Gun Crazy

Here are some facts:

In 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013 there were 33,636 gun deaths in the US. Of those a third are homicides. Just over 62% are suicides. The remaining 3% are accidents or situations where the intent is uncertain.

That’s over 32,000 deliberate gun deaths per year, or, put another way, there’s a deliberate gun death in America every 16 minutes. There’s a firearms homicide every 47 minutes.

We’re all thinking about this again because of the appalling mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, three days ago, in which ten people died (including the perpetrator). But in those three days since the shooting, the Gun Violence Archive records another 44 deaths. In the US, it’s a couple of Roseburg, Oregons every single day.

There are around 270 million guns in civilian hands in America. Note that the population of America is around 320m. That’s 85 guns for every 100 people in America.

To the rest of the world, the entire rest of the world, America’s obsession with gun ownership looks like a kind of madness. Imagine a country that uniquely has no restrictions on the sale and use of poison. And imagine that country seeing deaths by poisoning soaring to globally anomalous levels: a huge wave of accidental poisonings, homicidal poisonings, suicides by poisoning, far above the levels of any other country. And imagine that country refusing to accept any kind of link between deregulating the poison trade and these deaths. This is how America behaves, like its gun grazy.

But it’s not madness; it’s politics. It’s been the strategy of the America hard right for fifty years to drag the debate rightward, to turn that notorious Second Amendment of the United States Constitution into an argument to allow individual citizens to have arsenal in their own homes that would equip a small platoon, and to foster an extremist right-wing agenda about the role of the state and its relation to the individual.

I don’t want to get into the debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment, because, frankly, I don’t care. Because, you know what? It’s an amendment. It’s how you change a constitution. There have been 25 more since then.

Anyway, the amendment’s meaning has changed over time. For most of the lifespan of this amendment, it was not interpreted the way it is now. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), it was ruled not to grant the right to bear arms. United States v. Miller (1939) noted that it could not apply to weapons that do not have a reasonable relation to the ‘preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia’. In other words, the Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep a sawn-off shotgun in your home. Nor, you might think, would it be conducive to the formation of a well-regulated militia, that some survivalist nutjob keeps ten semi-automatic assault rifles in his shed.

But this has all changed. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that this Second Amendment directly applied to individuals and gave them a constitutional right to possess and carry firearms. And this was the outcome of thirty-five years of lobbying by the National Rifle Association. The NRA used to be basically a club for hunters and sportsmen until it got taken over my gun rights activists like Harlon Carter, who turned it into the lobbying organisation it is today, obsessed with guns as the sole means of protecting US citizens against tyranny.

It’s in the interests of gun rights activists to keep this image of a tyrannical federal government alive. In Europe, we have experience of that actually happening in living memory. But in America? None. So why is the right so obsessed with it? Well first, the American hard right think that taxation is tyranny, that Obama has ‘taken their country away’ from them, that the federal government is ‘out of control’. And, second, there’s a brilliant piece of circular logic; they need guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government – and what examples of tyranny would they imagine defending themselves against? The government trying to take their guns away. The literature is full of bloodthirsty promises of civil war if the government ever tries to get rid of their guns. So they need guns to protect their guns.

The right have been very successful in portraying themselves as the victims. The conservative rural right-wing is an endangered species, they cry. The federal government wants to take our guns, our taxes, our rights, our goddamn freedom.

So ingrained is this belief in their own martyrdom that their rhetoric always enters into a bizarro world where up is down, black is white, wrong is right. I experience it only very fleetingly, but whenever I comment on gun crime in America soon enough some gun fan gets in touch to tell me that I am a ‘bigot’ (on this occasion, it was because I objected to a gun rights activist saying this, within hours of the Roseburg shootings); or a racist, misogynistic, ultra-conservative, homophobic militaristic gun fetishist calls advocates for gun control 'fascists'.

But here’s the thing. This century, guns have killed more US citizens than war, terrorism, drug overdose and AIDS - put together. Only heart disease and cancer kill more, and we don’t yet have a cure for cancer. Guns are the real threat to US citizens, not tyrannical government.

And here are some more facts:

• gun owners are more likely to be white than black
• gun owners are more likely to be conservative than liberal
• gun owners are more likely to be Republican than Democrat

The right-wing are not the victims; they’re the killers.

The other thing that these guys like to say whenever a non-American voices an opinion is to butt out. This is an American issue and no one outside America can understand. And they usually add something about how they kicked the British out of America 200 years ago.

