-
AAPL
213.43 (+0.29%)
-
BARC-LN
1205.7 (-1.46%)
-
NKE
94.05 (+0.39%)
-
CVX
152.67 (-1.00%)
-
CRM
230.27 (-2.34%)
-
INTC
30.5 (-0.87%)
-
DIS
100.16 (-0.67%)
-
DOW
55.79 (-0.82%)
Iran must pay for this attack on Israel
At age 85, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been risk-averse for much of his time in office. He has preferred to operate through proxies and partners like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis rather than directly engaging in combat with Israel and the United States. This is how he has survived. Since becoming supreme leader in 1989, Khamenei has pursued a gradual approach to eradicating the state of Israel by encircling it in a ring of fire to bleed it slowly.
His risk calculus has now changed, as shown by last night’s missile attack on Israel. According to Israeli officials, Iran launched around 200 missiles towards Israel, most of which were intercepted by Israeli aerial defences.
Khamenei was likely to have been emboldened by the lack of American deterrence in the region
Since Hamas’s massacre against Israel on October 7, 2023, Khamenei has carefully calibrated Tehran’s involvement in the regional conflict. He has armed, funded, guided, and supported Iran-aligned militias in the Middle East, but hesitated to put Iranian skin in the game.
Yet with Israel decimating Hamas militarily and severely degrading Hezbollah’s capabilities, this has weakened two important Iranian allies and undercut its grand strategy. This – coupled with the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and the elimination of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah – drove Iran to conclude that its deterrence was dangerously evaporating. Hezbollah especially has been the Islamic Republic’s crown jewel – its existence is meant to not only serve as a tool to destroy Israel but also to deter it from striking Iran’s nuclear programme. Hezbollah has also been the model that Iran has sought to export to other countries where it is nurturing proxies.
When mulling over this missile attack, Khamenei was also likely to have been emboldened by the lack of American deterrence in the region. The Biden administration has consistently telegraphed its desire for de-escalation. Repeated US non-responses and its occasional underwhelming riposte to Iranian aggression likely drove Khamenei to conclude that the benefits were worth the risks of launching this attack. Khamenei will have wanted to show that Iran will respond to punishing attacks – a deterrence equation of direct revenge it established after Israel’s killing of IRGC Lebanon Corps Commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi in April. Khamenei will have known that an American retaliation on Iranian soil was unlikely and that the US government would seek to restrain Israel in an election year.
Not hitting Israel back would also be untenable for the regime’s brand and stability. Some Hamas leaders already held grudges against Tehran for not offering more support in its battle against Israel after the 7 October massacre. If Khamenei had decided not to hit Israel after a more important proxy, Hezbollah, was decapitated, that would risk undermining confidence within the Islamic Republic’s broader militia network. This would present both management and recruitment challenges, not to mention backlash at home from radical voices, especially within the IRGC.
This was likewise personal for Khamenei. Khamenei and Nasrallah were close and their relationship dated back to the 1980s. In later years, Nasrallah was a leading figure in coordinating Tehran’s broader proxy and partner network, especially after the death of IRGC Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020 left a void.
In recent weeks, there has been a familiar debate within the Iranian system. Some voices – affiliated with the new government of Masoud Pezeshkian – were counselling restraint, viewing Israel’s operations as a trap to ensnare the regime in a war. They preferred to delay or shape the Iranian reprisals in a different way so as not to detract from its quest for sanctions relief from the United States, at a time when Iran’s economy is under stress. Others, including those in the IRGC, were bothered about Iran’s loss of deterrence and argued that it was urgent to reestablish it.
But the Pezeshkian government was never going to be a decisive player in these deliberations. While Pezeshkian was elevated to the presidency under the misleading label of being a ‘reformist’, he does not have enough standing in the system to make a substantive difference. He is not an insider in the Iranian military and security establishment, has a weak mandate, and the presidency is essentially an implementer and not a decision-maker when it comes to Iran’s foreign policy and regional strategy.
Pezeshkian’s primary role for Khamenei is serving as a frontman internationally. He is the smiling doctor who carries the brand of a ‘moderate’ to create the illusion for western diplomats that there is the possibility of a constructive relationship with Tehran. This in turn provides possible sanctions relief and space for the IRGC and its interests to entrap the United States and its allies in rounds of endless negotiations.
As for Israel, it cannot now let the second direct Iranian attack on the Jewish state since 1979 pass without a response. Iran’s attack yesterday was an escalation – with even more missiles launched at Israel than in April. Additionally, Iran may have used new and sophisticated weapons in this attack. This, along with the number of impacts and damage, will inevitably produce an Israeli retaliation. This could include eliminating key Islamic Republic leaders; targeting energy infrastructure to cause economic pain; attacking military bases, Iran’s defence industries, and air defence systems; or striking its nuclear programme.
In the end, Tehran has set the region on fire since Hamas’s massacre in Israel on 7 October. It has unleashed its proxies and partners to attack Americans, Israelis, and international commerce. In the process, it has paid no meaningful price on its own soil. It is overdue for Khamenei to pay dearly.
Vance vs Walz was what a debate should look like
The most important takeaway from the vice-presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz is that this is what a serious debate for high office should look like. It was calm but impassioned, thoughtful, and truly helpful to any voter who wants to understand the policy differences between the two tickets. The candidates actually listened to each other, acknowledged some agreements and identified genuine areas of difference. Equally important, each managed to put forward a coherent case for his own ticket, stressing the key issues in their respective campaigns.
Both the tone and substance of the debate was far superior to the two presidential debates. The Trump-Biden debate was the most consequential, of course, because it showed what the White House had hidden for months: the sitting president is saddled with serious cognitive problems. The public concluded he could not serve for another term and might not be fit to serve now. That led to his sharp decline in the polls and gave senior Democrats the leverage to oust him from the race.
The vice-presidential debate was also superior to Trump’s debate with Kamala Harris, where the former president, irritated by Harris’ attacks, tumbled down the hole of personal attacks and vitriol, losing focus on the policy issues that matter to voters and on which polls show Trump has an advantage.
Tim Walz, who had held no one-on-one interviews during the campaign, used the debate to introduce himself – and did it well. He handled the main task of any vice-presidential candidate: he made a strong, coherent argument for the top of the ticket.
What did Walz’s argument look like? On the positive side, it stressed national abortion rights (pledging to restore Roe), health care, child care, family leave and federal support for housing. He would spend big federal dollars on all of them. He was a strong advocate for Obamacare, though he never used that term, and attacked Trump as a threat to that programme and a threat to everyone with pre-existing conditions. (Vance responded effectively but the damage was done.)
Walz continued to paint Harris as an outsider – a major theme in the campaign – with big plans for the future, not as the sitting vice president tied to the failures of an unpopular administration. Vance predictably responded by saying, in effect, ‘She’s been in office for three and a half years, why hasn’t she done any of these things?’
Walz’s attacks on the Trump-Vance ticket focused on ‘tax cuts for the rich’ and the danger Trump’s actions on January 6 posed for our democracy. Vance responded that Trump transferred power peacefully on January 20, but he danced around the moderator’s question. He never answered whether he acknowledged that Trump actually lost the 2020 election.
Instead, he said he was focused on the future, not the previous election, an evasion that would have served Trump well in his debate with Harris. Walz made that issue the most powerful part of his concluding remarks. Trump, he said, is a ‘danger to democracy’. Then he asked, ‘Where is the firewall with Donald Trump?’ That question captures the fears of many voters.
Vance also made a strong case for his ticket, stressing the campaign’s central themes, especially the economy and immigration. Like Walz, he did so effectively and without personal invective. The only issue he could have underscored better was his campaign’s theme that the world was much safer under Trump, that it is filled with wars and chaos under Biden-Harris, and that Trump can restore stability and America’s place in the world through strength.
Vance made two overarching points. The first was Trump’s success in raising real wages for everyday Americans and keeping inflation low. He’s done it once, Vance kept saying, and he can do it again. He was particularly strong in stressing Trump’s policies to restore American manufacturing, not imports from countries ‘that use slave labour.’ That policy is essentially high tariffs, which Harris and Walz damn as a tax on all Americans.
The second issue, as you would expect, was Trump’s effectiveness in limiting illegal immigration, a sharp contrast to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration. Walz’s response was that everything would have been solved if Trump hadn’t sunk the bipartisan compromise bill in Congress. Vance failed to parry that charge, as he might have, by pointing to the bill’s major defects, the millions who entered illegally before the bill was proposed, and the influx of criminal gangs. He did underscore the surge of fentanyl. Vance concluded the debate by saying the current administration represents ‘broken leadership’ and that ‘we need change.’
The moderators, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, deserve a C-, at best. But at least they weren’t as dreadful as ABC’s Linsey Davis and David Muir, who repeated ‘fact checked’ Trump (sometimes erroneously) and let Harris’s mistakes slide. ABC should be credited with an in-kind contribution to the Democratic campaign.
