Jeremy Corbyn was filmed at Arsenal versus Spurs last weekend, clad in a red and white scarf and going on a pre-match demo demanding that all Premier League clubs pay employees the living wage. He even won the unlikely admiration of a Spurs fan, who told him, “you’ve got to be our Prime Minister”. Jeremy grinned and said, “I’ll do my best for you.”

Corbyn then watched an Arsenal team managed by an ascetic, uncompromising idealist. We can confidently assume that Corbyn won’t be modelling his leadership skills on Blair, Brown or Miliband. But might his fellow Islingtonite, Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger, be a more appealing template for the unlikely leader?

Tony Blair famously sought advice from Sir Alex Ferguson on how to handle a troublesome Chancellor. Corbyn, as a member of the fan group In Arsène We Trust, is already an admirer of Wenger and is more likely to base his style on the Arsenal guru. While Corbyn’s critics might also argue that he displays some of the same flaws as Wenger, such as stubbornness and refusing to compromise on idealism for trophies.

Physically both these 66-year-old men share similar characteristics, such as grey hair, a slim build and a scholarly air. Corbyn has been compared to a geography teacher with his disapproving side-glances at Prime Minister’s Questions, while Arsenal skipper Tony Adams thought on meeting Wenger, “he wears glasses and looks like a schoolteacher.”

One aspect of Wenger’s career that will appeal to Corbyn is that the Arsenal boss spent his playing career on the equivalent of the backbenches, starting off in the French third division with Mutzig and only playing three matches in Strasbourg’s title-winning season before retiring.

When Martin Amis ridiculed Corbyn’s A levels it was very similar to the “show us your medals” jibes aimed at Wenger when he arrived at Arsenal from the Japanese league in 1996. “Arsène who?” was the headline in the Evening Standard. Tony Adams wondered: “What does this Frenchman know about football? Does he even speak English properly?” Midfielder Ray Parlour did impressions of Inspector Clouseau.

Early on in their careers, both annoyed the establishment. Wenger initially refused to have a post-match glass of wine with fellow bosses like Sir Alex Ferguson, while Corbyn wouldn’t sing along to God Save the Queen

And we mustn’t forget the fact both men admire vegetables. Corbyn grows them on his allotment and has posed with a supersized marrow. Wenger revealed upon his arrival: “I think in England you eat too much sugar and meat and not enough vegetables.” Wenger then preached the merits of steamed broccoli rather than visiting the Gunner’s chip shop and getting bladdered every night to old-style Arsenal players. Similarly Corbyn is trying to introduce unfashionable concepts to sceptical Blairites, such as believing in something and offering more than vapid managerial soundbites.

Both men take a long-term attitude and are phlegmatic when faced with media panics. Wenger says every game in England brings a crisis, while Corbyn has a conversational style in interviews and says that for all the lurid headlines, on the streets people keep telling him to be himself. Wenger has repeatedly refused to make big-name panic buys, preferring to develop younger, sometimes neglected talents. Similarly Corbyn has energised young Labour Party members and promoted from within the group in the cases of John McDonnell, Seamus Milne and Andrew Fisher — though some Labour MPs clearly feel these signings are more akin to Arsenal’s misfiring former striker Nicklas Bendtner.

Wenger and Corbyn are keen to bring unfashionable concepts into popular debate, such as, in the case of Arsène, the need for a good diet and pre-match stretching, UEFA fair play regulations and a top four place being as good as a trophy. Before Corbyn’s leadership there would have been little discussion of Trident and Saudi jails or questions from the public at Prime Minister’s Questions.

The potential weaknesses of Corbyn and Wenger are surprisingly similar too. Both men can be unexpectedly prickly. For all his intellectual image, Wenger has had memorable pushing matches with Martin Jol and Alan Pardew; while Corbyn looked like he wanted to push Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy for his “tabloid journalism” when challenged on addressing a meeting, including Hamas, as “friends.”

The pair are stubborn on recruitment and unlikely to admit errors; still insisting that Per Mertesacker or Andrew Fisher is the answer. Wenger famously “didn’t see” any incidents where his players were sent off and Corbyn might have a similar blind spot for his staff’s faults.

