Sunday, 1 March 2015

Sweden's Political Crisis

Sweden's prime minister Stefan Lofven
As a result of having Swedish family and therefore spending a lot of time in Sweden myself, I have found myself increasingly aware, and interested in, the current political crisis in Sweden. It is also extremely relevant to us in the UK with the upcoming general election, as British political analysts are afraid that the same situation could occur here.

After the Swedish general election in September 2014, no one party had the majority of the vote. The Prime Minister of the new government (and leader of the Social Democratic Party) had to create a hurried coalition of small, unpopular parties to be able to support the government. However, this coalition still only had 38% of support from MPs. The only party able to make a substantial difference to this and create a majority government was the Sweden Democrats who received 13% of the vote. However, the Sweden Democrats are an extremist, anti-immigration party, whose British equivalent would be UKIP. No party, therefore, was willing to cooperate with them and the only option was to form a minority government. Political analysts say that this could have worked, but…

On the 3rd December 2014, a vote was held at parliament to vote in the budget. In Sweden, unlike Britain, each block of parties puts forward its own budget for a vote. Traditionally, though, the proposed budget of the current government is voted for. This time, however, the government did not have the majority support and the Sweden Democrats found themselves with the deciding vote. They voted for the opposition coalition party’s budget. This was because the Social Democratic-Green coalition’s budget did not comply with their aim to decrease immigration in Sweden by 90%.

The Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven, could not ignore this vote and the huge power for parties with more extreme views, as his government collapsed as a result. Therefore, in a hope to rectify the situation, a re-election has been called for the 22nd March this year – the first mid-term election in Sweden since the 1950s. This sudden political instability in a country which has had very stable, predictable governments for decades has scared other European countries and warned them of the rise of populist parties. In particular, British politicians have become wary. Recently, a new act was passed stating that a new election can only be called if two-thirds of parliament agree to this. It is thought that the timing of a new election will never suit two-thirds of parliament and it will not be possible to hold a new election. The main parties are afraid that if the general election of this year goes badly for them, but well for UKIP, they will find themselves in the same position as Sweden. But with no way of getting out of it. 

AE

Friday, 20 February 2015

Cynicism and Broken Promises

"Sir, have you got any flame-retardant pants for your office? It's that whole liar liar pants on fire thing."
I recently watched An Idiot's Guide to Politics, presented by Jolyon Rubinstein, co-presenter of The Revolution Will Be Televised. Both programmes bring a brilliant satirical edge to political pranking, and I seriously recommend watching them. What I found most striking was how seemingly apathetic the young people interviewed were to politics, some of whom recognised Kim Kardashian, but not David Cameron. In response to the question, "What's more important than politics," one answer was, "Getting on with your life." 

But apathy and boredom definitely isn't the main factor. The main factor is that there exists a dichotomy between whichever party is in power, and whether or not life actually changes. Politicians make whatever promises they need to get elected, they then break that promise. An example of this which is definitely of importance to our future lives is Nick Clegg and his broken flagship pledge not to raise student tuition fees. That being said, however, it seems to be impossible to get into power without making exaggerated claims. Those parties who do not are considered bland and do not appeal to the masses. This means that the process of making and breaking promises in such as way that they are exaggerated enough to be popular, yet vague enough to be easily broken, has, among politicians, become an art form in itself.

Mistrust towards politics isn't helped by corruption, including phone hacking, and controversy over party backing. These scandals have highlighted the falseness of the popular complacent assumption that corruption is an issue only in other, developing countries.

Suspicion of politics is summed up in a nutshell by this quote from Russell Brand:
"I believe democracy is a pointless spectacle where we choose between two indistinguishable political parties, neither of whom represent the people, but the interests of the powerful business elites that run the world."
Brand is essentially the epitome of political cynicism. Worst of all, thousands of young people look up to him and follow suit on his refusal to choose the lesser evil (which is stupid, because one of these "evil" parties is going to win anyway, so you may as well vote to prevent the greater evil. Not voting is essentially half a vote for them).

I asked some of my friends about their view on politics. Some were disinterested and labelled the system "crap." Others didn't really understand how it worked, while some said politics was interesting, but felt like the political system had never been explained clearly enough to them - for example, one friend said she didn't know what the political spectrum was and said "I'd say I'm right, because that's my gut instinct." She then said: "maybe I'll vote for a really unpopular party so that they don't feel bad and my vote doesn't affect anyone." Another view was that none of the parties had "outreach policies to make the younger generations more interested."

To many young people, politics in the UK is little more than cynicism and broken promises, yet this belief does nothing but provoke a self-perpetuating cycle. The fundamental basis of democracies is that power lies with the public, and we need to realise that although it doesn't seem like it, we do have a voice. This voice comes to us in the form of the vote - and people have died to ensure we have access to it. By not using your vote, you lose the right to complain.

-L.B.