O’Donnell and Brennan made two mistakes, one obvious, one hidden. The obvious one involved their question about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. The moderators made a needless point of saying those were ‘legal’ immigrants. (That’s an interesting choice of words since I don’t believe they ever refer to anyone as ‘illegal’, a verboten word in their rarified world.) Vance tried to intervene to explain why it was misleading to call them ‘legal’. The moderators were having none of that. They simply refused to let him explain. His attempted comment was brief but the moderators cut off his microphone, inadvertently underscoring a point Vance made later about the danger of censorship by large corporations, often in cooperation with the government.
The less obvious problem was the moderators’ failure to raise what many consider the issue voters care about most: high prices. They limited that discussion to only one issue: housing. They asked nothing about the high prices for food, gas, or other items. Voters complain about them vociferously, attribute the problems to the current administration and say Trump handled inflation far better. Vance wisely raised the issue but the moderators studiously avoided it.
Despite these defects, the debate was a serious one that served the public well. Both Walz and Vance presented their tickets effectively, focused on policy, not personalities, and avoided mudslinging. Their presentations were a much-needed lesson for a deeply divided country. They showed the right way to contest serious differences in a democracy.
This article first appeared in The Spectator’s World edition.
J.D. Vance made the case for Trump better than Trump
Tim Walz versus J.D. Vance was the anti-Trump debate. There were no references to the animal kingdom in this Vice-Presidential debate. There were no sharp attacks about abortion. There were no vituperative comments about a lack of character. There weren’t even any assessments of golf handicaps à la Joe Biden and Donald Trump during their first debate.
Vance subtly detached himself from Trump’s bluff and bombast by coming across as MAGA with a human face
Instead, on CBS News on Tuesday evening, two Midwesterners, one from Ohio, the other Minnesota, maintained a genial tone, vying with each other to express their fervour for bipartisanship and conviction that each wants nothing but the best for America. So much for polarisation. It was not until the very end of their soporiferous encounter that Tim Walz finally took on a harder edge as he asked J.D. Vance whether he was prepared to acknowledge that Donald Trump had lost the 2020 election.
Vance refused. ‘Tim, I’m focused on the future,’ he said. ‘That’s a damning non-answer,’ Walz replied.
In a sense, Vance was telling the truth. He is focused on the future – his own. Vance subtly detached himself from Trump’s bluff and bombast by coming across as MAGA with a human face. He was relaxed, reasonable, reassuring. Vance is playing the long game. If, as seems likely, Trump loses in November, Vance is set to be a contender in 2028. Unlike Mike Pence, he will not have overtly crossed Trump. Instead, he can pose as the loyal legatee.
For now, as Vance stonewalled about 2020, Walz won the debate. The Harris campaign will be running non-stop ads featuring this exchange to underscore the point that Trump, in ways both large and small, is a wilful authoritarian, a tinpot dictator who has cowed his running mate and the GOP into serving as his pliant creatures. The next target: America itself.
For most of the evening, Vance soft-pedalled Trump’s tenure as president and his future policies. Vance dismissed the idea that Trump would sanction federal measures to stymie abortions. He claimed that Trump had rescued Obamacare during his administration. And he asserted that schools could be made safer to prevent gun violence. Walz, who kept emphasising how much the pair had in common, barely laid a glove on him. He came across as nervous but impassioned. Walz’s weakest moment came not when he was challenged by Walz, but when he was asked by the CBS News moderators why he had claimed he was at Tiananmen Square during pro-democracy protests. Walz looked exceedingly queasy as he explained, ‘I’m a knucklehead at times…’
As Trump watched the debate, however, he must have harboured a feeling of unease as Vance handily surpassed his own disastrous performance against Kamala Harris. Trump had already backed out of a 60 Minutes primetime interview on CBS, with his campaign complaining that the news network wanted to do ‘live fact-checking, which is unprecedented.’
With Trump going AWOL, Vance’s performance against Walz had more than a little of an All About Eve feeling to it. As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat put it, he made the ‘case for Trump’s record far more effectively than Trump has ever been capable of doing.’
Trump must have had a premonition of what was about to transpire. Before Vance spoke, Trump held a press conference and tweeted about his pressing concern that the recently deceased baseball star, Pete Rose, should be admitted to the Hall of Fame: ‘Do it now, before his funeral!,’ Trump adjured.
During the debate, as Vance commanded the spotlight, Trump couldn’t resist tweeting out the following statement in all boldfaced capital letters:
‘EVERYONE KNOWS I WOULD NOT SUPPORT A FEDERAL ABORTION BAN, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WOULD, IN FACT, VETO IT, BECAUSE IT IS UP TO THE STATES TO DECIDE BASED ON THE WILL OF THEIR VOTERS (THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!). LIKE RONALD REAGAN BEFORE ME, I FULLY SUPPORT THE THREE EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE, INCEST, AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS RADICAL POSITION OF LATE TERM ABORTION LIKE, AS AN EXAMPLE, IN THE 7TH, 8TH, OR 9TH MONTH OR, IN CASE THERE IS ANY QUESTION, THE POSSIBILITY OF EXECUTION OF THE BABY AFTER BIRTH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!’
The message was clear. Trump didn’t want his understudy to outshine him. But as Vance continues to campaign, he may increasingly put himself, not Trump, first.
Badenoch is right: not all cultures are equally valid
Kemi Badenoch kicked up an almighty stink when she argued at the weekend that not all cultures are ‘equally valid’ when it comes to immigration. The Tory leadership contender was forced to clarify her comments, made in the Sunday Telegraph. ‘I actually think it extraordinary to think that’s an unusual or controversial thing to say,’ she told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg. The truth is, Badenoch is right – and to pretend otherwise is a mistake.
There can be no better reminder that the different qualities of culture matter very much indeed
I’m a doctor and the idea that all cultures are equal, at least in the way they practice medicine, is absurd. Some years ago, the historian David Wootton wrote a slim and beautifully argued book called Bad Medicine. Wootton raged at the cultural relativism so universal in his peers. He pointed out that medical histories, in their effort to treat all cultures as equally valid, overlook whether the approaches of other places and other times actually worked. Medical practices, in other words, might well be a matter of taste, with some nations going in for doctrines of the four humours, and others insisting on randomised controlled trials. But that didn’t make them all equal, and the differences mattered.
Take the issue of infant mortality. In 1860, child death rates were higher in the richest countries in the world – at that time, the richest the world had ever known – than they now are anywhere. Modern Afghanistan offers newborns a better hope of life than the wealthiest nation on earth did a century and a half ago. That matters. The fact that we live longer, healthier lives, that seeing our children die has gone from being normal to being fantastically unfortunate, matters. When it comes to the business of medicine, cultural relativism misses out on the heart of what matters most.
Medicine isn’t the only issue where this logic applies. Some cultural attributes are not merely different from others but better or worse. Female genital mutilation, for example, is definitely not to my taste, nor to most people’s. It arises from a wider culture of contempt for women’s lives just as improvements in child health stem from the intellectual humility and respect for method that underlie science. Shouldn’t we be allowed to say as much?
Some cultures are better than others with regards to their emancipation of women or their healthcare, their grasp of science, their freedom of opportunity or of speech, the richness of their literature, the inclusiveness of their sport, and the quality of their sauces. Not all these differences matter equally, but they all matter. In 1942, William Beveridge spoke of creating a welfare state to battle the five giants of idleness, ignorance, disease, squalor, and want. These were the qualities of mid-century British culture he wanted to diminish, that he felt were worse – less valid – than their alternatives.
Beveridge was generalising, of course. But, as Badenoch has no doubt discovered, saying anything about a culture involves the sort of risky generalisation that always contains some error and sometimes causes harm. Not speaking of them, though, means staying silent about the richness of human variety, to the reality that some human qualities are better, more wholesome, finer or braver than others, and that these differences contribute to what we call national character.
‘Above all, I learned that the Russians, like us, were human beings,’ wrote Denis Healey in his autobiography, ‘although they were not human beings like us.’ It is difficult to say exactly how they might be different (the Soviet novelist Vasily Grossman, trying to do so, judged that ‘the mystique of the Russian soul is simply the result of a thousand years of slavery’) but a quality, or difference, does not cease to be important because it is impossible to pin down or easy to mistake.
Cultural judgements involve measuring others by our own values – but then whose values should we judge the world by, if not our own? This is not an effort we should be shy about, or try to cancel. It is better, far better, to test the mettle of our thoughts in the marketplace of ideas.
‘You say there can be no argument about matters of taste?’ asked Friedrich Nietzsche. ‘All life is an argument about matters of taste,’ he wrote. Everything is relative, but today relatively few babies die and relatively few children are orphaned. There can be no better reminders that the different qualities of culture matter very much indeed. Badenoch was right to say not all cultures are equally valid. It’s a shame her critics will never admit that.
25 years on, no one compares to the Two Fat Ladies
They were loud, vivacious and gloriously un-PC. Sometimes they seemed to be learning how to cook as they went, barely one step ahead of the viewer. It didn’t matter. If anything, it only made the BBC’s Two Fat Ladies more watchable. And 25 years on – the last of the two dozen episodes pairing Jennifer Paterson and Clarissa Dickson Wright aired on 28 September 1999 – I miss terribly their jaunty style of cooking, glass in hand.
