.

“We are Jewish members and supporters of the Labour party and of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, who wish to put our perspective on the “antisemitism” controversy that has been widely debated in the last few weeks (Labour’s antisemitism crisis as Livingstone suspended, 29 April). We do not accept that antisemitism is “rife” in the Labour party. Of the examples that have been repeated in the media, many have been reported inaccurately, some are trivial, and a very few may be genuine examples of antisemitism. The tiny number of cases of real antisemitism need to be dealt with, but we are proud that the Labour party historically has been in the forefront of the fight against all forms of racism. We, personally, have not experienced any antisemitic prejudice in our dealings with Labour party colleagues.
We believe these accusations are part of a wider campaign against the Labour leadership, and they have been timed particularly to do damage to the Labour party and its prospects in elections in the coming week. As Jews, we are appalled that a serious issue is being used in this cynical and manipulative way, diverting attention from much more widespread examples of Islamophobia and xenophobia in the Conservative and other parties. We dissociate ourselves from the misleading attacks on Labour from some members of the Jewish community. We urge others, who may be confused or worried by recent publicity, to be sure that the Labour party, under its present progressive leadership, is a place where Jews are welcomed in a spirit of equality and solidarity.”

Globalisation as a Utopian ideal has been around for more than 150 years. The very word implies Utopia, or perfection, just as monotheism, or the idea of there being just one true God, does. (See below, March 24.) And it is equally dangerous.

150 years ago it was not called ‘globalisation’, of course, but ‘Free Trade’. (The word ‘free’ has much the same kind of pure resonance as ‘global’.) If anyone doubts the Utopian nature of it, then read this, by the great Corn Law abolitionist Richard Cobden in 1846.

I have been accused of looking too much to material interests. Nevertheless I can say that I have taken as large and great a view of the effects of this mighty principle as ever did any man who dreamt over it in his own study. I believe that the physical gain will be the smallest gain to humanity from the success of this principle. I look farther; I see in the Free-trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe,—drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace. I have looked even farther. I have speculated, and probably dreamt, in the dim future—ay, a thousand years hence—I have speculated on what the effect of the triumph of this principle may be. I believe that the effect will be to change the face of the world, so as to introduce a system of government entirely distinct from that which now prevails. I believe that the desire and the motive for large and mighty empires; for gigantic armies and great navies—for those materials which are used for the destruction of life and the desolation of the rewards of labour—will die away; I believe that such things will cease to be necessary, or to be used, when man becomes one family, and freely exchanges the fruits of his labour with his brother man. I believe that, if we could be allowed to reappear on this sublunary scene, we should see, at a far distant period, the governing system of this world revert to something like the municipal system; and I believe that the speculative philosopher of a thousand years hence will date the greatest revolution that ever happened in the world’s history from the triumph of the principle which we have met here to advocate.

Gosh golly! – All this would be the ultimate result of allowing commercial markets absolute freedom domestically and internationally, unrestrained by governments (aka ‘democracy’) or workers’ combinations (Trade Unions), both of which would be entirely subordinate to the dictates of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’. It was the idealistic aspect of it which recommended the principle of Free Trade even to working-class radicals in the mid-19^th century; this, together with the promise of ‘cheaper bread’ that it offered (imported), and – which may be more difficult to credit today – the promise that eventually the free market would lead to greater social and international equality. Just think of it! (And see below, April 18.) That was important.

Whether TTIP – the latest effort to allow market needs and considerations to override democratic ones – will in fact give rise to this kind of Utopia must be doubted. We know how markets can be fiddled and fixed; how easily they can morph into monopolies, which can hardly be regarded as ‘free’ trade, and into imperialism; the dangers it poses to people’s preferred rights, for example to a ‘National’ Health Service…. And very few people nowadays – especially nowadays – can be under any illusion that it can ever conduce to ‘equality’.

More generally, we ought to be aware of the enormous dangers that have always attached to simplistic and idealistic ideologies like this, historically; from the various great monotheisms, through communism, and now culminating – but for how long? – in blessed ‘Globalisation’. Lesson: beware of Utopias, even when dressed in utilitarian clothes, and advocated by ‘good guy’ American presidents.