Except that it is our business. Literally our business. European arms manufacturers are tooling up Americans. Glock is Austrian. Beretta is Italian. Heckler & Koch are German. FN Herstal is Belgian. In 2012, the UK exported $28m small arms and ammunition to the US (or 24% of our total).

So it is our business and it's our responsibility too. When our arms industry sends weapons to oppressive regimes, we are rightly outraged. The white conservative right have been the oppressors of America for 300 years. We should stop fuelling this fire. Ban gun exports now.

Trident

Jeremy Corbyn has caused a sensation by declaring that he does not favour the renewal of the Trident nuclear missile programme and, in addition, that if he were Prime Minister, he would not press the button the deploy the missiles. This has caused predictable concern from his shadow cabinet for whom Trident is a vital part of Britain's security. Of course, because Trident (and its predecessor, Polaris), are an effective deterrent that have kept us safe since 1968.

Is this true though? Has Trident kept us safe? At all?

Well first, it is true that since 1968 (a) we've had a nuclear missile system, and it's also true that (b) in that time we have not been invaded by a hostile foreign power. But how safely can we attribute the latter to the former? These may be independent, unconnected facts and to connect them might well be a classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc error. Can anyone point to an episode where our possession of nuclear weapons specifically protected us? A moment where an enemy specifically contemplated attacking us but desisted because of our nuclear missiles? And, conversely, can anyone explain how Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Austria, Australia, New Zealand and Spain managed to escape being attacked in that time, despite having not a single nuclear weapon between them?

The clearest moment when people felt the East and the West were on the brink of nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the last two weeks of October 1962, a terrifying stand-off took place between the US and the USSR in which the world faced the prospect of a devastating nuclear war. Eventually, Kennedy and Khrushchev pulled back from the brink. Perhaps this was an instance of the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons? Well possibly - except that let's remember that the whole thing came about because of nuclear weapons. It was the US siting nuclear warheads (Jupiter ballistic missiles) pointing at the USSR in Italy and Turkey that prompted the Soviet Union to retaliate by placing its own R-12 missiles on a base in Cuba. The possession of weapons may have prevented the crisis from turning into war, but they created the crisis in the first place.

In fact, any claim that nuclear weapons kept us safe would have to be at least cancelled out by the clear fact that those same weapons made life much more dangerous.

And this is a bit of theme.

• A year earlier, the phone network that connected NORAD with the various early-warning stations went down. All the lines were routed through a Colorado substation which had overheated and so the lines were shut down. But to Strategic Air Command it looked very much as if a massive surprise attack had taken out the frontline of US defences. All SAC bases were placed on the highest alert and the B-52 bombers, armed with nuclear weapons, were placed on high readiness. Fortunately, a reconnaissance aircraft was able to confirm that the sites were still intact and crisis was averted.
• In January 1968, a B-52 bomber, armed with a nuclear weapon, experienced an onboard fire. Diverting to make an emergency landing at the nearby Thule airbase in Greenland, it failed and crash-landed. It is extremely lucky that despite the fuel detonating this did not trigger the nuclear weapon. Not simply because of the fallout from the explosion but also because Thule was one of the early-warning stations. If the bomb had exploded, it would have sent an immediate signal to NORAD of a nuclear attack on a US base. There would have been no failsafe, because the blast would have destroyed them; the B-52 was off-course, so it would not have shown up as a possible cause. What protected the world for retaliatory action was luck.
• In November 1979, computers at the Pentagon's National Military Command Centre reported terrible news. The Soviet Union had just launched an overwhelming nuclear strike at America's defences. Minutemen missiles were immediately readied to retaliate. Air interceptor forces were deployed. The President's 'doomsday' plane was launched. Until it was discovered that a young air force officer, earlier that morning, had decided to run a training programme on an Air Force computer, not realising that computer was connected to the NORAD mainframe. (Four years later, this becomes an ingredient in the movie War Games...)
• The following year, in June 1980, an operator monitoring the screens suddenly saw them announce first that there were 2 incoming nuclear missiles and then that there were 220 missiles. As usual, airborne command is launched, the bomber pilots are readied with their nuclear payloads, National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski is awoken, alerts soar to their highest levels. And then it becomes clear that a 46-cent computer chip has been malfunctioning and is reporting, randomly and intermittently, 0s as 2s.
• In September 1983, it is the Soviet Union's turn to experience computer errors. A Colonel in the Soviet army in one of the bases that make up the 'Oko' early-warning system picks up an alert that a US missile is heading towards the USSR. A few moments later, it reports that there are five. Soviet radar cannot yet verify whether there are real rockets in the air. Fortunately for the world, Colonel Petrov makes an educated guess that this is a computer error (why would America send only five missiles?) and refuses to retaliate. 
• In January 1995, the cold war is over. Yet at the Olenegorsk early warning radar station in Murmansk Oblast, the screens register an incoming missile that looks exactly like an incoming Trident missile fired from a US military submarine. In fact it is a Black Brant rocket carrying scientific equipment on behalf of a group of Norwegian and US scientists wanting to study the aurora borealis. To get there it used the same air corridor as the Minuteman III ICBMs, each with its three nuclear warheads, between Dakota and Moscow. Unlike in 1983, the presence of a single rocket does not immediately discredit the report; it is assumed that prior to an all-out attack the US would send up a missile to send out a massive electromagnetic to knock out radar and other detecting equipment. Russia has only ten minutes to make a decision. Forces are placed on a high alert and the Cheget 'command briefcase' is brought to Boris Yeltsin who has to decide whether to authorise a full-scale retaliation. He activates the nuclear keys. Eight minutes into the ten, stations tracking the missile identify its trajectory as taking it away from Russia towards the sea. The forces stand down.