Both men have been accused of putting principles before trophies. Arsenal recently lost 5-1 at Bayern Munich in the Champions League, mainly due to Wenger not having invested in alternatives to his injured defenders. Might Corbyn too rue a lack of back-up when his defence policy is questioned?

Arsenal won three Premier League titles in Wenger’s early years. But for the past decade Wenger has ignored pleas to spend big on a dominating centre back, a midfield enforcer and world class striker, apparently preferring flowing football to more pragmatic wins – though Arsenal have won two FA Cups and qualified for the Champions League every season. Is Corbyn in danger of producing policies that are pleasing on the socialist eye, but not capable of lasting a whole campaign and nailing the really big prizes?

Chelsea’s José Mourinho taunted that Arsène Wenger was, “a specialist in failure”. Peter Mandelson probably feels the same about Jeremy Corbyn. Though it’s interesting to note that Mourinho is now in a personal meltdown and Wenger, a more likeable figure, might yet capitalise.

These are crucial seasons for Corbyn and Wenger and both will resolutely stick to their approaches. Wenger shifted the debate in British football and Corbyn has in many senses done likewise in politics. The Labour leader has the party fans behind him but will face many calls to compromise or quit from his senior pros and the press – in such moments it’s likely he’ll trust in Arsène.

Pete May is author of The Joy of Essex (The Robson Press).

US forces have carried out an air strike in Syria targeting the British Islamic State militant known as Jihadi John. There is a "high degree of certainty" he was hit by the drone.

Mohammed Emwazi, a Kuwaiti-born British IS recruit, is known for his appearance in videos of Western hostages being beheaded – murdering aid workers and journalists on camera.

The BBC reports a US official saying Emwazi had been "tracked carefully over a period of time".

But the Pentagon stopped short of confirming Emwazi's death. It issued this statement:

"US forces conducted an airstrike in Raqqa, Syria, on Nov. 12, 2015 targeting Mohamed Emwazi, also known as "Jihadi John."

"Emwazi, a British citizen, participated in the videos showing the murders of U.S. journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, U.S. aid worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig, British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, Japanese journalist Kenji Goto, and a number of other hostages.

"We are assessing the results of tonight's operation and will provide additional information as and where appropriate." 

David Cameron has described the airstrike that is believed to have killed 'Jihadi John' as "an act of self-defence," while admitting that he was not yet certain it had been successful. The Prime Minister said:

"Good morning. Last night, the United States carried out an air strike in Raqqa, Syria, targeting Mohammed Emwazi – the ISIL executioner known as Jihadi John.

We cannot yet be certain if the strike was successful.

But let me be clear.

I have always said that we would do whatever was necessary, whatever it took, to track down Emwazi and stop him taking the lives of others.

We have been working, with the United States, literally around the clock to track him down.

This was a combined effort. And the contribution of both our countries was essential.

Emwazi is a barbaric murderer.  He was shown in those sickening videos of the beheadings of British aid workers.

He posed an ongoing and serious threat to innocent civilians not only in Syria, but around the world, and in the United Kingdom too.

He was ISIL’s lead executioner, and let us never forget that he killed many, many, Muslims too.

And he was intent on murdering many more people.

So this was an act of self-defence. It was the right thing to do.

Today I want to thank the United States: the United Kingdom has no better friend or ally.

And I want to pay tribute to all those professionals in our own security and intelligence agencies and Armed Forces for the extraordinary work they do on behalf of our country.

On this, as so often, they've been working hand in glove with their American colleagues.

We are proud of them.

If this strike was successful, and we still await confirmation of that, it will be a strike at the heart of ISIL.

And it will demonstrate to those who would do Britain, our people and our allies harm: we have a long reach, we have unwavering determination and we never forget about our citizens.

The threat ISIL pose continues.

Britain and her allies will not rest until we have defeated this evil terrorist death cult, and the poisonous ideology on which it feeds.

Today though, my thoughts, and the thoughts of our country, are with the families of those who were so brutally murdered.

Japanese citizens Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa, American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley and aid worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig.

And of course our own citizens. Aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning.

Nothing will bring back David and Alan.

Their courage and selflessness stand in stark contrast to the empty callousness of their murderers.

 Their families and their friends should be proud of them, as we are.

 They were the best of British and they will be remembered long after the murderers of ISIL are forgotten."