I’m surprised by the allegations emerging just now of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party. As long-standing member of the party, I must say I can’t quite believe them, or that they are significant. I touched on historical left-wing anti-Semitism in my first book (Critics of Empire), where it was a charge laid against those who attributed Britain’s imperialist war in South Africa to the influence of capitalists there, some of whom were Jewish; but came to the conclusion – based on my knowledge of the anti-imperialist community more generally, who included other Jews – that, obviously in this context, it was their ‘capitalism’ that set the Left against them, and that genuine racial anti-Semitism played little part. It is well known that the creation of Israel was enthusiastically supported by the post-Second World War Labour Party, based partly on left-wing appreciation of the genuine socialism that appeared to be an essential part of the project – kibbutsim, and all that.

Of course the state of Israel has changed quite fundamentally since then, and has become open to criticism on the Left for what the latter sees as its militancy, colonialism (the West Bank settlements), and domestic treatment of its Arabs. Some of us historians, musing on various ‘hypothetical histories’, as we are bound to, must occasionally wonder what might have transpired had Arthur Balfour never made his ‘Declaration’, and if the European Jews’ national aspirations had been satisfied elsewhere – like Uganda, tentatively offered to the Zionists by the British Colonial Office before the War. Wouldn’t that have made things in the Middle East better today? (Of course we can’t know. That’s the difficulty with ‘hypothetical histories’.)

I imagine that it was this kind of ‘musing’ that led the Labour MP Naz Shah to make her cringeworthy suggestion (before she became an MP) that the present state of Israel be uprooted and transferred to America – ‘problem solved’, as she put it; cringeworthy because in this day and age it must resurrect memories of ‘ethnic cleansing’ both in Nazi Germany and elsewhere, and because she really should have been sensitive to the place that the geographical ‘Holy Land’ holds in the minds of Jews everywhere (however emotionally and therefore irrationally). She should also have been alive to the way in which criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism are – whether we like it or not – often these days confused with anti-Semitism, or seen as a ‘cover’ for it. That’s a minefield that even milder critics of Israeli government policies have to traverse gingerly every day. That displayed very poor judgment on her part, as well as ignorance. I trust her statement, made yesterday in the House of Commons, that she now fully and deeply acknowledges this.

As for other expressions of ‘anti-Semitism’ in Labour student circles (it’s usually students who say these silly things), I have no knowledge of what they are supposed to be. But we do know – if I can be allowed to write this without being suspected of racial prejudice myself – that some sections of the Jewish community can be over-sensitive and over-suspicious here. (With good historical reason, I have to say. And they share this with women and blacks.) In connection with this, I was reading Christopher Isherwood’s wonderful 1964 novel A Single Man recently, and came across this. It’s in a lecture the main character, ‘George’, is giving to his students at (we presume) UCLA.

‘And I’ll tell you something else. A minority has its own kind of aggression. It absolutely dares the majority to attack it.’

I hope quoting that doesn’t get me into trouble. If I had posted this on a blogsite that people actually read, like the LRB Blog – my usual vehicle – I suspect it would provoke plenty of comments and complaints BTL; which is why I’m confining it to this one. For the time being.

I thought of adding here a statement of my enormous admiration for Jews and their societies and cultures. (I often wish I was one.) But why should I be forced into such a defensive stance? (There. I have been.)

*

PS. (later.) Apparently Ken Livingstone is now being accused of anti-semitism for pointing out that Hitler supported the formation of a state of Israel in the 1930s. I’m sorry, but that is true. It was part of Hitler’s solution to Germany’s ‘Jewish problem’ before he thought of the ‘final’ one. Of course Livingstone was neither defending Hitler nor tarring Israel with a Nazi brush. Right-wing Labour MPs, including one respectable historian, Tristram Hunt, sadly, are piling in to call for his removal from the Party on these grounds. I suppose it’s the mere mention of the ‘H’-word. This bears out what I’ve just written. I despair.