I don’t think I’m alone. Spectacularly and unexpectedly successful in their lifetimes – 70 million worldwide watched their programme over its four-year run, including many in the US – the internet has allowed them to find fresh admirers since their death. One of the best things about YouTube is preserving such classic content long after it’s vanished from mainstream channels. (Though newer generations have sought to justify their fondness for these bastions of the old school by revelling in their now-fashionable #cottagecore aesthetic or even identifying them as early symbols of ‘body positivity’. They just can’t help themselves.)
I’m fond of Delia Smith but they understood in a way she didn’t that it doesn’t matter a jot whether you use two garlic cloves or three
The duo had the laissez-faire and bonhomie of Keith Floyd. I’m fond of Delia Smith but they understood in a way she didn’t that it doesn’t matter a jot whether you use two garlic cloves or three. As in all good cookery shows they spent as much time outside the kitchen as in it. And they seemed to actually care about the institutions they visited. When the Fat Ladies went off to cook for lawyers or lock keepers, cricketers or choirboys, they appeared invested, and in showing support for these little platoons they contributed small stitches to the fabric of national life. Revving around the British countryside on Jennifer’s Triumph Thunderbird, Clarissa wedged into the sidecar, they flirted with fishermen, bantered with farmers and squabbled amicably with each other.
There was no shortage of differences between them: Jennifer, the devout Catholic, never married or had children and had little romantic life to speak of, while Clarissa delighted in telling people she had once had sex behind the Speaker’s chair in the Commons. But they both shared a love of food and an adventurous spirit. They were also both fat, and under no illusions about it – a no-nonsense honesty that made them likeable. They had little time for any form of diet food. For Jennifer’s last meal she asked for caviar, which loyal Clarissa brought to her. Jennifer died before she could eat it, so Clarissa indulged instead.
They were unapologetically rude about vegetarians, let alone vegans. That is a dangerous thing in today’s world (just ask William Sitwell). The Fat Ladies didn’t care. They didn’t do political correctness. Jennifer had no compunction about wondering aloud: ‘Why are [vegetarians] always so cross? … It’s because they eat the wrong things. They look terrible; they’re usually of a yellow colour.’ Not to be outdone, Clarissa noted she would ‘fight to the death for their right to be vegetarian, but they won’t return the compliment. I hate fascism in any guise’.
They had been discovered by the legendary producer Pat Llewellyn (who went on to discover Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay) precisely because they were larger than life characters, in all senses. Once stopped by a policeman for parking her motorbike on a double yellow, Jennifer declared: ‘I am a spinster of Westminster and you are a mere boy, so off you go on your beat. I am going to Waitrose.’ They had, in other words, what today we like to call ‘authenticity’.
They were part of the establishment. Clarissa’s father was a surgeon to the royal household. Jennifer was even posher. And importantly, both had a hinterland beyond cooking. Clarissa was not only a barrister – at the time the youngest woman ever called to the bar – but a businesswoman, expert butcher and accredited cricket umpire. As for Jennifer, she took up employment at both The Spectator and the Oldie. At The Spectator, she not only wrote a cookery column but served slap-up lunches for the great and good coming through the office. I have been lucky enough to try the editor’s excellent homemade haggis but I imagine Fraser Nelson would have enjoyed as much as anyone Jennifer taking care of office lunch. Perhaps less appreciated might have been her tendency to interrupt then editor Peregrine Worsthorne’s debates to give her two cents: ‘Nonsense Peregrine, you are talking absolute nonsense.’ Her contemporaries remember her ruffling everyone’s hair and calling them ‘coochy coochy’. Jennifer’s Feast Days: Recipes from the Spectator is a delight worthy of being rediscovered.
The personal chemistry between the two was even more important than any alchemy at the stovetop. Since Clarissa’s death a decade ago there have been reports that they were less close than they appeared on the screen. By 1999 when Jennifer died she reportedly could not stand her co-star, bitter over an unpaid debt (Clarissa had lifelong money problems). For her part Clarissa, a former alcoholic like her father, who gave herself quinine poisoning from the vast amounts of tonic consumed with her habit of two bottles of gin a day, resented Jennifer’s late-night boozing with the crew from which she was necessarily excluded. Both were proud, often combative characters and neither gladly suffered fools. Clarissa was nicknamed Krakatoa for her volcanic temper. Jennifer knew how to hold a grudge. So the reported feuds are perhaps little surprise. But I choose not to dwell on them – their on-screen bonhomie was real enough for me.
And in truth I watch them as much for the glimpses of a past, foreign country as for their cooking or camaraderie. They did things differently there. Revisiting those episodes I feel not only a sense of joy, even tranquillity, but also an unmistakable sense of loss for the country left behind. I have felt similar watching Rick Stein’s old programmes, which show him driving around the country in search of his food heroes. But generally I can’t say I am moved in the same way by the crash-bang-wallop of most contemporary cookery shows – frenetic 30-second reels stitched together for 30 mins of programming. 25 years on, the Two Fat Ladies leaves a gaping hole – a mighty fat one, you could say.
If Spain doesn’t impress you, what will?
As a Brit who has lived in Spain for almost a decade, I must take issue with Zoe Strimpel’s recent article arguing that it’s the ‘worst country […] in western Europe’, at least as a holiday destination. My four years in Granada and almost five in Malaga have shown me that it’s the best place in western Europe to live – but not because of anything to do with ‘progressive’ politics or a Gen-Z dating trend.
I find it hard to imagine what city would appear beautiful and romantic to someone who’s unmoved by Granada, Cordoba, or Seville
The ‘buzzing terraces’ that Strimpel praises for distracting customers from horrible tapas aren’t just for tourists – they’re an integral part of the Spanish lifestyle. Life in Spain is lived outdoors, not shuttered away in heated rooms, hiding from the cold and rain. This means that people aren’t isolated in the way they tend to be in countries with harsher weather. Spanish streets and squares are noisy, friendly places, where you hardly ever see violence or drunkenness. And because the cost of living is generally low, especially in the south, you can live well without the pressure of having to pull in a huge salary.
It is often said – usually by northern Europeans, Brits, and Americans – that Spaniards are lazy. And they seem to have a point. Employees in shops, banks, and even hospitals leave their stations for breakfast around 10 a.m.; high street shops close on Saturday afternoons, Sundays, and for three hours in the middle of every weekday; banks, administrative buildings, and post offices are never open past 2 p.m., and local bus services often don’t operate at weekends. Most towns and villages are deserted between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m., during which period everyone knows to respect the siesta hour.
Such things can be frustrating, especially for expats accustomed to cities where anything is available at any time. But these customs aren’t due to laziness. They show, rather, that Spaniards don’t prioritise work above everything else. Equal importance is accorded to socialising with friends and family, especially during the week-long festivals in summer. Spaniards are experts in extracting pleasure and connection from the most humdrum aspects of daily life, which is one of the main reasons living in Spain is so enjoyable.
I do agree with Strimpel on two points, though, the first of which regards politics. Spain is, as she says, ‘nasty’ in this respect. As in many other European countries, a so-called liberal left postures as a moral guardian and defender of democracy against the march of the ‘far right’ (that is, absolutely anything right of centre). But if we’re talking about politicians who thrive on polarisation, swapping reasoned debate for pointless hostility, Spain is no worse, or at least not much worse, than anywhere else, including the UK and US.
The lamentable state of Spanish politics won’t make any difference to a holiday in Spain, though. If you’re inwardly fuming at Vox or Pedro Sanchez as you trek through the mountains of Granada’s Sierra Nevada, swim off the wild beaches of Cadiz, or wander amongst the arches of Cordoba’s Mezquita, it’s not because political nastiness has contaminated every aspect of society. It’s because you need a serious break from reading the news.
I also agree to some extent with Strimpel about Spanish food. Yes, it can be oily and carb-heavy. Bread and potatoes accompany most main courses, and vegetables, especially of the green variety, rarely appear on menus. Many dishes are deep-fried and very dry, as sauces aren’t really a Spanish speciality. To a large extent, though, food is a matter of personal taste. And in cities such as Madrid, Malaga, and San Sebastian, the culinary scene is world-class. San Sebastian, in fact, is ranked third in the world for Michelin stars per capita, behind Luxembourg and Kyoto.
Speaking of cities, Strimpel says she finds Spain’s offering ‘dire’. Even allowing for the subjectivities of taste (and the presence of foul-smelling drains outside hotel rooms), I find it hard to imagine what kind of city would appear beautiful and romantic to someone who’s unmoved by Granada, Cordoba, or Seville. What criteria of aesthetic appeal is at work here? Surely a highly specific one that would also exclude most other major European cities.
Finally, I sympathise with Strimpel’s dislike of bullfighting. But of course, if you’re opposed to it, you don’t have to go. One reason I moved to southern Spain was to be able to attend bullfights frequently – although, like everyone else who regards themselves as an aficionado, I go to witness art, not ‘bay’ for blood. Whether I am thrilled or disgusted by what occurs in the ring, though, it always makes me feel; and sometimes on those strange, intense afternoons, I love Spain more than ever.