Jeremy Corbyn commented that it would have been "far better" if Jihadi John had been tried in court rather than killed:

"We await identification of the person targeted in last night's US air attack in Syria. It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his callous and brutal crimes.

"However, it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law.

"These events only underline the necessity of accelerating international efforts, under the auspices of the UN, to bring an end to the Syrian conflict as part of a comprehensive regional settlement."

Top secret information, redacted documents, doctored photographs, coded letters. Whatever you would expect to discover in a hitherto unopened filing cabinet belonging to a World War Two spymaster, the last thing would be a lengthy treatise about wildlife conservation.

But this is what two nature enthusiasts discovered this year when they opened a filing cabinet belonging to Maxwell Knight, the former MI5 head and amateur naturalist who was the inspiration for his good friend Ian Fleming’s fictional intelligence chief “M” in James Bond.

Maxwell Knight's forgotten filing cabinet. All photos: Simon King

Knight is best known for his role in infiltrating British fascist movements, foiling a plot to stop the Americans from entering the war, and being first to suspect the secret service had been infiltrated by Soviets. Not your classic Sixties environmentalist.

The Frightened Face of Nature, an unpublished 50,000-word manuscript, is one of over 100 documents in Knight’s possession that had never before been released. Upon Knight’s death in 1968, the filing cabinet  – full of forgotten photographs, film reels, manuscripts and letters – was given by Knight’s widow to Professor John E Cooper, a veterinary scientist at Cambridge to whom the spy had become a mentor and friend.

An early proposal for Knight's book about man's threat to nature.

Written in the mid-Sixties, The Frightened Face of Nature is a warning against humankind’s advances destroying natural habitats and threatening wildlife populations – remarkably progressive for its age. An extract reads:

“By all means let man use his great powers to invent new devices; let him give of his best to see that all shall benefit from his genius in curing, healing, and housing those in want. But do not suggest that this can only be done by destroying what is fine to look at or listen to, whether in the arts or nature.

“If human brains can find means of defying space, improving means of communication and bouncing pictures off satellites, surely he can also discover ways in which these things can be done without destruction – for destruction first is the cry of mad revolution and is the reverse of evolution.”

But it was never published.

“I imagine he didn't want to put his head over the parapet on anything political,” Cooper tells me. “We think he hid the manuscript, or it wasn't finished, or it was just hidden away.

“It’s interesting because it shows that this man who arguably played such an important part in opposing the Nazis had got to the stage where his main fear was for the planet, environmental problems – even climate change he was aware of.”

Simon King, an associate and fellow naturalist who Cooper charged with exploring the cabinet’s contents, adds: “This was back in the Fifties and Sixties. He was looking at things we are considering today.

“I don't think he could risk being called a Communist. These were times when the Cambridge spies were hitting the limelight; there was talk during the Cold War about other spies in MI5. He obviously wanted to sell a book and earn a living, but I don't think he could risk being too popular.”

He adds: “He left his last thoughts about us, and about nature, locked away in a cabinet. The sad thing is the document has almost become a top secret document about nature. At that point, he was obviously a man who couldn't draw attention to himself.”

Simon King (left) and John Cooper (right), who discovered the files.

Margaret and John Cooper, who own the cabinet, are both academics.

Cooper, who is 71 and lives in Norfolk with his wife Margaret, first heard of Knight from his appearances as a nature-lover and broadcaster on the radio and television. Cooper’s family lived near him in Camberley, Surrey, and Cooper – as a 16-year-old schoolboy obsessed with the natural world – wrote to Knight, who invited his family round for tea in 1959.

Knight remained a friend and adviser throughout Cooper’s time as a science student at Bristol in the Sixties. It was only two decades later, when information was emerging in the press about Knight’s activities during the war, that Cooper says he had any idea of Knight’s other occupation.

“People started talking about him in the Eighties, and seemed to know more about him than I did,” recalls Cooper. “And I still had that feeling he was my personal friend, almost like a godfather – and you do feel there’s a great chunk of his life that I knew nothing about.

“But really to me he was just this mentor, adviser and a hero – I would hear him on the radio, you see!” he laughs. “I felt terribly proud of being given this [cabinet] because Maxwell Knight had taught me so much about wildlife, natural history.”