Hillsborough (1989) was not unique. The scandals connected with that tragedy that have been revealed over the past few days, especially with regards to policing and the press, were in fact pretty typical of the later 1970s and 1980s. The 1984 Miners’ strike was the occasion for a number of them: state conspiracies, excessive police brutality, cover-ups, and false police statements leading to the imprisonment of innocent miners, especially in connection with the ‘Battle of Orgreave’ (coking plant), which later cost the South Yorkshire Police £425,000 in out-of-court settlements. Before that there were the false convictions of the so-called Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven – all supposedly IRA terrorists – in 1974-6. These convictions too were later overturned, usually after 20+ years, with the victims this time paid millions in compensation. Those were some of the main political ones. There were also dozens of ordinary civilian miscarriages:  murderers and others convicted on fabricated evidence. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom.) Thank God the death penalty was not still in force.

In addition to this, the Conservative Party and the security services are positively known to have resorted to ‘dirty tricks’ at this time in order to undermine radical movements (like Trade Unions and CND) and the Labour Party. (How successful these were is a matter of doubt. They certainly plotted to remove Harold Wilson, but it doesn’t follow that Wilson’s eventual removal was due to them.) They were encouraged in this by the more politically corrupt sections of the press, especially the Daily Mail, and the newspapers that Rupert Murdoch took over in the early 1970s. The Sun, of course, is one of the main villains of the Hillsborough piece.

At the time, accusations of police and state malpractice were usually dismissed by these papers, and by governments, as the ravings of loony ‘conspiracy theorists’. This created an atmosphere of disbelief, and undoubtedly acted as a deterrent to proper investigation of many of these charges. It is against this background that the heroic efforts of the Hillsborough campaigners have to be measured and appreciated. It took them 27 years. What other ‘conspiracies’ from that time still remain to be uncovered?

This period – circa 1975-90 – may well be looked back on by future historians as one of the most institutionally corrupt in British history since the early nineteenth century. (For that, see my Plots and Paranoia, ch. 2.) I’m not sure – it needs to be compared with other eras; and I wouldn’t be surprised if it carried on beyond that. Nor am I sure of the reasons. Irish terrorism was an obvious justification. But right-wing fear of even moderate socialism is likely to be another. Real-life communist plots may have played a part. As well as these factors, Conservatives, especially under Thatcher, have never been fully committed to ‘democracy’, except as ‘show’, and insofar as it can be manipulated. (Look at them now.) That would help explain it.

*

PS. (next day.)  And I forgot – how could I have done? – the paedophilia: involving establishment figures, police and cover-ups, again. Lift up a corner of the carpet covering the Thatcher era, and what do we find crawling out…

If Sir Philip Green had been a character in a Victorian novel, he’d have come to a sticky end. Immensely rich, a Conservative Party donor, responsible for the bankruptcy yesterday of BHS, from which he is reckoned to have siphoned off at least half a billion pounds before he cunningly offloaded it, leaving his workers with no jobs and no pensions; a tax-dodger on a monumental scale; owner of several luxury homes, three yachts (why does he need three?), one of which resembles those great aggressive-looking sharks that we see sometimes in the Stockholm Archipelago, and a private helicopter: all for no discernible benefit to humanity at large. And who do you think gave him his knighthood? Yes, TB himself. Anthony Trollope (The Way We Live Now), HG Wells (Tono-Bungay), even Kenneth Graham (Toad in The Wind in the Willows), would have delighted in writing an unpleasant nemesis for him.

For that’s how the Victorian and Edwardian literati treated their entrepreneurs. They despised them. According to an influential book published by the American Martin Wiener in 1981, English culture and the decline of the industrial spirit 1850–1980, this partly explains Britain’s modern economic failings.‘High culture’ in later nineteenth century Britain had been notably unsupportive of urban capitalism. Most artists ignored it; some novelists expressly attacked it (Dickens, Gaskell). As a consequence, even successful businessmen, and especially their progeny, used their dodgily-gotten gains to escape from the stigma of being ‘in trade’, and set themselves up as non-productive jumped-up aristos, fatally for enterprise. That argument was seized on avidly by the Thatcherites. Sir Keith Joseph, one of the most zealous of them, presented a copy of Wiener’s book to each of his cabinet colleagues. You can see why Thatcher was such a philistine; even a proud one. The British literary world had no complementary Ayn Rand to to bolster capitalist egos, by presenting entrepreneurs as heroes. Hence Britain’s long post-Victorian economic decline. That’s the story.