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

Technology in History

Hello, the new History innovators have found some examples of how History is incorporated within technology, whether it is games, TV programs or websites. So we've created this nifty little blog post to inform you of our findings. If you are on a budget, don't worry we've got you covered. You can still enjoy History without spending any money. There are so many apps available that will expand your historical knowledge but won't cost you anything: •History (TV) app-FREE, available on iPads, iPhones, windows and android mobiles. You can watch History shows, clips and topical videos. •Streetmueseum: Londinium-FREE, available on iPhones and iPads. It allows you to access a timeline of Roman London, "Excavate" finds, 3D drawings of famous landmarks and video and audio recordings •Today in History-FREE, available on iPhones and iPads. you can click on a date and find out what events happened at that time If you're constantly on the internet, why don't you get on these History websites instead of checking your latest Instagram feed: •http://www.bbc.co.uk/history •http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/ •http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/ •http://www.activehistory.co.uk/ •http://horrible-histories.co.uk/ •http://www.history.co.uk/

Monday, 9 February 2015

Belgium 2015




The History Department's trip to the First World War battlefields of Belgium will soon be taking place again, and it will be particularly poignant following the increased awareness of the First World War after the 100th anniversary commemorations last year.

Here is a link to the powerpoint used at the information evening last night which contains details on what to bring and what will take place on the trip. If you have any further queries do please get in touch with the History Department.

Keep an eye on the blog for further posts related to the trip!

Sunday, 25 January 2015

Egyptian Revolution



Four years ago today, violent demonstrations started in Cairo sparking the ‘Arab Spring’ which was to hit the rest of the region. The protest was the first coordinated demonstration in Egypt and was against poverty, unemployment, government corruption and most significantly the thirty year rule of President Mubarak. Egyptians were inspired by the success of the protests in Tunisia, as the president - Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali – was forced to flee the country.

The demonstrations in Tahrir Square, Cairo (and other cities in Egypt) were at first just peaceful protests until the police and demonstrators clashed and led to violence. Over the many days of protest, there were thousands of casualties and many arrests. The government blocked internet access and mobile phone communication in an attempt to stop the demonstrations, which were organised on social media. But they continued nonetheless. On the 29th January, Mubarak appointed a new cabinet hoping to appease the demonstrators, but did not step down. It was not until 11th February after 18 days of demonstrations that he resigned as president, causing widespread celebrations across Egypt. The military were now in charge.

An election was held between 28th November 2011 and 11th January 2012, but fraud was suspected and the results were discarded. Egyptians finally got the democratic presidential election which they had been fighting for in a two round election process in May and June 2012. Mohammed Morsi was the winner of these elections and stayed as president until July 2013 when he was overthrown by another uprising. The military were put in charge once again and remain in this position today.

As part of the ‘Arab Spring’ there was also unrest in Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Bahrain, Iran, Morocco, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Syria.

Today, Egyptians commemorating the 2011 uprising are protesting in Tahrir Square and 11 people have been killed so far. 

AE

This timeline from The Guardian gives an interesting overview of the Arab Spring.

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Democracy Day



Today is the 750th anniversary of the meeting of the first elected Parliament, organised by Simon de Montfort. You can read more on the story here:


 

Students also may enjoy this “History of Parliament in 60 seconds” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yr1Dj8jKv8 and the BBC are celebrating “Democracy Day” today, assessing how democratic the UK is and comparing it to democracies around the world, which links neatly to some of the ideas from Ms Hartley’s assembly this week. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-30734123


 

Friday, 9 January 2015

Cromwell's Second Rise - The 'Wolf Hall' Phenomenon


Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell, in the BBC's upcoming adaptation (source)
With our TV listings this January jam-packed with Tudor dramas and documentaries, and new editions of Mantel’s books hitting the shelves, it seems that Thomas Cromwell is rising as fast and high in 2015 as he did in Henry VIII’s day. Cromwell has had his fair mix of good and bad press in historical dramas (as shown in Tracy Borman’s  recent article here) but it’s Mantel who’s really captured the public’s imagination.
Now, I’m fairly new to all this hullabaloo. His reign was what first got me interested in history, but for a long time, I avoided Henry VIII like the plague, thinking that he’s overrated and very ‘popular history’. It wasn’t Thomas Cromwell, or even Wolf Hall, that brought me back, shame-faced, into the Tudor fanbase, but now that I’m here, I’m buzzing about the upcoming BBC series, based on Mantel’s writings, as much as anyone else.

Discussing her books, Mantel has stated that what she writes is fiction woven around the facts, but that she tries to keep it as accurate as possible. That said, pinpoint historical accuracy is now being plugged as the Unique Selling Point of the BBC series. Both Mantel and director Peter Kaminsky have said that they envisioned it being filmed almost as a documentary from Cromwell’s point of view, and Dr Lucy Worsley has walked away from the set with her only criticism being that Jane Seymour (played by Kate Philipps, image here) is ‘too pretty’. (Dr Worsley’s article is here.) All this historical hype really does beg the question: how much should we trust the series?