In other words, nuclear weapons have not made us safer; they have placed us at much greater risk.

And what about the future? Well, we don't know what the future will hold. 'In an uncertain world, are we really content to throw away Britain's ultimate insurance policy?' says George Osborne, defending the renewal of Trident. But uncertainty is a terrible defence for certain action. It says: we don't know what will happen, so we know what we must do. Remember, this is not about abandoning weapons we already have; Trident will come to end of its life in 2028. But such is the procurement and turnaround time that If we want Trident (or something Tridentish), we have to judge the state of the world in the 2050s and decide on our defence systems now - at the cost of $100bn.* 

This is an uncertain world, of course. Who remembers the lovely certainties of the Cold War? At least you knew who the enemy was. For a Cold War world, where the enemy sits in an identifiable city, missiles make some sense. But in this new world we are less at threat from states than from individual terrorists and non-territorial terrorist groups.

Against whom, Trident is 100% useless. When al-Qaeda attack us, who do we bomb? If ISIL were to launch an assault on one of our cities, where would we send the missiles? On 9/11 or 7/7 or on the Moscow Metro or at Glasgow Airport or in Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho or on the streets of Woolwich or at the Jewish Museum in Belgium or at the offices of Charlie Hebdo the nuclear deterrent was, obviously, no deterrent at all. When Trident was commissioned in 1980 to be deployed in 1994, Margaret Thatcher (who signed the order) no doubt felt that the future was uncertain but what she did know is that our main threat between 1994 and 2028 would come from the Soviet Union. Trident is already an absurd unusable anachronism.

I'm not a pacifist. I think we need defences and sometimes you have to fight a war. But it seems incredible to be running down our conventional forces who are the ones who, let's not forget, have fought every war we've ever fought, in favour of a weapon that we are unlikely ever to use. We need to be maintaining our conventional forces, not running them down.

So let's not renew Trident. It is a dangerous waste of money.

---

* This is CND's figure which covers the whole lifespan of the weapons. The Ministry of Defence says it will cost somewhere between £17.5bn and £23.4bn, though that doesn't cover overspend, running costs, maintenance and upgrades, protection and end-of-life decommissioning and even if we do only count procurement, frankly, no one in the world believes it will only cost £23.4bn.

Iliad

See,
They gather there in St Ellis's Parish
Where the land and sea battle their old battle
   In a furnace with many mouths
   Breathing hes and shes in and out
500 minutes of beginning that is not a beginning

Beneath a heavy, parched, sulphurous light
   With two more banks each of 6 x 3
   Rose on one side, lemon the other
      A pair of gift boxes, Greek/Turkish delight
      (This is where Europe edges and blurs.)
They stand and sit and hear and see.

   See? See,
See the Greeks regain the will to take on Troy
Hector pompous, tank-bound, 
Achilles in a massive strop
Youthful changeless Gods
Blood and blood and blood and blood
   All of it seen and none of it seen.

The actors acting without acting
   Unpretending speech
   No one does more than is done
Holding up this he, that she, like a suit
   'Admire the handiwork'
   For us to wear or not (so naturally we sometimes wore)
   Nothing false, all bare-frank

Yet, when Nestor comes to sulking Achill
Begging him to leads the Greeks
   (Llion Williams & Richard Lynch)
   Two men in jackets, bodywarmers
   Their spectacles insisting no spectacle
       Thump hearts! hammer hearts!
       Tighten lung and shoe still.
       The now never more now.