Another manuscript among the files is a complete, unpublished book by the spy novelist and former agent John Bingham, who was recruited by Knight. Its title is Fugitive From Perfection, and part of the plot concerns Whitehall.

“One of his novels that nobody seems to know about in the family for some reason has ended up in Maxwell Knight's possession,” says King. “I have this feeling he [Knight] said to John Bingham – because I don't think he sent it to him to be spell-checked – ‘look, I don’t think you should share this’ for some reason . . . his MI5 influence appears throughout the manuscript.”

​

Another high-profile spy novelist and ex-agent, John le Carré, appears in Knight’s lost files. There is a handwritten letter from David Cornwell (le Carré is his pseudonym) from the British Embassy in Bonn, Germany, regarding the fee for some illustrations he drew for one of Knight’s published books called Animals and Ourselves. A note at the top of the letter from le Carré reads:

“I am delighted to hear that your admirable mixture of common sense and learning has been well received as it deserved. May it be equally rewarded!”

But it’s Knight the naturalist, who had a ‘bug room’ (not the spying kind) full of insect specimens, feathers and bird pellets in his house, who stands out in this collection of files. There are pictures of him with his pet cuckoo, Goo ­– he was one of many agents feeding into the phenomenon of British spies being bird enthusiasts. ‘Birdwatcher’ is old intelligence slang for spy. And the cuckoo – which infiltrates and imitates – was an ideal muse for a spy like Knight.

“I have really mixed feelings,” admits Cooper, regarding his discoveries about his old friend’s double life. “In one way, I wish he’d just remained the great naturalist in my eyes.”

But what to do now, having pieced together this bizarre patchwork of a life?

“We would like to be able share more of what’s in the cabinet in order to help and improve the way people look at nature,” says King. “The kids may not think it's very cool sometimes to do that, but who could be cooler than M? In many respects, he was the original James Bond.”

The owner of Maxwell Knight's cabinet is Professor John E Cooper (for more information, see www.wildlifehealthservices.com); More of the cabinet’s contents will be released leading up to the 50th anniversary of Maxwell Knight’s death in 2018 (see www.thefrightenedfaceofnature.com).

There are moments in politics when one has to step back and wonder how we got here. This week, angered with the ongoing “tampon tax” of 5 per cent on sales of sanitary products, two women protested outside Parliament by accompanying their placards with a spot of “free bleeding”. This, a once-obscure practice, was popularised as an anti-feminist hoax by the predominantly male users of the internet hate machine 4chan. When tactics cross from the armpit of the internet to the mother of parliaments, something very unusual has happened in politics.

Free bleeding in Parliament Square is all the more peculiar because of the limited ability of the British government to do anything about it. For the Treasury to reduce the VAT rate to zero would be illegal under EU tax law, as the financial secretary explained last month. All of Britain’s zero rates of VAT, such as on books and children’s clothing, predate our accession to the European Community in 1975, and it seems plausible that the “tampon tax” will form part of the government’s ongoing renegotiation project. Indeed, the European dimension to the tax gave us the somewhat surprising sight of Ukip campaigning in the 2015 general election on an anti-tampon tax platform. Yet there is a possible domestic solution that hasn’t yet been discussed which could ameliorate the impact of the tampon tax while not breaking any laws.

This can best be illustrated by sketching the costs of the tampon tax, minimal as they are. The Treasury estimates it only takes in about £15m in revenue from VAT on sanitary products. For perspective, figures from the Office for National Statistics indicate there are roughly 17 million women and girls aged between 12 and 51 (the average ages of menarche and menopause) in the UK, amounting to a total cost of 88.3p per woman per annum. Consumer research conducted in September implies, however, that women spend an average of £13 per month on sanitary products, leading to an approximate annual VAT payment of £7.80. The real figure is probably somewhere in between: manufacturers of menstrual cups like Mooncup usually put it at about 240 tampons per year, costing around £2 in VAT.

Instead of undergoing the complexity of trying to zero-rate VAT, why not simply subsidise it? Were the government serious about getting rid of the (rather marginal) tampon tax, it could deposit this average annual cost of VAT on sanitary products into the bank accounts of every woman of menstruating age in Britain, or into the bank account of their primary carers if they’re under 18. This payment – call it a women’s rebate, or perhaps a period premium– would be fairly cheap: £15m if the Treasury’s figures are right (not including implementation costs), but perhaps up to £40m or so.