So Thatcher and Joseph set out to reverse this trend; pretty successfully, if measured by the ‘enterprise’ they stimulated, albeit less so if judged by the medium- and long-term benefits of that enterprise, as we can see today. Philip Green is a product of this reversal. He represents exactly the kind of entrepreneur Thatcher admired. She is known to have respected ‘Jewish’ enterprise in particular, and Green probably exemplifies this too – educated as he was at an Orthodox Jewish boarding school, Carmel College in Oxfordshire, known as the ‘Jewish Eton’. I have to say I find this rather unsettling, seeming as it does to confirm a certain stereotype. (Please don’t put me down me as anti-Semitic. It’s a difficult slur to avoid these days.)

And no, I’m not in the least envious (see below, April 12). I’d hate Green’s life-style, as related in this press report: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/bhs-philip-green-family-millions-administration-arcadia. Even the play-girls. (At my age.) So let’s hope the Victorian novelists’ curse awaits him ultimately. In the meantime there must be some suitable fat-cat-weight-bearing lamp-posts around…

Hull City look as if they’re going to be in the playoffs for promotion to the Premier League. This is what I wrote (for the LRB Blog) the last time they were promoted. Predictably – and as mentioned below – it was followed by a lot of sarky Southern comments BTL.

*

(May 2013.) I’m not sure that Hull City deserved to win promotion to the premiership on the grounds of their football – they’ve been rubbish in recent games – but it’s terrific for the city, and for its owner. With so much worldwide interest in the Premier League, playing there puts this poor, isolated and much denigrated town on the map. Quite literally: I remember the last time they were (briefly) in the Premiership checking into a hotel in Copenhagen, giving my Hull address, and saying (based on my experience abroad) ‘I don’t suppose you know where that is’. ‘Oh yes I do,’ the man replied. ‘It’s in the Premier League!’ Those of us who live there, especially if we originally came from the South (as I did, in 1968), greatly resent the way it’s generally presented by our softer neighbours. Being placed top of a list of ‘Crappiest Cities in Britain’ a few years ago hurt. My son, who lives and works in London, gets it all the time – though he copes well with it (mainly with humour). I must say it has added a personal dimension to my dislike of the metropolis – Tories, bankers, media and so on.

In the month that its football team was promoted, Hull was appointed Britain’s ‘City of Culture’ for the year 2017. Whether or not it deserved that is probably just as moot as whether it really merits being in the premiership. It has one or two great players, contemporarily and historically: William Wilberforce, Andrew Marvell, Philip Larkin, the Hull Truck theatre, the Housemartins, a big aquarium, and a university that is far better than its name makes it sound. (‘Hull’ is such a dull word, especially in a Hull accent: ‘’ll’.) The university was what drew me to the place originally. I’d hardly been north of Watford before, and I didn’t really know where the place was myself. But I like it here: decent and pretty friendly (as Yorkshire people go), laboring under terrible burdens inflicted on it by those said Tories and bankers, and with some wonderful country around. (Ask David Hockney.) I was happier at Hull University than at any of my others: which have included Cambridge and Yale; none of the latters’ airs, graces and snobbery. And housing is cheap. Where else can you buy a 4-bedroom Victorian house in a leafy inner suburb for under £200,000?

There’s another reason for welcoming the Tigers’ promotion. Like many football clubs now they’re owned by a millionaire capitalist: a trend I generally abhor; but in this case one with a difference. Assem Allam originally came to the UK as a refugee from Nasser’s Egypt, and to Hull to study Economics at the University. So he has a real connexion; unlike that crook Roman Abramovich with Chelsea, for example. He was so impressed with the welcome he got there that when he got rich, he decided to give something back to the city in gratitude. Rescuing the football team from near bankruptcy was his gift to us. I think it’s another thing the city can be proud of.

(Addendum, 2016: since then the fans have rather fallen out with Allam, for wanting to change the name of the club. But the main point stands.)