   Then the others
Building and unbuilding an unset non-set set
Careful, expert, delicate (unthumping)
   Board and tyre, chair and rope
   Always moving, 
An Aegean archipelago of platforms
Like the camps round Ilium
Changeable as allies
   The theatre squabbles around us

   (Or with us.
   At polite request
   We part, we advance, we retreat
   Like an army or a sea.)

Christopher Logue!
   Wordstruck!
   Alive!
The power of the wordthocks overwhelming
   Consonants full of blood
      Vowels full of dirt
Each one a punch to the heart
      We suck in more air with each
      "she" & "bronze" & "I will not fight for him" 
Bruise words, a real knee-trembler.
No 'new play' so wordfast, so wordwhirled
Words on walls and in mouths
   Living (and not living)
   Red and read (and read).

A story thick with now
Grit on our eyes
   Each second like sand
   Each hour like water

   And chairs!
   Hundreds of chairs!
White, garden, plastic, stupid
Stacked and unstacked
But when assembled as a spiky palm
Or hurled into a wall or at a wall
   Overwhelming

   "You've said that before"

And I repeat
   (Who will deny the value of repetition now?)
Overwhelming

   Like the sound!
Massive mighty sound
Tectonic tones shifting glacially
Wide as a desert or a sea or cinemascope
   Thick with sea-dark and sword, God-notes, eyeless deep

Bringing the huge out in and making the in an out.

With each hock of it
I stagger between its weight and its air
Loved by it and loving it
Poetry was never more theatre was never more poetry.

---

Mike Pearson and Mike Brookes' Iliad for the National Theatre of Wales is a staging of Christopher Logue's rendering of Homer as War Music and is currently being performed at Ffrwrnes, Llanelli. Yesterday was an all-day marathon showing all four parts and it was one of the most moving and powerful and intelligent things I have seen in a theatre. I adored it and still can't quite process it. It was, it was overwhelming.

 

Rugby Nut

I've just sent the following email to Mike Penning MP, following his comments in the Standard,  about Jeremy Corbyn, whom he criticised for not attending the England vs. Fiji rugby game. I will let you know if I get an answer.

Dear Mike Penning

I was pleased to see you recently describe yourself in the Evening Standard as a ‘rugby nut’. Me too! It's great to see that the Minister of State for Justice has got his priorities right!

In rightly denouncing Jeremy Corbyn for turning down free tickets to see England play (can you imagine? I can't!), you stated

As a rugby nut who’d go anywhere to see England play, I cannot believe anybody, let alone the Leader of the Opposition, would not support our country.

Some know-it-alls (don't you just hate them?) have tried to suggest that you are a bit of a nobody trying to make a desperate political point out of nothing at all on the slavish bidding of Conservative Central Office! Obviously that’s a ridiculous suggestion to rugby nuts such as ourselves; if you say you'd go anywhere to see England play and wouldn't - like Mr Jeremy Corbyn - let prior commitments keep you from the games, I believe you! 

But just to put my mind at rest, could you confirm that you did indeed attend all of the following matches?

5.9.15 England vs. Ireland
22.8.15 France vs. England
15.8.15 England vs. France
21.3.15 England vs. France
14.3.15 England vs. Scotland
1.3.15 Ireland vs. England
14.2.15 England vs. Italy
6.2.15 Wales vs. England
29.11.14 England vs. Australia
22.11.14 England vs. Samoa
15.11.14 England vs. South Africa
8.11.15 England vs. New Zealand
21.6.14 New Zealand vs. England
14.6.14 New Zealand vs. England
7.6.14 New Zealand vs. England
15.3.14 Italy vs. England
9.3.14 England vs. Wales
22.2.14 England vs. Ireland
8.2.14 Scotland vs. England
1.2.14 France vs. England
16.11.13 England vs. New Zealand
9.11.13 England vs. Argentina
2.11.13 England vs. Australia
14.9.13 England vs. Samoa
15.6.13 Argentina vs. England
8.6.13 Argentina vs. England
16.3.13 Wales vs. England
10.3.13 England vs. Italy
23.2.13 England vs. France
10.2.13 Ireland vs. England
2.2.13 England vs. Scotland
1.12.12 England vs. New Zealand
24.11.12 England vs. South Africa
17.11.12 England vs. Australia
10.11.12 England vs. Fiji
23.6.12 England vs. South Africa
16.6.12 England vs. South Africa
9.6.12 England vs. South Africa
17.3.12 England vs. Ireland
11.3.12 France vs. England
25.2.12 England vs. Wales
11.2.12 Italy vs. England
4.2.12 Scotland vs. England
8.10.11 England vs. France
1.10.11 England vs. Scotland
24.9.11 England vs. Romania
18.9.11 England vs. Georgia
10.9.11 Argentina vs. England
27.8.11 Ireland vs. England
13.8.11 Wales vs. England
6.8.11 England vs. Wales
19.3.11 Ireland vs. England
13.3.11 England vs. Scotland
26.2.11 England vs. France
12.2.11 England vs. Italy
4.2.11 Wales vs England
27.11.10 England vs. South Africa
20.11.10 England vs. Samoa
13.11.10 England vs. Australia
6.11.10 England vs. New Zealand
19.6.10 Australia vs. England
12.6.10 Australia vs. England
20.3.10 France vs. England
13.3.10 Scotland vs. England
27.2.10 England vs. Ireland
14.2.10 Italy vs. England
6.2.10 England vs. Wales