Besides its symbolic value, this has the happy side-effect of not breaching EU law: there is no law against the government simply giving women a tiny injection of money once a year to compensate for the tax it claims to find so iniquitous. In fact, since menstruation is prone to irregularities, it might be sensible to bump up the amount by a few pence to compensate for menorrhagia and other unforeseeable complications.

Faced with this, we have to ask whether the government is being honest about its desire to do away with the tampon tax. VAT zero-rating is a relic of the pre-EU days, and it is unlikely that other member states will want to open the can of worms of national sales taxes. The Treasury cannot be ignorant of this diplomatic reality, so it must know its chances of success in Europe are minimal.

Until there is action in the EU, though, there’s no reason the government couldn’t ease the impact of the tax in this way – unless, of course, it doesn’t actually care about women’s health and is simply using the campaign against the tampon tax for cheap anti-Brussels headlines. One could even imagine that a government which gleefully cuts public spending, even on domestic violence services, in a way that hits women hardest might not have their best interests at heart.

So, here is a way for the Conservative Treasury to prove (for a relatively small price tag) that it isn’t just cynically exploiting a popular protest movement for anti-European points, and make excellent PR out of a troublesome legal situation. Perhaps it could implement the premium as an addition to the tax credits it’s so eager to cut. But it probably won’t happen: after all, if the government could afford to commit to losing the £15m or more in VAT revenue for very little gain, we might start asking if some other cuts to public services which make women’s lives immeasurably more difficult than any tampon tax, are really necessary. That would never do.

Being a British Nineties kid, I didn't know much about Richard Nixon. Only a few things stick out, such as the disgraceful end to his career, the chirpy racism and the terrible impersonation by the usually-excellent Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon. However, being a resident of the internet, I am very familiar, unfortunately, with today's Republican Party in America, and the never-ending stream of stupid remarks you automatically assume are from stories posted on the Onion or ClickHole.

Evan Thomas, a well-established journalist and writer who's previously worked for TIME, Newsweek and the Washington Times, has written Being Nixon, a very clear and accessible biography of America's 37th president. After learning more and more about this strange recluse, it made me think about the polarised state of America's politics today and the knock-on effects it has around the world.

Before getting into the meat of just how far right the remaining brain cells of today's GOP have swung, we have to examine the style of politics itself, and how politicians presented themselves in the 1960s. And who better than the "weirdo" (Thomas' words, not mine) Richard Nixon?

Here was an introvert acting as an extrovert, a far cry from what is expected from today's politicians, who can't help but speak before – if ever – thinking about the subject put in front of them.

Former President Nixon shaking hands with Japan's former prime minister Kakuei Tanaka in 1982. Photos: Getty

Although his family weren't completely poor during the years of the Depression, they were struggling financially, preventing young Richard from accepting his full scholarship at Harvard and being unable to make the journey to Massachusetts. He often railed against this "East Coast elite" during his political years, but he stocked his political arsenal with Harvard graduates, including a certain Henry Kissinger.

However, his upbringing wasn't just hampered by family finances. His older brother Harold died of tuberculosis when Richard was 20, their parents spending their savings trying to save the life of their eldest child. His brother's death was the first time Richard saw his father cry, who asked why his best child had been taken away from him. You might begin to feel some sympathy for the former president at this point. After all, Kissinger later remarked: "Can you imagine what this man would have been like if somebody loved him?"

This "put up and shut up" style of parenting was just the norm back in the good old days, while politics was more detailed and nuanced – a complete reverse of what we find in today's world.

Examine this style with the way in which most American presidents had to behave. Many were centrist, a traditional way of governing, given the US system ultimately involves one fearless leader representing the whole country. And you can see this in the famous 1960 debate between contenders John Kennedy and Nixon. Or listen to it, in case you want to avoid any second-hand embarrassment (or sweat).

Nixon, a conservative, openly supports paying teachers more, for example. This is something not even something a Conservative government like ours today could ever bring themselves to say, as today's assumption from the right is there's never a good time to increase anyone's pay. Unless of course, you're the CEO of a large corporation or something.