It’s time to banish binge-watching
It’s Wednesday, which means my evening is booked up for Slow Horses. The usual protracted regime of children’s tea-bath-bed will be compressed into about 10 minutes (packet of crisps, cursory going-over with a wet wipe, withholding of bedtime story on thoroughly spurious grounds) before my husband and I leap onto the sofa like The Simpsons in the opening credits with a bottle of Malbec and a Charlie Bigham’s curry to watch the new episode on Apple TV+. (Gen Z readers: at the risk of lowering the birth rate even further, this is what fun looks like in your forties after three kids.)
Weekly episodes now seem quaint, as archaic as a landline or a daily newspaper landing on the doormat
Being late to the party, I binge-watched the first three series of Slow Horses, the darkly hilarious – and multi-Emmy Award-nominated – spy thriller. So when the fourth series, ‘Spook Street’, premiered on 4 September and the first episode didn’t immediately roll onto the next, I was outraged. I felt cheated. I may even have kicked the ottoman footstool. Surely it’s our God-given right to gorge ourselves on six episodes in one session? What’s the point of a streaming service if not to supply us with the instant gratification that we’ve come to expect?
We’ve become so accustomed to the Netflix model of dropping an entire season in one go (Squid Game, Stranger Things) or in sizeable chunks (The Crown) to generate a buzz and excitement about the show, that weekly episodes now seem quaint, as archaic as a landline or a daily newspaper landing on the doormat. Since Netflix released its first big production, House of Cards, in one go in 2013, it has become the industry norm. (By contrast, the original BBC series had viewers gripped by the machinations of Francis Urquhart, played by Ian Richardson, over four weeks in 1990.)
And yet, over the past month, Jackson Lamb (Gary Oldman) and his band of MI5 rejects have helped me rediscover the rhythms and pleasures of a weekly television event, a must-see, that builds suspense and tension. I’ve been freelance for a decade so have no idea if water coolers, or indeed their ‘moments’, went with Covid. My equivalent is the constant badgering of my husband (who’s read the Mick Herron books on which the series is based) with endless questions, or messaging similarly fixated girlfriends back and forth on WhatsApp. These conversations broadly fall into two camps: Diana Taverner’s (Kristin Scott Thomas) wardrobe – ‘Where do you think that coat’s from?’ ‘Dunno. Max Mara maybe? Joseph?’ – and whether Jackson Lamb, despite the dubious personal hygiene and flatulence, is actually quite hot.
Do you remember when over 20 million people tuned in to find out who shot JR in Dallas in 1980? No, me neither – but I do recall vividly the wonder and excitement with which I sat down for each of the six episodes of The Box of Delights on Children’s BBC a few years later, ending (I think) on Christmas Eve 1984. I now watch the DVD with my children during Advent, insisting on one episode at a time. They looked at me with slack-jawed horror when I first announced this. Now, it’s a part of Christmas they look forward to, savouring and digesting each episode like a foil-wrapped Lindor chocolate.
From obsessing over who killed Laura Palmer (Twin Peaks) to whether Ross and Rachel (Friends) or Carrie and Mr Big would ever get together (Sex and the City), the weekly series was a mainstay of some of my most formative years. But streaming schedulers aren’t motivated by nostalgia so much as a desire to keep people watching for a longer period of time – Game of Thrones and, to a lesser degree, Succession, kept subscribers at HBO for many years.
Binge-watchers are more likely to experience euphoric highs, but there’s the inevitable comedown after hours spent wasting away in front of the screen. After Baby Reindeer, I felt as disturbed and dirty as I did after reading Chips Channon’s unexpurgated diaries – and in need of a good scrub in the shower. Bingeing on Bridgerton felt like scoffing a surfeit of pastel-coloured, cloyingly sweet macarons – requiring the associated purge. You’re left lying on the sofa feeling morbidly sluggish and lugubrious, but in no way satiated. I’d grown weary of full releases some time ago, but Slow Horses brought it home to me. I’ve since come to cherish my Wednesday evenings, the WhatsApps and the weeks of tension. See you by the water cooler…
Michel Barnier’s government in name only
A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Of course, France now owes even more than that. To be precise, a colossal €3,228,000,000,000. Up by one trillion euros since the election in 2017 of President Emmanuel Macron, the ‘Mozart of finance’.
A ‘sword of Damocles’, admitted the new French prime minister Michel Barnier on Tuesday in his speech to the National Assembly setting out the programme of his minority government. A government in name only, it can be said, since it depends on its survival on the consent of Marine Le Pen.
As the left opposition hissed and Le Pen beamed like one of her Bengal cats, a breed noted for its aggression, Barnier delivered his message in calm and measured tones, fooling nobody. If anyone has any money, it’s time to start looking at the Swiss property websites.
This year, the public deficit will exceed 6 per cent of GDP, Barnier admitted, promising to reduce it to 5 per cent in 2025 and 3 per cent in 2029.
The ‘first remedy’ is a massive reduction in spending, which will account for two-thirds of the effort expected in 2025. For this, it will be necessary to ‘renounce magic money’ and ‘make choices’. Well, that would be unprecedented in a nation accustomed to binging and never worrying about the bill.
Next, Barnier intends to improve the efficiency of public spending, by putting an end to ‘duplications, inefficiencies’, as well as fraud, abuses or unjustified pensions. President Macron promised that seven years ago, including a cut in the bloated bureaucracy. The functionariat has subsequently grown.
Finally, the state will ask for an additional tax effort, ‘targeted, limited in time and shared’, from certain actors. Large and very large companies ‘which make significant profits’ will thus be involved, ‘without calling into question the competitiveness’ of France. The bankers in Geneva will be drooling.
Barnier seems like a decent enough chap and the French wish him well, but bromides don’t pay bills.
On law and order, Barnier said what voters wanted to hear, and what Le Pen has demanded. More prisons. Stricter immigration. Expulsions of convicted criminals. We’ve heard all this repeatedly.
Barnier acknowledged that the government is, like many modest French people, ‘walking a fine line’. He urged deputies to ‘allow the country to find the path of compromise, brotherhood and hope.’ Good luck with that. None of these qualities has ever been evident in French history.
Watch: Tugendhat jibes at Jenrick over special forces
Uh oh. There’s trouble in Tory paradise after leadership candidate Robert Jenrick made some rather questionable remarks about the armed forces. At the Conservative party conference in Birmingham, the wannabe leader claimed that: ‘Special forces are killing rather than capturing terrorists’ because of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Tory frontrunner added that ‘those who do not understand military operations or the law of armed conflict should not be commenting on it’. Good heavens…
And, as might be expected, Jenrick’s rival Tom Tugendhat — a former army officer — has taken umbrage at his competitors comments. Speaking to the BBC, Tugendhat fumed: ‘I’ve spoken to former directors of special forces today and quite a lot of people are rather angry that this suggests they are not living up to the values and standards of the British armed forces.’ One Tory insider remarked to Mr S that: ‘Someone who wants to become leader of the Conservative party should probably be trying to keep the armed forces on side’ — while another Tugendhat backer commented: ‘Tom is seething.’ There have been rather little blue-on-blue attacks this conference season — but with a month to go until the race wraps up, there’s still plenty of time for yellow cards…
Watch the clip here:
Dorries: Kemi should be ‘disqualified’ from leadership race
This year’s Tory conference has seen a number of old faces as well as new – and the appearance of Boris Johnson’s former culture secretary at a More in Common event this evening has caused quite the stir. Nadine Dorries told delegates that her brief speech at a venue outside of the conference centre would be her only appearance at the 2024 Tory bash, labelling herself as an ‘old bird in politics’ and adding in classic Dorries style that she initially wanted to ‘turn down’ the invite. Charming…
On the leadership candidates, Dorries was pulling no punches either – especially with one contender in particular. When pressed on who she was backing to be next Tory leader, Dorries refused to settle on any one wannabe, but added pointedly:’I just know who they shouldn’t vote for at the moment.’ On a Kemi Badenoch win, the former culture secretary noted scathingly:
We all know how the [media] feel about Kemi Badenoch, don’t we? I’d be deeply concerned. I think you need to have to be non-confrontational. I think you need to have demonstrated that you were loyal when you served in government. I think if you are someone who plotted to remove a sitting prime minister, you should automatically be disqualified.
Shots fired…
And the Boris ally wasn’t finished there, shining light on Badenoch’s rivals to hammer home her point:
We have three candidates who are standing. I’m not looking at what they’re saying now – I’m looking at how they behaved in the past. They are Robert Jenrick, James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat and all three of them put the party first before their own ambition and their self-interest. They weren’t plotters, they weren’t trying to remove a prime minister that the public had elected.
Crikey. Going on, the Boris ally continued to refer only to ‘three candidates’, insisting:
All three of them are men of integrity. They understand they’re grown ups, that they understand that if you remove sitting prime ministers who were elected with a vote share bigger than that of Tony Blair…there lies madness and lies, and defeat for the party.