As you can see I’m not going to go back beyond the decade: I’m not sure how long you’ve been a 'rugby nut’; it may have been a very recent thing for all I know!

I applaud you – as one rugby nut to another – for your tireless efforts in supporting the England Rugby Team so devotedly. You put people like Jeremy Corbyn to shame! It must require you to put your family and your constituents and your ministerial responsibilities second and your love of rugby first. Well done! I think people underestimate how much hard work it is being a rugby nut. The time! The money! The air miles! It’s probably why, unti. I read the Standard, I must admit I’d never heard of you. But I have now. 

I look forward to hearing from you

Swing low sweet chariot!

Very best wishes

Dan

Is this our IDS moment or our Scotland moment?

So it happened. Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party with a massive majority of 59.5%. A bigger share, let's remember, than Tony Blair won in 1994. But here's my question: is this our Scotland moment? Or our IDS moment?

Is it our IDS moment? In 2001, the Eurosceptic hard right of the Tory party elected Iain Duncan Smith leader of the Conservative Party, over the much more affable, centrist, and fairly likeable Kenneth Clarke - with 60.7% of the vote, a strikingly similar share to Corbyn's. I imagine the Eurosceptic hard right told themselves that secretly the British were hard right Eurosceptics and all IDS would have to do is say what he believed and the people of Britain would rise up as one and acclaim him as the conscience of the nation. It didn't work out like that and IDS remained stubbornly resistible. He was a man whose most celebrated speech as Leader of the Opposition ('do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man') was one basically apologising for being a bit shit. He was probably the least likeable leader the Tories have had in over a hundred years (which, considering the competition includes Michael Howard, William Hague, Ted Heath and Bonar Law, is quite an achievement). IDS was elected through a mixture of self-indulgence and delusion. Is that what Labour has just done? 

I don't know, but at least I know that I don't know. There have been a lot of people saying Jeremy Corbyn is 'unelectable'. First, in this year of all years, let's not be too confident about our poll predictions. In May, the Tories got a clear majority, despite all the poll predictions of a hung parliament. Yesterday, Sadiq Khan was selected as Labour's London mayoral candidate against the polls that called it for Tessa Jowell. And when the candidates were announced for the Labour leadership, no one seriously predicted a Corbyn victory. The fact is no one actually knows whether Jeremy Corbyn has the ability to reach out across the electorate. All we have at the moment are hunches and guesses. Corbyn has surprised us all and he may do it again.

Second, he may not be electable, but I look at the other candidates and I don't see anyone more electable. Not Andy Burnham, not Yvette Cooper, not Liz Kendall; none of them strikes me as having that instant electoral magnetism that Tony Blair once possessed. I don't say this scornfully: in fact, all three have impressed me through the course of the campaign. Yvette Cooper has authority and poise, a real toughness; Andy Burnham has articulated the case for government intervention and nationalisation with real force and feeling; even Liz Kendall, whose policies I feel least enthusiastic about, had conducted the campaign with good humour and steel and her Twitter putdowns are a thing of beauty.