President Nixon meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1973.

At the inauguration of the Argentinian president in 1958, the convoy of vice-president Nixon was attacked by protestors. His secret service aide Jack Sherwood drew his gun, only to be ordered by Nixon to put it away. It's a different universe from today, where the well-rehearsed and planned public events politicians hold are enveloped by an army of security personnel.

What Thomas also notes in his book and subsequent interview is just how well-read Nixon was, which made him much smarter than his rivals, even if he didn't always appear to be. A perfect demonstration was through the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While today's conservatives across the world (and in particular the US) try to "conserve" everything but the environment, the flower-power and counterculture revolution in the middle of the 20th century demanded action from political leaders.

In order to outsmart his Democrat opponents on this issue, in particular Senator Edmund Muskie (who later served as a Secretary of State for Jimmy Carter), Nixon moved left to create a new cabinet-level federal agency.

Nixon campaigning for re-election in 1972 in Ohio.

But we have to remember that Nixon was still a conservative. His words versus his actions created a malaise that was reflected when comparing his Quaker upbringing and hardline adulthood. Thomas mentions the advice of Nixon's grandmother in the book: “Never say, ‘I hate,’ to others. Don’t call anyone a liar. You’re not sure and if you are sure why advertise it? Let the lie die. Use silence.”

Sadly, this didn't shape what would eventually become his paranoid and dark personality. And of course, I'm never going to defend any of the racism or anti-Semitism exhibited by Nixon in the wonderful audio history he's left behind. However, it is refreshing to know someone was quite comfortable being openly racist (within the confines of the White House, of course) compared with the thick hosepipe of fresh excrement provided by today's Republican Party, which simultaneously claims not to be racist.

The book's introduction describes Nixon as a "fatalistic optimist", as it reveals his favourite film was not the military-charged Patton, but the 1956 version of Around the World in 80 Days – nothing serious, epic or grandiose that would be chosen by political advisers, I mean, politicians today. I'd be surprised if any of today's GOP presidential contenders didn't say they loved the spectacu-killing marathon American Sniper, for instance.

But Nixon always sat through terrible films in the private screening room at the White House, and always said things "will get better". Maybe they will for us, the silent majority. But certainly not for the current crop of GOP presidential contenders judging by their recent debates, as they continue to represent the vocal minority.

George Osborne often gives the impression that the measures he takes are unavoidable if the deficit is to be reduced. After falsely implying that the new national living wage would compensate the losers from tax credit cuts, it this argument that the Chancellor has revived to defend the policy. But as on previous occasions, his room for manoeuvre is far greater than suggested. 

As the Chancellor contemplates how to pay for changes to the cuts in his Autumn Statement on 25 November he has received a fillip in the form of the £13bn sale of former Northern Rock mortgages. The Treasury has announced that the revenue will be "used to pay down the national debt" (which stands at £1.5 trillion or 80.6 per cent of GDP). But the windfall will free up revenue that would have been used to meet his target of a budget surplus by 2019-20 to pay for tax credits. The £4.5bn that would be saved by imposing the cuts in full could already be covered by drawing on the £10bn surplus Osborne is forecast to acheive by the end of the parliament. 

Last month, the Resolution Foundation outlined five ways in which the tax credit reductions could be limited or reversed: increasing the personal tax allowance in line with inflation, rather than accelerating it towards £12,500 (saving £4.9bn by 2020), increasing the basic rate threshold in line with inflation, rather than accelerating it towards £50,000 (saving £1.3bn by 2020), reversing the increase in the inheritance tax threshold and cuts in corporation tax (saving £3.4bn), as Labour has proposed, limiting rises in the state pension after the large increases in the last parliament (saving around £6bn) and returning spending on tax reliefs to 2010 levels by 2020, thereby reducing the UK's current £100bn spend on around 1,000 different reliefs (saving around £10bn).

The extra £13bn in the Treasury's coffers will make it even harder for Osborne to argue that the tax credit cuts are a matter of necessity, rather than choice. It is a point made by an increasing number of Conservative MPs. Heidi Allen, who used her maiden speech to attack the policy, said this week following the work and pensions select committee's report: "I know there are no easy answers, but I sense the majority of people in this country would back the Chancellor if he revisited other possible areas of savings – budget surplus levels or Inheritance tax thresholds, for example. We talk so often about 'all being in this together'– now is the time to put that mantra into action."