*

(Addendum II: Leicester’s much more miraculous rise this season must be doing the same for that city. Everyone’s supporting them, against the millionaires. I was even half-hoping they’d beat West Ham last week. In the event it was a 2-2 draw, with the help of a dodgy last-minute penalty for Leicester. So, Come on You Foxes, too!)

The new British TV police drama Undercover – which I’m recording, and will catch up with when I get back to the UK – was criticized in the Guardian today by a genuine victim: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/25/woman-who-lived-with-police-spy-criticises-bbc-drama-undercover. I wrote a piece on this for the Guardian a couple of years ago, reviewing Rob Evans and Paul Lewis, Undercover. The True Story of Britain’s Secret Police (Faber & Faber, 2013), which the series must be loosely based on. I thought it might be worth recycling here.

*

I can understand the attraction of being a spy. There’s the mystery, the play-acting, the adrenaline-rush of covert operations, the delicious fear of being found out. You are privy to information others don’t have, which gives you power over them. In some ways it is ‘like being God’, in the words of one of the London Metropolitan police spies featured in this book; especially, perhaps, if you are someone who feels that his or her life is rather pathetic otherwise. Of course you can also do it for principled and ideological reasons: because you genuinely believe you can do good this way. Wartime or even Cold War spies are likely to come into this category. That however doesn’t seem to have been the case in any of the examples chronicled here, of men (and one woman) who infiltrated radical movements in Britain in the 1990s and 2000s, with new names (often taken from dead children, in case anyone checked at the Registry of Births), long hair and beards (they called themselves ‘The Hairies’), and lots of sleeping around, to preserve credibility. They simply liked the thrill. (And the sex, one imagines.)

This however is one of the problems. For most decent people this sort of work is anathema. Espionage involves deception and betrayal, usually of people you have pretended to befriend, and in at least one of these cases women you have fathered babies with. It’s a sordid business, and doesn’t attract the most virtuous of people. So how can you trust the information they bring to you? How do you know they’re not provoking crimes, just to get the kudos for revealing them? (There are examples of this here.) How can you trust the authorities, with all this secretive power in their hands, not to use it for their own purposes – for example, to spy on and try to discredit their own enemies? (This also happened here: agents were charged with digging up dirt on critics of the Police, and even on the family of Stephen Laurence, whose case was notoriously mishandled by the Metropolitan force. You’ll have read about it recently in the press.) Lastly, how can you trust them to stay loyal; not to go ‘rogue’ – to blab to the newspapers, for example, which could undermine the whole exercise? That’s how the Guardian journalists Lewis and Evans got hold of this story: from a couple of ex-undercover agents who decided to spill the beans, apparently because they came to feel guilty about what they had been doing, which I suppose is to their credit. Another, Mark Kennedy, sold his story for money to the Mail on Sunday. It is interesting to read, by the way, how different the penitents’ versions were from Kennedy’s. The former had come to the realisation that the men and women they had been spying on were reasonable folk: kindly, harmless idealists in the main; and had seen them brutally beaten up by the police. They had obviously bonded with them. (That’s another danger: ‘going native’.) Not so the Mail’s source, which painted an entirely different picture of filthy, scavenging, wild-eyed terrorists whom Kennedy was now in hiding from, fearing for his and his children’s lives. That made him the victim, of course. (And will have confirmed Mail-readers’ prejudices.) One of them must be lying. But that’s the nature of the beast.

It always has been. None of this is new. That is not to say it has always gone on. For much of the nineteenth century it didn’t, partly because the British authorities were fully aware of the dangers; and partly because any hint of ‘domestic espionage’ at almost any level was regarded as unethical. Worse: it was seen as French. ‘Spylessless’ was one of the things that marked Britain off from the more tyrannical Continent: was a fundamental feature of her ‘national identity’, in other words. (Those who wish to use history to establish the nature of ‘Britishness’ might ponder that.) Even if it worked it wasn’t justified. ‘I would rather half a dozen people’s throats should be cut in Ratcliffe Highway every three or four years’, said one MP (a Lord) in 1811, ‘than be subject to domiciliary visits, spies, and all the rest of Fouché’s contrivances’. (Ratcliffe Highway was a notorious London crime spot; Fouché the chief of the Parisian secret police.) Political spies, especially, were some of the most excoriated villains of popular culture in the early nineteenth century. Governments couldn’t risk their use for many years after that.