I think it is impossible to serve in a government and other as a minister or as a Secretary of State, whilst at the same time you are plotting to remove the Prime Minister and planning your own ambitious career. It is impossible to do your job well if you do that, and it demonstrates to me that you have neither the integrity nor the ability to lead the party in the future. And so, you know, there are three candidates. I will be ecstatically happy if any one of those candidates become the leader of the Conservative aprty in the future, because they are not confrontational.
Although not best known for her love of unification – indeed tonight she attributed a remark to Miriam Cates, also in the crowd, that ‘one of the problems in our party is that there’s too much unity’ – this evening, Dorries made a plea to her party and, rather interestingly, Nigel Farage’s Reform. ‘We’ve got a lot of soul searching to do,’ she started, going on:
There has to be some kind of amelioration between Reform and the Conservative party. Now, I am in no way saying that Nigel Farage needs to come into the Conservative party, and I am in no way saying that we need to join together as joint… Nothing in that vein whatsoever, but we need to have a harmonious relationship with Reform because we are fighting the same enemy.
It certainly strikes a different tone from the four Tory leadership rivals – and it’s a sentiment Cates herself told those gathered that ‘I completely agree with’. Tom Tugendhat has said he doesn’t want to ‘become Reform’, Robert Jenrick has labelled the party as a ‘symptom, not a cause’, James Cleverly has branded Farage’s group as ‘Tory imitators’ and Kemi Badenoch remains in an ongoing battle with the ex-Ukip leader on social media.
And of course Mr S couldn’t quite miss the irony of Dorries’ divisive discussion at an, er, More in Common do. Some things never change…
Tugendhat: My Roger Scruton row comments were ‘twisted’
It’s the final night of Tory party conference and tempers are fraying. Three of the four leadership candidates have ended up weighing in on the 2019 sacking of the late Roger Scruton from his role as an unpaid adviser to the Department for Housing, after an interview he gave to the New Statesman (which was covered by The Spectator’s Douglas Murray at the time).
Kemi Badenoch said at a Spectator panel earlier today that ‘if you’re not prepared to fight for conservatives, to fight for your people, you have no business being involved in politics’. She explicitly mentioned the Roger Scruton case. Some might interpret that as a dig at Tugendhat, who spoke to BuzzFeed News in 2019 about the Scruton sacking, saying that ‘antisemitism sits alongside racism, anti-Islam, homophobia, and sexism as a cretinous and divisive belief that has no place in our public life and particularly not in government.
Mr S asked Tom Tugendhat what he thought of Badenoch’s comments, as the candidate was leaving a reception for LGBT+ Tories. He said:
I apologised to Roger at the time. I wrote to him and he very graciously accepted my apology. What I said was that I condemned racism. It was used and twisted to say it was a criticism of Roger. It wasn’t a criticism of Roger, but I made a mistake of allowing it to be understood that way, and that was a mistake.
Robert Jenrick, the frontrunner, has also said tonight that Scruton was ‘carelessly sacked’. The Scruton row has become a test of the candidates’ virility. But it’s only Tugendhat that it looks to be causing problems for.
Kemi Badenoch comes out fighting
It has been a busy Conservative conference for Kemi Badenoch, whose comments on Sunday about maternity pay have dominated the last few days. Each of the other candidates in the Tory leadership race is wary of saying anything that might remotely damage their chances next week. But Badenoch remains undaunted by criticism, as she showed in a trenchant performance at an ‘In Conversation’ event with The Spectator this evening in Birmingham.
Speaking to Fraser Nelson, Badenoch told the audience that:
‘Sometimes you have to walk through the fire… a lot of MPs are just afraid of not being liked, being scared of the mob. If we as Conservatives buckle every time we get criticism, we are not going to get anything done.’
It was a response which found favour with the packed-out crowd.
Badenoch’s supporters argue that she is the candidate who has done the most serious thinking about the future of the party. Her hour-long appearance was certainly staunchly ideological. She attacked those fellow Conservatives who rushed to condemn Roger Scruton in the New Statesman row; Tom Tugendhat was notably one of those who called for the late philosopher’s resignation.
‘Sometimes you have to walk through the fire,’ Badenoch said
‘If you’re not prepared to fight for conservatives, to fight for your people’, she said ‘you have no business being involved in politics.’ Her most strident criticism, though, was reserved for the civil service. Between ‘five to ten per cent’ of officials, she joked, ‘are very, very bad. You know, should be in prison bad’, suggesting that this minority is responsible for leaking official secrets, undermining ministers and agitating against MPs. Badenoch’s comments – which were clearly intended humorously – are already being interpreted as a call to sack 50,000 civil servants, ten per cent of the current work force.
Similarly withering criticism was directed at Conservative Campaign Headquarters. Badenoch regaled attendees with the story of how she was almost the victim of a ‘stitch up’ in Saffron Walden in 2017. The party hierarchy, she argued, has failed in its quality control of candidates:
‘As we have seen from all of the MP scandals, there are clearly some people who get to be candidates who have no business being there.’
Badenoch admitted too to being ‘extremely frustrated’ by Rishi Sunak’s election campaign:
‘This election, someone decided that national service was going to be the policy. I heard about it the same time everyone else did.’
Such remarks went down well in the room, but may hold less appeal for nervy Tory MPs, bruised by the Whitehall battles of the past five years. Badenoch’s argument is that she is not in this for herself; hence the focus on ‘renewal’ by 2030. Her supporters claim she is the only one with the mettle to make tough choices. Yet for some, the constant battles are a turn-off. One thing is for sure: she will carry on in this contest in the only way she knows how. As she said this evening: ‘I don’t have fights I can’t win. I win my fights and that’s what makes the difference.’ Next week will prove the acid test.
Will Israel fire back on Iran?
Israel has come under widespread missile attack from Iran. Some 200 ground-to-ground missiles were launched from Iran, according to Israeli media. Israelis have been ordered to stay in bomb shelters while the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) intercept missiles overhead. The sound of interceptions over Tel Aviv, Israel’s largest city, are constant and deafening.
So far, there don’t appear to be any casualties or direct hits. Among Iran’s targets were military bases, including airforce and intelligence facilities. It’s not known whether the attack has now finished, or if another wave of missiles is making its way to Israel. Elsewhere, a terror attack this evening in Jaffa has resulted in the death of eight Israelis. There are reports of another possible incident in Herzeliya, close to Tel Aviv, although the details are sketchy. It is not known if these various incidents are linked.
The Middle East is now on the verge on a wider war
The missile attack did not come as a surprise. Reports emerged this afternoon that Iran was planning to attack Israel, putting the country on high alert. Iran has been threatening to target Israel since July, when Hamas’s leader Ismail Henya was assassinated in Tehran. The assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah last week strengthened their resolve. The United States attempted to deter Iran from attacking Israel, but its pleas fell on deaf ears. Iran chose the day that Israel started a large-scale ground operation in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah to strike.
The Middle East is now on the verge on a wider war. Israel will need to decide carefully how it responds. Any decision to retaliate may depend on whether or not there are Israeli casualties.
When Iran launched missiles at Israel in April, the Israeli response then was limited. But this latest attack is viewed much more seriously by Israel. After all, this time the missiles were not fired through Iran’s proxies. Iran’s decision to strike directly could lead Israel to harden its strategy against Tehran. Israel might choose a tougher response this time.
So, what will Israel do next? The IDF could target Iranian nuclear facilities and other strategic assets. Such a heavy response on Iran could lead to an all-out war.
Before this attack, Israel made it clear to the Americans that it will respond with full force if targeted. Israel will not what to be seen as failing to follow through on that vow. It is determined to re-establish its deterrence against enemies that keep ignoring Israel’s red lines.
Israel is now fighting a war on several fronts; in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, the West Bank and against internal terrorism. Israel is surrounded by an Iranian ring of fire that seeks to annihilate it. Full-scale war with Iran looks like an increasingly probable, and worrying, scenario.
Iran launches a missile attack on Israel
Iranian missiles are slicing through the evening sky over Tel Aviv as Tehran responds to the killing of Hezbollah leader and terrorist mastermind Hassan Nasrallah. Some reports on Israeli television put the number of missiles at 100, while the head of emergency medical organisation Magen David Adom has told Channel 12 that the number is in the hundreds.
Videos uploaded to social media show some ballistics being intercepted. The attack has coincided with a shooting incident in nearby Jaffa, where two terrorists are reported to have murdered eight and injured a further seven. It is not clear whether the two incidents are linked.
Iran will want to avoid a hot war with Israel
The next few hours will give us a better picture of the true scale of this operation. As it stands, a few hundred missiles is a payload that looks impressive on TV but isn’t about to bring Israel to its knees. If this is the extent of the Iranian response to Israel’s devastation of Hezbollah, it will indicate that Tehran has decided on a mostly symbolic return of fire for now. Something to appease its hardliners and flex its military muscle, but not so much that it risks drawing Israel into a direct confrontation. However, we will have to wait to see if this wave of missiles is followed by others, which would point to a more aggressive pushback.
Even then, however, Iran will want to avoid a hot war with Israel, especially one month before a US presidential election. Tehran still hopes to revive the nuclear deal cancelled by Donald Trump and the Harris campaign would not appreciate war and national security becoming central issues ahead of election day.