Third, it's a truism that I think is partly true that most of the time parties don't win elections, they lose them. In other words, in 1997, it wasn't so much that Labour were compelling for the electorate as that the Tories had been a five-year shambles: deep divisions over Europe, a string of sex and bribery scandals, a Prime Minister who had to resign as leader of his party and put himself up for election in a failed attempt to secure the loyalty of his party. The Blairites' apparently cast-iron argument that they know how to win may actually be a misrecognition of the fact that in 1997, 2001 and 2005, the Conservative Party had perfected the art of losing. Blair could have won in 1997 on 1983's manifesto, and you know that's true. You need a Leader of the Opposition who can embody and articulate what is wrong with the Government, who can change the narrative; the Blairite tendency aren't fundamentally opposed to this government and can't honestly make the case against austerity.

Fourth, it's been a constant claim that Corbyn is an extreme leftist who will drag the Labour Party back to the unelectable 80s. But is he an extremist? There are some positions where he is to the left of public opinion: particularly on withdrawing from NATO and his (hopefully fleeting) interest in reopening the coal mines. But some of his very left-wing positions - nationalising the railways, for example - are very popular. And his commitment to public investment hardly makes him an extremist. The current Tory government are economic extremists who have passed themselves off as moderates. This is why the Blairites are no use right now: you can't oppose the Tories while accepting their basic argument.

So is it our IDS moment? I don't know. I'm sure there is some delusion and self-indulgence on the left; why wouldn't there be? There's some self-indulgence and delusion everywhere. But I don't find the case compellingly made.

...Or is this our Scotland moment? By which I mean, at the beginning of the independence referendum, no commentator thought the Yes campaign had a chance. The entire media and political establishment was ranged against independence. The polls all had the No vote safely in the high 60s. But through the campaign, the Yes campaign ignited a big, open imaginative debate that has - it is no exaggeration - transformed Scotland and its politics. The press and the media tried to impose their view: Scotland has turned against them. The English political establishment united to argue for No; Scotland has turned against them. When people say the only thing that matters is winning, they forget Scotland. Yes lost the battle, but they are winning the war. A series of polls are showing support for the Union dwindling. Because voting day isn't everything; it's what happens on the way.

Let's remember that when Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservatives in 1975, Labour rejoiced and thought she was unelectable. But think tanks and commentators and political circumstances conspired to shift the debate rightwards - and Labour simultaneously perfected the art of losing. We need to drive the debate leftwards.

Labour won in 1997, 2001 and 2005, but with dramatically declining mandate. In 1997 they got 43.2% of the votes cast and 30.8% of the entire electorate. In 2005, they got 35.2% of votes cast and 21.61% of the entire electorate. They lost 4m votes in eight years. Because the smoothness of the Labour machine made them seem a safe alternative in 1997, but by 2005 it had profoundly alienated the electorate from politics. In the last election, nearly 4m people voted UKIP. because they're all mad racists? I doubt it. Perverse though this might seem, might a left-wing Labour Party win back UKIP voters by once again standing as the party that stand up for the marginalised working class? 

Corbyn faces some major challenges. The press will be united against him, but remember Scotland. The press don't have the power they think they do. The Tories will bray about Labour having selected an unelectable leader: but imagine Corbyn debating with Cameron. Is it not possible that an elder statesman, talking normally and reasonably, will throw into sharp relief the empty phrasemaking of the puffed-up posh boy? Cameron has many many weaknesses. He's no Tony Blair. He's lazy, a bit dim, clearly associated with wealth and privilege; he's put himself on a very high perch and is ready to be knocked off. 

The most serious problem will be Corbyn's own MPs. The vast majority didn't vote for him. They - reasonably enough - wonder why Corbyn should expect their loyalty when he has so often voted against his own leader. They will brief against him, vote against him, plot against him. So Corbyn really does need to reach out the party, allow some dissent, stress the things he has in common with his MPs. But today's result is the best possible for him. He has the immense authority of a popular mandate over a quarter of a million votes. And he has there an army of inspired, engaged, quite young activists and supporters who, if the party can retain their engagement, will become a formidable army in support of the party's task of dragging the debate to the left.

So then we get to Jeremy Corbyn. Let me say at once, there's stuff I don't like about Jeremy Corbyn. I think his support for including Hamas and Hezbollah in Middle East peace talks steps naively over a line into seeming to tacitly endorse violent anti-semitism. He seems at one point to have had some sympathy for the ludicrous unscientific bollocks that is homeopathy. And, for the sake of the environment, Jeremy, let's not open the coal mines. But, with all these misgivings and doubts, I voted for him. Because if you can't vote for the person whose beliefs you share, what's the point of voting? The Tories are pretending to jubilate, but they have reason to fear, because maybe the ground is moving beneath them.

Still wish Stella Creasy had got deputy though.