That was one of the reasons. A more philosophical one was that domestic espionage undermined popular confidence in the authorities, so making the exercise of authority more difficult. If they don’t trust us, why should we trust them? These restraints gradually dissolved during the twentieth century, however, partly under the cover of the World Wars (looking for enemy agents), and then in the fever of paranoia that took hold of the classes that had anything to lose from socialism after the Russian Revolution. That came to a head in the late 1960s and 1970s – remember the farcical ‘Wilson Plot’ (against him, because they thought he was a Soviet mole)? – which was exactly the time, as it happens, that the ‘Special Demonstration Squad’ (SDS) which employed these particular people – motto ‘By Any Means Necessary’ – was secretly set up. The year 1968, of course – whatever it promised to be, and may have turned out to be elsewhere – can be seen in retrospect to mark the beginning of Britain’s Great Reaction, which has gone on (and on) since then. In Britain – this is obviously not true of everywhere – it is the Right which has generally been most willing to use underhand methods against its perceived enemies, and even to defend them openly: ‘if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear’. (Goebbels originally, I think, but echoed by Conservative ministers today.) It is also the Right, incidentally, who are the ones to cry ‘conspiracy theorist’ at anyone who suspects this kind of thing. In this case, in the view of Evans and Lewis, the conspiracy theorists have been ‘not nearly paranoid enough’.

The question remains whether these methods can be in any way justified by their results. The circumstances of today are different from those of the nineteenth century. It is arguable that there are more ‘subversive’ dangers now: though there were plenty of things going on then that the Victorians could have painted as ‘subversive’ if they had been so inclined. Maybe the switch from being the most proudly ‘spyless’ of nations to the (probably) most spied upon – surveillance cameras, GCHQ, Prism, industrial ‘blacklists’, hacking, and the like – had to come. But it is difficult to see the SDS fitting into this rationale. IRA and Islamist terrorists are one thing. (Bankers might have been another, if only we had realized where the real danger lay.) But tree-huggers, veggies, anti-imperialists and animal rights campaigners – the SDS’s main targets? Come on!

With all this kind of thing going on, it may not be surprising that popular trust in government is breaking down. It is what the Victorians would have expected. We’re no longer surprised by revelations like this, which is sad. The real sea-change, however, will have come about if we are no longer shocked by them. Then we really will have transformed as a nation. Hopefully the grotesqueries revealed in this compelling book will fire some of the old ‘free’ (and radical) British spirit again. But don’t wait up.

Here Jeremy Corbyn marks our ‘patriotic day’ entirely appropriately, in my view as a historian. (Ignore the BTL comments.)

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbyn4PM/photos/a.1455997631360978.1073741829. 1455715994722475/1554555978171809/?type=3&theater.

Something that’s often forgotten about British (or English) ‘patriotism’ is that it was originally a radical concept. ‘Patriots’ in the eighteenth century were those who championed the British people against their foreign-imposed (Norman, Hanoverian) aristocracy. Hence Dr Johnson’s famous dismissal of patriotism as ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel’. He wasn’t referring to the Daily Mail or UKIP kind. Then, towards the end of the nineteenth century, patriotism was appropriated by the Right, and in particular the imperialists, who have held on to it ever since. Perhaps we radical Brits should seize it back.

US patriotism is infused with the same feeling. Which is why we British oughtn’t to be as shocked as we often are by all those stars and stripes in American gardens.

(See how useful History can be?!)

And PS: Isn’t it interesting that multi-ethnic England  should have a Turk (I think) as a patron saint. And probably a fictitious one at that.