Osborne is certain to limit the cuts in some form, as he made clear following the government's House of Lords defeat. The question is how. After reports that Universal Credit could be cut to raise revenue, allies of Iain Duncan Smith have briefed that he is prepared to resign. Whatever path Osborne takes, he will not want his reversal to be the story of the day. Just as the living wage announcement was designed to camouflage the tax credit cuts, so the Chancellor will surely seek to create a diversion this time.  

Our online personas aren’t real. We all know that. None of us spend all our time staring down the barrel of expensive coffees, or on romantic trips to hot locales. None of us curate and crop ourselves as effectively in the real world as we do on screen. 

Over the past year or so, though, there has been a growing sense that online personas – especially the better known ones – are even less real than we realised. Last week, a catalyst appeared in the form of Australian model and social media star Essena O’Neill, who quit her Instagram, Tumblr and Snapchat accounts after becoming disillusioned with the whole process. Since, she has released a series stream of tear-stained, makeup-free videos explaining her decision.

In a particularly arresting move, she also deleted the majority of her 2,000-odd Instagram posts, leaving behind only 96 with new, "honest" captions. (She has since changed her Instagram account settings to "private".) One read:

“Social media, especially how I used it, isn’t real. It’s contrived images and edited clips ranked against each other. It’s a system based on social approval, likes, validation, in views, success in followers. It’s perfectly orchestrated self-absorbed judgment.”

Others explained the reality behind the picture, like this one:

Themes emerged: disordered eating, obsessive photo-taking, and, in general, no real enjoyment in whatever activity the photo supposedly showed. "There is nothing zen about trying to look zen, taking a photo of you trying to be zen and proving your zen on Instaram," as she commented on a photo of herself in a meditation pose on a beach. 

The deception could have gone further. In "Love Gets Likes", a video posted last weekend, O'Neill describes how she was approached by a famous male supermodel about embarking on an “online relationship”: “He said that we could make heap loads of money. He said I should think of it seriously as a business proposal”. No wonder she was desperate to re-enter the real world.

Of course, there were question marks over O’Neill’s dramatic self-dethroning, too. Instagrammer friends came forward, claiming a breakup with a boyfriend was what really prompted O’Neill’s breakup with social media. And O’Neill’s appeal for donations via her new site, letsbegamechangers.com beause she now "can't afford" her lifestyle seems a little off considering she was almost certainly earning six figures a year through her social media fame. 

But for the internet at large, O’Neill’s claims ring true, especially when it comes to Instagram. Her actions prompted a wave of similar, “here’s what was really happening when I took this photo” pieces from other users.  A few viral articles pre-empted O’Neill in their exposure of Instagram’s ability to make ordinary scenes look extraordinary: subjects on beaches that turn out to be rubbish-strewn when you pan outwards; a carefully curated shot of a Macbook on a bed surrounded by a – shock horror – messy room.

While it’s clearly not the most worrying aspect of social media for O’Neill herself, her biggest and most damaging claim for the site and its users centres on advertising. Essentially: it’s everywhere. Many of O’Neill’s posts featured one or more items of clothing placed by brands, which would have paid O'Neill hundreds, or even thousands of dollars for the favour. The posts were not marked out as sponsored. 

As O’Neill points out – and we all, deep down, knew already – lifestyle Instagrammers post sponsored pictures all the time. Yet depending in their country of posting, this could land them in legal hot water. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Agency warned bloggers last year against unmarked sponsored posts, which contravenes the ASA code, and also, potentially, UK law. 

“My fans can sniff the BS”

I spoke to seveal media academics about the O'Neill story, and they suggested that the “cult of authenticity” which is at the heart of Instagram’s model has everything to do with the rise in unmarked sponsored posts. As New York magazine pointed out this week, Instagram has the feel of an intimate diary or blog. Its seen as a collection of personally taken and curated photos and captions, and is therefore the perfect home for the selfie: an image arranged, taken, and posted by its subject. On Twitter, it’s known and even accepted that staff often run celebrity or politican accounts, but as Rihanna told Harper’s Bazaar, heaven forbid she not run her own Instagram feed: "My fans can sniff the BS from very far away. I cannot trick them."