There will be an additional concern that open conflict between Iran and Israel, or further escalation between the Jewish state and Tehran’s proxies, could see the return of campus unrest and large-scale anti-Israel demonstrations in major cities. If there is a backdrop Kamala Harris does not want as election day draws near, it is scenes of student radicals and other activists tearing down American flags and replacing them with Palestinian, Iranian or Lebanese ones.
The repercussions of what we are seeing over Tel Aviv this evening could stretch far from that city’s shore.
Few rulers can have rejoiced in a less appropriate sobriquet than Augustus the Strong
Augustus the Strong (1670-1733), Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, is often labelled one of the worst monarchs in European history. His reign is billed by Tim Blanning’s publishers as ‘a study in failed statecraft, showing how a ruler can shape history as much by incompetence as brilliance’. Yet this thorough and often hilarious study of Augustus’s life and times reveals these harsh headline words to be exaggerated. Indeed the man comes across as quite a good egg, as much sinned against as sinning. With disarming immodesty, Augustus described himself as:
A lively fellow, carefree, showing from a young age that he was blessed with a strong body, a robust constitution, an amiable, generous disposition, equipped with everything that makes up an honourable man, more devoted to physical exercise than book learning and a born soldier.
Compared with his psychotic contemporaries, the violent incel Charles XII of Sweden and the enthusiastic amateur dentist Peter the Great of Russia, I’d take Augustus’s bumbling ineptitude over alleged greatness any day.
In the maelstrom of 17th-century Europe, Augustus bobbed around helplessly like a plastic duck
Augustus was, by turns, a mid-ranking military incompetent, an averagely vain spendthrift and a moderate libertine. The great political project of his life – the reckless purchase of the crown of Poland – did indeed prove, in his own words, ‘a crown of thorns’. By the time of his death he left the Polish polity so damaged that it would disappear as an independent state until the 20th century. On the other hand, his public relations were effective – at least to the extent that his sobriquet, ‘the Strong’, based on a fiction of physical strength and sexual athleticism, stuck. And his insatiable desire to show off, combined with driving energy, exquisite taste and considerable resources, led to the creation of the baroque jewel of Dresden, his Saxon capital.
The nutshell version of his life was the unexpected smallpox-related inheritance of Saxony from an elder brother; rounds of Grand Touring that included trips to Versailles, Madrid, Venice and London; some inept experiments in military leadership on campaign against the Turks; the mad, impulsive bid for the vacant crown of Poland; and several bouts of beat-downs by the great bullies of the age, Peter the Great and Charles XII. ‘In this turbulent maelstrom embracing almost all of Europe, Augustus bobbed about helplessly like a plastic duck,’ writes Blanning. He was ‘often submerged, but never quite sunk’.
Of these adventures and misadventures it was Augustus’s early exposure to Louis XIV’s Versailles that left the greatest mark on history. In Blanning’s thought-provoking formulation, the glittering French court was ‘representational’, because its ‘raison d’être was the re-presentation (in the sense of “making present”) of the power, glory, wealth and legitimacy of the patron’. And it was this coupling of personal display and political power that served as the wellspring of Augustus’s makeover of Dresden as the ultimate Residenzstadt, or courtly city.
Like his father, Augustus was a pious libertine – ‘a combination which is an oxymoron, not a contradiction in terms’, the author wittily observes. His mistresses numbered not 354, as his propagandists suggested, but a mere eight (insists the killjoy Blanning). In an age which ‘did not just allow or encourage but positively privileged exhibitionism, narcissism, self-indulgence and sensualism’, Augustus was no shirk. At an ‘après manoeuvre’ party for the Order of the White Eagle, which he founded in 1705, a specially built theatre featured ‘three castrati and two female sopranos hired from Venice, Italian comedies and ballets’. There were also firework displays, hunting and ‘sumptuous banquets’. A cake was baked using a ton of flour, 305 litres of milk and 3,600 eggs. The resulting prodigy of patisserie was 18 metres long and required eight horses for its transportation. ‘As usual with Augustus, there were no half-measures.’
Fatefully, Augustus brought equal energy and panache to bear on the worst decision of his life – the impulsive and inexplicable bid to become King of Poland in 1696. Hereditary monarchy in that era proved a terrible way to organise human affairs. But the Polish expedient of an elective monarchy seemed to have been even worse.
The Polish electors included every hereditary noble in the country – approximately 7 per cent of the population. In the previous century, the title of King of Poland had essentially been sold off to whoever was able to bribe this aristocracy most generously. Louis XIV briefly considered offering as a candidate the recently deposed James II of England, who had been moping about, irritatingly, at Versailles. Instead, he settled on his kinsman Prince François Louis de Conti, providing a million livres to grease the necessary palms.
Undaunted, Augustus pawned not only great swathes of Saxon lands to various neighbours but also the crown jewels to his usefully well-connected court Jew (Hoffjude, a real title) Berend Lehmann. He also got the Jesuits onside by converting from Lutheranism to Catholicism. (When later admonished by his confessor for spiritual laxity, Augustus put the Jesuit’s proffered rosary on his pet dog’s neck.)
Tens of thousands of Polish nobles who gathered for the election in a field outside Krakow received IOUs from the French representatives and duly voted for Conti. Overnight, however, Lehmann toured the site with a cartload containing 40,000 gold thalers. Preferring specie to scrip, the next day’s vote turned decisively in Augustus’s favour. Though both candidates’ representatives celebrated masses, Augustus was quicker off the mark in terms of actually showing up in his new kingdom, which he had never visited before.
Poland was then the largest country in Europe (not counting Muscovy, as contemporaries did not), and its Ukrainian provinces were a vast breadbasket. But it was also the most sparsely populated, and its tax revenues were a tiny fraction of France’s. In truth, being King of Poland was among the worst monarchical jobs going. The nobles believed themselves to be descended from Noah’s most virtuous son, Japheth. The mass of the population, on the other hand, were held to be descendants of Ham, the degenerate son who saw his father’s nakedness and was cursed: ‘A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.’
Biblical theories of social class were by no means the strangest feature of Polish political practice. Voting in the biannual parliament, or Sejm, had to be unanimous. A single vote could end the proceedings immediately and annul any laws or taxation hitherto approved. The fundamental governing principle after 1505 was nihil novi (nothing new). The Duchess of Orléans, better known as Liselotte of the Palatinate, observed:
Augustus would have been a thousand times happier if he had gone on enjoying a quiet and peaceful life as Elector of Saxony instead of becoming king of such a factious and volatile nation of which he will never be the absolute lord and master but will only ever be king in name.
So why did he do it? The sources can merely provide superficial answers. Blanning writes: ‘All his life, Augustus was a keen but inept risk-taker, a gambler who always called va banque! and always raised when he should have folded.’ But his decision to seek the throne of Poland was ‘a terrible mistake… one wager that brought him nothing but stress, privation, disappointment and misery’.
Polish armies had occupied Stockholm in 1598 and Moscow in 1610; in 1683 the Polish king Jan Sobieski had led the relief of the Ottoman Siege of Vienna. But by the outbreak of the Great Northern War in February 1700, armaments were in steep decline and Augustus’s troops were no match for the rising superpowers of Prussia, Russia and Sweden.
This generally splendid book does go wrong in places. Augustus never quite emerges as a three-dimensional character and remains a preening product of the court culture of his times. The narrative also goes a little deeper into 17th-century Polish economic history than the general reader might like, and the chart on the ‘Growth of Latin-rite monasteries 1600-1772/3’ is maybe point of information too far. In all, though, it is an engaging portrait of a man whose achievement in making Dresden one of the great civilised centres of the age qualifies him for a kind of greatness. And he could have been greater still ‘if the millions of thalers squandered in the fruitless pursuit of dynastic and territorial gain had been freed for investment in Saxony’, notes Blanning.
The thought leads to an interesting historical counter-factual. In the end it was the militaristic Prussia created by Frederick the Great that shaped Germany’s future in the following century and beyond. But if Augustus had avoided his foolish Polish adventure, might intellectual, baroque, humanistic Saxony have come to dominate the destiny of the German lands instead? We shall never know.
The heart-rending story of a child’s heart transplant
Max Johnson’s life while he waited for a heart transplant had become so miserable and traumatic that he didn’t care whether he carried on or not. Indeed, the colourless, almost lifeless nine-year-old recorded a video saying he wanted to die. His parents felt as though they were on ‘death row’ as they waited for a donor. They knew, too, that the call announcing there was a heart for their son would mean that somewhere else in Britain a family was mourning. They would benefit from the sudden death of someone they were initially only told was an ‘age-appropriate donor’. Max’s mother read between the lines: her son was getting the heart of another nine-year-old.