Today he’s been knocked off his plinth by an entertainer called ‘Prince’ – an odd name – and our lovely nonagenarian Queen. But I don’t imagine that will last long. Most of the time just now it’s Shakespeare. He’ll be 400 years dead this weekend, giving plenty of employment to the Bardic aficionados – writers, producers, actors – here in Sweden as well as in Britain. For a Shakespeare obsessive like me this is very welcome. (Not that we’re exactly starved of Shakespeariana at any other time. One or other of his plays are nearly always playing in Stockholm – Kurt Wallander performing King Lear recently was an eye-opener; or if not, then West Side Story or Kiss Me Kate.) I thought I ought to write something here to mark this anniversary; but of course I’m not an expert, only an amateur, and so my self-denying ordinance, only to comment on issues I have a particular experience or knowledge of (below, February 22), forbids that. I just have one idea that may be original, however, and derives from my study of cultural history generally. That relates to the vexed question of authorship.

I have to say that I have no doubts at all about who wrote ‘Shakespeare’s’ plays – apart from the smidgeon of doubt any thinking person ought to have about anything. (Perhaps the earth is flat.) It was a fellow called William Shakespeare, who hailed from Stratford-on-Avon in Warwickshire, married an older woman called Anne, then moved to London, where he acted, and wrote. And wrote, and wrote. (He died aged only 52, remember.) If you need any further persuasion, James Shapiro’s superb Contested Will (2011) should do the trick. The surviving historical evidence for Shakespeare’s life is patchy, but there’s enough of it to leave no question of this. The ‘proof’ adduced by the doubters is flimsily circumstantial at best. They’re idiots.

What interests me, however, is the main reason they all give for doubting Shakespeare’s authorship: which is sheer snobbery. Their favourite alternative candidates are Sir Francis Bacon; the 17^th Earl of Oxford; the 6^th Earl of Derby; and Christopher Marlowe. Notice anything they have in common? They’re all nobs, except perhaps Marlowe, and he had a Cambridge education. (At my old college, as it happens.) What the anti-Stratfordians can’t stomach is the idea that Shakespeare wasn’t a high-born or highly-educated man. He came from the ordinary provincial middle classes. How could he possibly have known as much as he clearly did about the sufferings of kings, Renaissance Italy, and the Greek classics if he went to an ordinary grammar school near Birmingham, of all places? (Actually Birmingham hardly existed then.) No country yokel could have written ‘To be or not to be’. It had to be someone with the refinement bestowed by high birth and a privileged education. – But of course this is utter nonsense.

In fact if we look at most of the undoubted cultural geniuses in British history (and there were not all that many of them, compared with French, German or Italian), nearly all of them came from lower-middle class backgrounds. Turner, Constable, Purcell, Elgar, Dickens… all came from roughly the same stratum of society as the Stratford Shakespeare. I first latched on to this when I realized that most of the leading working imperialists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also came, not from a particular class in British society, and certainly not from the ‘uppers’, but from between the classes; and maybe for that reason. Uppers and middles had accepted and comfortable places within the British class system, and so didn’t need to strive, perhaps, or to look beyond their social confines. On the other hand the ‘interstitials’ – the word I coined in one of my books for those who fell uneasily between the classes – did need to. Nearly every one of the most important cultural and political figures in modern British history has been an ‘interstitial’. Will Shakespeare of Stratford falls into that category perfectly.

Indeed, one could go further, and say that if you were an upper or middle-middle class person, you were (and are) at a disadvantage if you wanted to do anything truly remarkable. How many sons or daughters of investment bankers have ever done anything great and original in any field (except banking)? I don’t know much about ‘Prince’, but I don’t imagine he really was a prince to begin with. And our beloved Queen, admirable as she has been in many respects, has not come up with any really great works of art that I know of. That’s a cheap point, I realize; but it may illustrate a truth: that it’s a terrible burden to live under, to be secure in your social position. Almost as burdensome as being male, if you wanted to be a famous writer in the nineteenth century. Have you ever wondered why there have been so many famous women novelists? Women were interstitial, at any time. (So am I, class-wise, I feel, which is maybe why I find this such an attractive theory.)

*

I was introduced to Shakespeare – the enduring love of my life – by a sixth-form teacher who would probably have failed any tests for teaching quality today. He was called William E Barron, nicknamed ‘Spud’ because he looked like a little fat potato, and had a silly high voice, which is why he couldn’t become the great actor he had clearly wanted to be; who nonetheless spent our classes acting out all the characters in King Lear, as well as filling in the bowdlerized dirty bits. I was transfixed, and have remained so ever since. Unfortunately he took against me at the end, because I decided to read History at University rather than English Literature. So I couldn’t thank him. He must be dead by now. If this blog is read Up There: thank you, Spud.