I’m willing to take Dr Worsley’s word for it that the practical details are accurate (the costumes, ceremonies, use of cutlery, the state of the lawn, you name it), but having read Wolf Hall and seen both of the RSC productions, and I think it really does depend on the script and how the actors tackle it. Having seen him in various productions, I’m confident that Mark Rylance, playing our scheming Master Secretary, will deliver, and that Mark Gatiss’ Stephen Gardiner will be every bit as scathing and grandiose as the real bishop’s prose. Claire Foy, in her French hoods and stunning gowns, has already won me over as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn.
The problem is, I had the same compliments to make about the RSC production. It was stunningly acted. Yet there was something amiss. Mantel’s books capture the essence of most of the characters brilliantly, with just enough exaggeration to make them memorable. (How else is a casual reader to remember which Thomas is which? One quickly labels Cromwell, Wolsey, More, Howard, Boleyn and Cranmer as Our Tom, Cardinal Tom, Honest Tom, Old Tom, Monseigneur Tom and Quiet Tom.) The problem with the RSC production is that when you take away the subtleties of Mantel’s work, condensing two books into six hours, they quickly become caricatures. Lovely caricatures though they be in some cases, figures like Norfolk, Suffolk and George Boleyn really do draw the short straw. (Poor George always seems to draw the short straw, no matter who writes him. And his wife, for that matter.)
The thing is, the RSC production seems to have been aiming for comedy, in the first play at least. The BBC service isn’t. I worry for characters like Thomas More. His portrayal in the books is certainly no Man of All Seasons, and has drawn a great deal of criticism. I’m no expert on More, but I do like to see one who is less than saintly. In the RSC’s Wolf Hall, he comes across as incredibly harsh and self-centred. In the books, on the other hand, I feel a great deal of sympathy for him. The TV series is likely to bring some of that sympathy across, seeing as Margaret Roper – More’s much-loved daughter, who did not feature in the play – has been cast, but it will largely depend, I think, on the directing.
Ben Miles and John Ramm as Cromwell and More in the RSC's Wolf Hall (source)
On the other hand, I do know a fair bit about Thomas Cranmer, and I find it difficult to fault cautious, candid, politically naïve scholar we see in Mantel’s books. (One thing I will say though, to add to Lucy Worsley’s criticism of the TV casting, I am disheartened to see a bearded Cranmer at Anne Boleyn’s coronation (image here) when the unwritten rule was that good Catholic priests were clean-shaven. Only a minor niggle.) Giles Taylor’s interpretation in the RSC production was certainly endearing, but would probably look incredibly out of place in the BBC drama, and it could be difficult to get Cranmer’s subtle personality across without the aid of Mantel’s prose.
I think this – the removal of Mantel’s prose – is what’s most dangerous about both the RSC and BBC productions. Without the subtleties of her writing, and the brilliant insight we get into Cromwell, her flaws are much easier to notice. The misinterpretations of some of the Boleyns will be that much clearer, and other characters may be reduced to mere shadows, or villains, or saints. This is inevitable with any editing project as large as this, but in a production that has prided itself on its historical accuracy, it does set off a few alarm bells in me.

Where I think the strength of the TV production lies is in Cromwell himself. Rylance has shown himself willing to find the threads of comedy in everything in the past, tragedies included, but I trust him to play this part straight. What we get, therefore, is a Cromwell who still remains mysterious to us, who still begs us to ask whether he looks like a murderer. In Bring Up the Bodies (the book), when Cromwell is playing the ruthless schemer, we know him well enough to consider him as our ruthless schemer, and I think the TV series will help to bring that edge back.

I might post something once all six episodes have aired, but these are my thoughts so far.

Of course, the Tudor hype this January doesn’t begin and end with Wolf Hall. Tomorrow (the 10th) at 9pm on BBC2 we have David Starkey teaming up with Lucy Worsley to present Britain’s Tudor Treasure: A Night at Hampton Court, to celebrate 500 years of the palace by reconstructing Edward VI’s christening. We also have documentaries later in the month about accidental Tudor deaths and Hans Holbein. Even if you don’t buy into historical fiction and period dramas, there’s still plenty to watch!

V.G

Tuesday, 6 January 2015

The General Election Campaign begins!

As it is the first General Election that is being held since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, we know when the next election will be - 7 May 2015.  This means that the campaigns have already started, as you may have noticed when reading the news yesterday.  At Nonsuch, we will be holding a mock election which will give everyone the chance to vote for a party within school so you will need to be informed.  The links below will whet your appetite and get you thinking:








Wednesday, 5 November 2014

US Midterms



The US Midterm elections took place yesterday, and the results are now coming in thick and fast. The news is not good for the Democrat party, and there is now a clear Republican majority in the Senate, and a gain of at least 13 seats in the house. There are lots more details on this here in the New York Times, which has some excellent maps, some helpful graphics here in the Guardian, and all the data you would ever need here at Real Clear Politics

Berlin



Here is a fascinating article from the BBC about Berlin, to mark the 25th Anniversary of the wall coming down on 9 November 2014. It examines how Berlin has changed since then, becoming more united in many ways but still retaining some distinct differences between East and West. One of the most famous of these was taken by NASA, noting how West Berlin mainly has white streetlights, while East Berlin has retained its sodium yellow ones.

You may also enjoy these photographs taken on 9 November 1989, this attempt to retrace the route of the wall, this "secret history" of the Berlin Wall, and this article about the significance of Berlin in the Cold War, the last two both from "History Today".