The call announcing there was a heart for Max would mean that somewhere else in Britain a family was mourning
That heart had belonged to Keira Ball, who enters Rachel Clarke’s extraordinary book full of life and with all the time in the world ahead of her – until she and her mother and siblings were involved in a car crash that left her brain dead. This book is the story not just of how Keira’s heart ended up being carefully sewn into Max’s body so that his cheeks turned pink for the first time in more than a year. It is also the story of how the Johnsons’ case helped change the law on organ donation to presumed consent, rather than relatives opting in when their loved one was dying. It is so many other stories, too: of the medical breakthroughs in mechanical ventilation, surgery and immunology that meant the transplant could happen; also the doctors involved in both Max and Keira’s treatment – from the junior medic who was first on the scene of the crash and whose own life fell apart afterwards, to the transplant nurse who still visits Max’s family today.
In fact, every moment in the book has its own history. Max being greeted by Father Christmas when in hospital allows Clarke to tell us that for many decades toys were absent from children’s wards and parents were banned from visiting:
Although such restrictions were framed as being better for children and better for parents, in truth they were also more convenient and less disruptive to the traditional working patterns of medical and nursing staff.
It was only as a result of campaigning parents in the 1960s that the wards started to open up again.
Then there is the history of how Christiaan Barnard performed the first human heart transplant in South Africa in 1968, and the many failed imitations in the ensuing years before surgery and immunosuppressants advanced enough that a body wouldn’t reject another person’s heart. Barnard is a complicated figure. He had plenty of ego, but also devoted himself to the post-transplant care of each patient. Other surgeons viewed him with suspicion, criticising the way he ‘toured the world as a super-celebrity’, which led to a frenzy of attempted transplants globally, even though the surgeons performing them had ‘negligible experience of managing rejection and immunosuppression’.
Clarke is interested by the level of detachment a surgeon must have to be able to perform these kinds of operations, to the extent that she recalls a controversial paper published by the Royal College of Surgeons of England entitled ‘A stressful job: are surgeons psychopaths?’ The authors, both surgeons, found higher than average psychopathy scores among the 172 hospital consultants they assessed.
Clarke herself has long been expert at examining the abnormal way in which doctors must relate to life and the human body. In her first book she explained how everything stops being normal as soon as you see a cadaver in medical school, and must stay abnormal so that a doctor can, for instance, stick a large needle into a patient. But she is not at all detached in this book, writing with pathos about the story of Keira.
It is not an easy read – full of the raw emotion you would expect of an account of a girl dying and the parents of a boy worrying he soon would die, too. Clarke takes us through the accident and Keira’s death in unsparing but tender detail; and she makes us sit through Max’s decline from dilated cardiomyopathy. The thoughts and feelings of the families are here. It was the 11-year-old Katelyn Ball who first raised the possibility that her sister’s organs should be donated, at a point when the adults in the room still assumed she hadn’t even taken in that Keira was going to die.
The family were all clear that their kind little girl would have wanted this, and so the consultant in paediatric intensive care, Dr Sarah Goodwin, didn’t even need to broach the subject with them. Keira’s father, Joe, who is alone because his wife is still in intensive care, decides that when his daughter returns from the surgery to remove her organs, she should be wearing a beautiful party dress. He rushes off to buy a pink sparkly taffeta princess dress from a nearby department store. Before Keira is taken into theatre, Goodwin watches him with her. ‘He talked to Keira for a long time. Then he just kissed her on the forehead and said something like: “I know you are going to go and do something incredible now.”’
Clarke is a stylist as well as a doctor, so the book is a potent combination of the arresting and the informative. It isn’t unputdown-able for the simple reason that you have to lay it down often to compose yourself. A quote on the cover describes it as ‘life-affirming’, which is a mis-sell, because it lands it in the genre of schmaltzy, sickly sweet books full of ‘hope’. That’s not what Clarke is after. She chokes you with the horror of how cruel and random life is. A saccharine account would have ended with the heart beating in Max’s chest; but Clarke has an ‘aftermath’ chapter in which she points out, probably to many readers’ surprise, that the average life expectancy of someone after heart transplant is only 14 years. She says that ‘nothing was easy’ after Max came home. Yet he had colour in his face and was able to enjoy the vividness of life because of Keira.
How ballet lessons transformed Princess Diana
There is something undeniably sweet about this book. On one level, in line with the cover’s pretty pink text, it is a simple, unpretentious story about a girl who loved to dance. But on another level, the unfolding tragedy is Shakespearian – an effect amplified by the unfussy prose of Anne Allan, a long-time professional dancer and choreographer.
Years after everyone else cashed in their Diana chips, the Scottish-born author has finally decided to tell her story. The book opens in 1981. Allan is a dancer and ballet mistress with the London City Ballet, and the performance is Swan Lake; but the drama happens offstage when she receives a call from Anne Beckwith-Smith, lady-in-waiting to Diana, Princess of Wales. Prince Charles’s stratospherically famous new bride has requested ballet lessons.
Schedules permitting, Allan indulged the young princess’s love of dance in one-to-one sessions on a weekly basis. The lessons were secret, and their effect transformative. Diana’s ‘head continued to look at the floor. I gently noted that the head was the heaviest part of the body… I wanted her to feel the freedom that dance can give, and she did.’ The pupil ended the first lesson by giving her teacher a small posy. Many cherished handwritten notes would follow, and it was the beginning of an important relationship. The princess’s metamorphosis from Shy Di to Britain’s most glamorous asset began there, on the sprung floor of a Hammersmith dance studio in a simple leotard.
The classes spanned nearly a decade, ending only when Allan emigrated to Canada in 1989 after her marriage fell part. For eight precious years she was privy to Britain’s most famous ‘fairy story’. What is striking is the lack of control Diana had over her own life – trapped like a fly in a web, detectives bookending her lessons, her every move pinned down to tight, preordained schedules, and the presence of the palace never far away. When we first meet her, ‘blushing apologetically’, she is in love and desperately keen to please. Dancing with Diana is an uncomfortable reminder of how convenient a biddable, isolated princess was for the royal machine in those early days. Allan slowly boosts her confidence.
From the outset, there are tiny cracks. A much anticipated trip to Australia sees Diana assert herself for the first time: she will not travel without baby William. Allan watches the drama unfold on screen. Diana returns to her for more dancing and talk, admitting that the attention she got on tour seemed to ‘bother Charles’. How can she impress her elusive prince?
The first high point is Diana’s duet with Wayne Sleep at the Royal Opera House, a fitting prelude to her other great dance-off, with John Travolta. The build-up to her surprise performance at Covent Garden is riveting. Diana takes the lead: it is all her idea to celebrate the prince’s 37th birthday, including the music – Billy Joel’s ‘Uptown Girl’. She confesses that Charles prefers opera and ‘sometimes I find his friends all a bit stuffy’. Just wait until he sees his wife dance…
Her gumption, the adrenaline, the sheer joy of escaping the Royal Box and doing her own thing is palpable. ‘As she came off from the final bow, Diana said to both of us: “Beats the wedding!’’ ’ But not everyone agreed:
She made her way to Charles, and as she stood before him, I could sense she desperately wanted his approval. He said ‘Well done, darling’, and turned to talk to someone else.
Allan’s prose is careful, respectful even, but she can’t hide her loyalties.
Diana’s relationship with Allan and Sleep deepens. There is a private lunch and an official event at which Sleep is considered to have overstepped the mark. Was he talking too loudly? Hogging Diana? It is not clear: men in suits and ladies-in-waiting are discreet. They even try to stand Allan down. The princess is having none of it; by now the dance teacher has become her confidante. As much time is spent in tears on the floor over the parlous state of Diana’s marriage as it is in improving her dance moves. Allan listens and consoles, and Diana responds with notes and hugs: ‘Words are inadequate to what I feel, but you know how deeply I appreciate your advice.’
Today the King, happily married to Queen Camilla, is up against it with cancer. Most people have preferred to forgive and forget his early misdemeanours. After all, broken marriages are two a penny now. But close friendship doesn’t work like that. When Charles and Camilla visited Canada in 2014, Allan, by then artistic director at Toronto’s Confederation Centre of the Arts, found an excuse to avoid the royals’ receiving line – a gesture I feel sure Diana would have appreciated.
Life’s little graces: Small Rain, by Garth Greenwell, reviewed
Garth Greenwell has made a name for himself as a chronicler of touch. In his previous novels, What Belongs to You (2016) and Cleanness (2020), the intimacy of a lover’s hand or the frisson of something much darker – the spit, the slap of a BDSM session – could expand to fill whole paragraphs: stories in themselves of layered sensation and reminiscence. Early in the opening sequence of Small Rain, the unnamed narrator spends close to two pages musing on the ‘shock’ of when a nurse ‘softly stroked or rubbed my ankle’.
But now the touch is different. This is not a novel of sexual escapades, but pain – like ‘someone had plunged a hand into my gut and grabbed hold and yanked’. After suffering an aortic tear, the narrator finds himself in a disorienting world of beeping machines and doctors visiting at all hours. We then track his spell as a patient in ICU.
Set in 2020 during the pandemic, the novel is necessarily restricted. The action is confined to a hospital bed, with IV lines and drips preventing its narrator from moving freely. There are few characters: a friendly doctor, and another unable to conceal her excitement at being involved in such an ‘interesting’ case; a kind, caring nurse, and her slapdash counterpart. The narrator has a partner, identified only as L, who visits him in the afternoons. Their intimacy is somewhat inhibited by the masks they wear.