*

Recommended reading (apart from the Bard himself): two more books by James Shapiro: 1599 (2006), and The Year of Lear (2016). Good, for me, because they are excellent history, too.

Sweden’s relationship with the EU is almost as problematical as Britain’s. She only joined in 1995 – 25 years after us – and on the basis of a pretty narrow popular vote. At the same time, her neighbour Norway voted to stay aloof. Like us, Sweden has spurned the Euro. The majority political parties are all pro-Europe. Sweden used to have a UKIP of her own – known as Junilistan – which won 15% of the vote in the 2004 European elections, but which seems to have withered away since. The latest opinion poll put its support at 0.3%. There’s also a Folkrörelsen (‘People’s Movement’) opposed to EU membership on mainly socialist grounds, which is the direction you would expect Swedish Euroscepticism to come from. The ‘Vs’ (Left; ex-communist) are also anti-Europe. The right-wing Sverigedemokraten’s policy is to renegotiate the terms of Sweden’s membership, rather than to leave. The Greens are swithering. So the UK is not the only ‘semi-detached’ member of the EU.

Broader public support for continued Swedish membership has been waning recently – down to 44% in a recent poll (but with a large number of ‘don’t knows’), due mainly to Europe’s reluctance to share her refugee burden with her. The Swedes have also had other issues with the European bureaucracy over the years. It stopped them exporting snus, for example: those little sachets of snuff they insert between their teeth and gums; and has its greedy eyes on Sweden’s beloved Systembolaget, or State liquor-store monopoly.

All this might be thought to give the Swedes some empathy, at least, with Britain’s present predicament. And also a material interest in it, if – as recent polls are predicting, alarmingly – Brexit might push the sceptics into an absolute majority, and lead to Sweden’s following Britain out into the cold. (It’s already being called ‘Swexit’.) That could scupper the whole European project. (See http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/poll-majority-of-swedes-want-to-leave-eu-in-case-of-brexit/.) Is this really on the cards? If so, it must raise the stakes.

In view of all this, I’ve been interested to see – now I’m back in Stockholm – what the local media are making of Britain’s current civil war over Europe. The coverage of it in the quality press and on TV has been extensive. (There’s a discussion of it on SVT as I write.) Most of it is on the level of reportage, rather than comment. There’s plenty about the British situation for the Swedes to mock, of course, if they wanted to: stereotypical old British buffers like Nigel Farage and most Conservative backbenchers; and old myths about Britain’s post-imperial delusions to fall back on. There’s been some comment about how, generally, the debate ‘hasn’t shown the British at their best.’ (Prime Minister’s Question Time does an awful lot of harm to Westminster’s reputation abroad.) But on the whole the media have resisted the temptation to make too much fun of us. They have covered both the issues and the personalities involved in the current debate fairly and responsibly; in contrast, one has to say, with most of the British press.

But they are also puzzled. Why do the Brexiters want to leave? Or the Remainers want to stay? From their own national standpoint, Swedes can see good reasons on both sides of the argument. But no-one seems certain which are the important ones for the British. Democracy? Trade? Brussels bureaucracy? Immigrants? Xenophobia or –philia? Solidarity versus individualism? Narrow political calculation – pro or anti Cameron, for example? – And what would the Brexiters, in particular, do with their newly-won economic freedom if they got it? What exactly would a post-Brexit Europe look like? Let alone one without Sweden, if Swexit followed on.

In itself, however, that could be said to be a pretty fair reflection of the British situation. We’re asking the same questions. So the Swedish media have got it just about right.

(Thanks to Kajsa for essential help with this. A version of it was posted on the LRB Blog this morning.)

PS. I’ve just learned that the Swedish state is paying me a small retirement pension, in return for the little tax I’ve paid while here (mainly on our sommarhus). I’ve tried to turn it down, but they insist. I bet HMRC wouldn’t. Another reason for me to vote ‘Remain’.