This is a novel of detail, describing scans and the difficulty of performing simple bodily tasks. But it expands far beyond its notional restrictions. Hospital days act as an anchor for the narrator’s reminiscences about his past life in Bulgaria, his love of poetry and his home life with L – the ‘little graces’ of flowers, teapots and domesticity. The narrative is saturated with references to literature. A poem by George Oppen about a sparrow is remembered when the narrator looks out of his window; sonnets by Shakespeare and aubades by John Donne rattle around the inside of the PET-scan machine. When pain makes speech impossible, the words of others need to be borrowed.
We end up back outside the hospital; but much has changed. This is a quiet but forceful novel about the beauty of ‘pure life’, and the wonder of paying attention to details.
Whispers of ‘usurper’ at the Lancastrian court
When Shakespeare wrote Richard II, he billed his play as a tragedy: the downfall of a king riddled with fear, contempt and an obscure sense of majesty. Shakespeare’s portrait was a reasonably accurate one. Some historians have suggested Richard was a narcissist; others that he had borderline personality disorder.
Helen Castor offers a candid and considered view. Though the king ‘always knew he was special… his presence in the world shaped by his God-given destiny’, he simply lacked the conventional qualities of kingship. Richard’s tragedy was that he was doomed to rule under the spectre of his father and grandfather’s martial legacy – the Black Prince, hero of Crécy and the military giant Edward III.
His cousin, however, possessed all the skills that a ruler required. Henry Bolingbroke, the son of John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster, excelled in a tournament. He was a soldier, fighting for a time on crusade in Lithuania with the Teutonic Knights, and had three sons by the time he was in his early twenties. Richard had no interest in war and his marriage to Anne of Bohemia – who was described by a contemporary as ‘a tiny portion of meat’ – provided no children to succeed him.
Both Richard and Henry were born in 1367, three months apart, the year their fathers were at war in Spain. Princess Joan (Jeanette) gave birth to Richard in Bordeaux on 6 January, the feast of the Epiphany, a date Richard would exploit for all its symbolic worth. On his return from Spain, the Black Prince developed an illness that would eventually kill him. When Edward III died soon after, the ten-year-old Richard was next in line. Henceforth, kingship was a tantalising and glittering prospect; yet the reality was also mundane. Richard’s constant power-struggles with the nobility are deftly woven into Castor’s portrait.
As for Henry, the antagonist in Shakespeare’s version of events, Castor evidences a wholly different man. The dutiful son of the staggeringly wealthy John of Gaunt, he has the world at his feet, bankrolled by his father to live a life of luxury, learning and adventure. During their youth, Henry and Richard’s lives inevitably intersect – notably in 1381 when a ‘volatile compound of anger and fear fuelled a revolt that spread like wildfire’. As rebels chanted for the head of John of Gaunt, Henry was hiding for his life in the Tower of London. Richard, however, showed remarkable maturity and nous in confronting the rebels. Castor writes:
For the first time Henry was experiencing the shock of uncontrolled violence and mortal danger. For Richard, the flood of adrenaline came instead from the knowledge that, confronted with anarchy and bloodshed, he alone was untouchable.
Loyal to Richard, Henry was, like his father, bound by the traditional code of chivalry. Richard could not have been more different. John of Gaunt was forced to wear a breastplate, fearing assassination at the hands of his nephew, and Richard beat the Earl of Arundel bloody for arriving late to Queen Anne’s funeral. This king was certainly aggressive and impulsive, but Castor challenges the sources. For one chronicler, Richard’s demolition of Sheen Palace – where his wife died – was the result of petulance and grief, but for Castor, he was utilising the building materials to focus on a new project, architecture being one of his passions. In fact he focused his grief on a magnificent shared tomb where, next to Anne’s, his ‘encomium took pride of place… unwilling to wait for the judgment of posterity. He knew how he should be remembered: as faultlessly right’.
Henry watched as Richard dismantled old King Edward’s England, paying thugs to act against his people. After John of Gaunt’s death, Richard proceeded to strip Henry of his inheritance. ‘In his sorrow and his anger’, Henry had to act. In a matter of weeks, he had taken the crown: ‘The people of England had united under his command to reject a tyrant.’ But the word ‘usurper’ was now being whispered. Was Henry divinely punished? His deteriorating health suggested so. ‘The king had leprosy, they said.’ According to Castor, however, Henry had a ‘blood clot in his leg or possibly even a rectal prolapse’. The latter part of his reign was spent in physical disintegration, quelling rebellion and securing the crown until his death.
Castor’s England is a fragile realm, about to implode under the rule of a despot. Yet its liberation by a hopeful new sovereign is tainted by fears about legitimacy, dynasty and righteous succession. Castor untangles a web of fractious politics and questions the meaning of medieval sovereignty. The Eagle and the Hart is a meticulous account of the precariousness of kingship and the psychology of power. It is also a rattlingly good story, told with scholarship and humanity by one of our finest historians.
The misery of growing up in a utopian community
In Home Is Where We Start, Susanna Crossman quotes one of Nadine Gordimer’s characters on the subject of utopias:
When rationalism destroyed heaven and decided to set it up here on Earth, that most terrible of all goals entered human ambition. It was clear there’d be no end to what people would be made to suffer for it.
At the unpalatable sounding communal meals, it was taboo for families to sit together
The book is a brave attempt to come to terms with the 15 years the author spent from 1978 onwards with her mother, her sister Claire and her unnamed brother in an ‘intentional community’ – as it was known by its fancifully named members. Their avowed aims were modest enough: to ‘explode’ the nuclear family, dismantle the patriarchy, save the Earth and revolutionise attitudes to class, sex, gender, money and childrearing – all in the name of those seductive but elusive ideals, freedom and equality.
The community was partitioned into Units, like ‘bees in a hive’, as a perspicacious visitor remarked, and socially divided into Adults and Kids. At the unpalatable sounding communal meals – the ingredients homegrown or bulk-bought from cash-and-carry stores – it was taboo for families to sit together. Instead of ‘Mum’, the Crossman children had to address their mother as ‘Alison’; and when the young Susanna was being overpowered by a stronger older boy, her mother was chastised for attempting to help her, since children must learn the hard way to stand up for themselves. At enculturation classes, the Kids were ‘force-fed “correct” usage, like foie-gras geese’ by the scary-sounding Barbara, because language is, of course, ‘a mechanism of male supremacy’.
As countless Orwellian dystopias have taught us, it is in the nature of the pursuit of equality to morph into its opposite, and under the banner of freedom there will always lurk a menacing revisioning of conventional right and wrong. Unsurprisingly, despite the propaganda, ‘Kids’ power’ was not equal to ‘Adults’ power’, and among the adults some were definitely more equal than others. Barbara was manifestly a bully; non-compliance with the ideology was punished by social humiliation, often far more threatening for children than any physical punishment.
More disturbingly still, a faux liberal sexual emancipation, combined with the pretence that children have the resources to make genuinely free choices, led inevitably to abuse. Claire was nine when, under the care of a disgracefully irresponsible couple, she was allowed to travel to India, where she was raped and sent home alone to keep the experience firmly under wraps. A twinkly-eyed 40-year-old married member of the community invited the 13-year-old Susanna to ‘sleep’ in his Unit, where he ‘massaged’ her. When she found the courage to tell her mother that she didn’t much like the experience, Alison’s laughing response was to suggest she simply ‘tell him to stop’.
Almost as dismaying was the decision of the community that, despite Susanna having valiantly studied to pass the exam to the local grammar school, she must not set herself apart from the other Kids or abandon class warfare; so she is packed off to a much more distant, progressive comprehensive. Here, thank goodness, she begins to rebel – but hair spray, frosted lipstick and tarty clothes are much disapproved of by the hand-weaving, clog-wearing community; and sadly its long arm claws Susanna back when a school friend is forbidden to visit her again after Susanna almost electrocutes herself forcing a plug from a socket.
‘What was the defining element which meant my family took this leap?’ she asks herself. The answer is a poignant history which does much to ameliorate any indignation felt for the later maternal derelictions. When Susanna was a baby, a freak accident led to a wall toppling on her eldest sister, Rachel, killing her. Her mother struggled on stoically, but her father seemingly couldn’t hack the catastrophe and bailed out, leaving his wife with three young children to cope with. Alison’s decision to decamp to a promise of comradeship and mutual support is something her daughter deals with generously.
Which is not to say that to understand is to forgive entirely. Discussing it all as an adult with Claire helped Susanna to process the damage they both sustained, especially the wilful disregard of the sexual molestations. By one of those ironic blows of fate that demonstrate the essential realism of Greek tragedy, this cherished sister and unique confidante died of colon cancer– so the whole experience has been bookended by traumatic loss.
I have some experience of growing up within a conformist ideology and recognise much of the ensuing psychological effect; so I know that this must have been a hard book to write. While the author discourses intelligently on the abiding failures of utopias, and interweaves her own experiences as a therapist, I think the primary purpose of the book was to explore and thus exorcise her childhood demons. In this one can only hope she has been successful.