“We’re witnessing a renewed interest and valuing of authenticity where content that is seen to be “real” and accurate is more likely to succeed,” Dr Heather Ford, a fellow in Digital Methods at Leeds University tells me by email. Advertisers know this just as well as savvy Instagram users with thousands of followers, which is why products embedded in "real" content are the advertising holy grail. To point out that a post is sponsored is to render it pointless, and damaging to both brand and Instagram personality. 

Dr Ellen Hesper, Director of Graduate studies at LSE’s Media and Communications Department, notes that “openly advertising (that is, being paid for what you do) and being open about the amount of work that goes into maintaining a cohesive, true online persona are a no-go in a digital world where authenticity is key”. This is why O’Neill’s admission that her beach-ready body is the result of endless effort is, effectively, social media kamikaze.

The cult of authenticity is especially damaging, Helpser points out, because it is both “opaque and insidious” – it is a genuinely different beast from the advertising and marketing products of the 20th century, especially as its engaging individuals who have not entered these industries in a standard way. Helpser describes the birth of social media stars like O’Neill as a “toxic cocktail” where ordinary young people are yanked out of obscurity via their phone screens: “tThey’re lifted to celebrity status without the support that more traditional celebrities have. They’re on their own in managing their image and production.”

And here’s the Catch-22: as soon as these young people are seen to be “managed” - or, as it might be better described, "supported"– they’re no longer authentic or relatable. Inherent to the myth of the social media star is that anyone can be one. The internet taught us that anyone can achieve levels of fame and wealth previously reserved for an inaccessible class of celebrity. (Research from the Oxford Internet Institute shows that Instagram actually made users feel 11 per cent worse about their lives than other social media platforms, perhaps because ultimately, the filtered versions of others’ everyday lives, which purport to be real representations, make us feel worse about our own than obviously false images would.)

The cult of authenticity is a trap for both those who enviously browse and those who post. O’Neill genuinely came to believe that her self-worth depended on the approbation of her followers. After quitting, she vowed: “Never again will I let a number define me. IT SUFFOCATED ME”.  The process O’Neill describes is circular: she deceives her followers, who give her positive endorsements in the form of likes. She wants more, so tries even harder to make her life seem perfect. It’s a feedback loop, one not dissimilar to addiction.  

As Helpser tells me, Instagram and other social media sites are only part of the cult of the authentic and the "normal": “The questions that should be asked is why these norms have arisen in the first place – what wider society is doing to create these ideas that wealth, popularity and stardom can be achieved by anyone – especially since we know that societies are in fact becoming more unequal.”

“It was a window into their lives”

I spoke to several Instagrammers, all of whom joined the site early on, and have noticed that it has changed since. Sean Rees posted his first picture in November 2010, and has around 46,400 followers at time of writing (his followers peaked at 75,000) after being featured on Instagram's "suggested users" list several years. He’s a graphic designer, and initially used Instagram to follow photographers he admired: “It was like a window into the photographers’ lives. It felt casual, pure and spontaneous. No pressure to be polished or pefect.” He feels the platform has become less authentic, but in his view, some amount of fakery is to be expected: “the very process of taking a picture could be interpreted as a fake representation of life”.

Another user, who wished to remain anonymous, also gained followers throuh the “suggested users list” – sometimes up to 6,000 per day. She feels protected from some of the effects O’Neill describes by the fact she rarely posts images of her private life – “Being in my 30s, I’m not interested in focusing my account on myself… O’Neill and I use Instagram in a different way, for different purposes."

Olivia Purvis, a UK lifestyle blogger with 103,000 followers, confirms that it's "less stressful" posting a "lifestyle image" which doesn't feature her own face or body. "Social media is what you make of it," she tells me. "As a blogger, there are opportunities to feature 'sponsored' content on these platforms, but it's [about] the way you articulate that to the people that follow you, and how transparent you are." 

As she implies, it's possible to use Instagram without damaging yourself or lying to your fans. Instagram's emphasis on authenticity - seen in their refusal to allow users to post links to products or anything else, for example - is also its greatest strength. The platform's endless, infinite-scrolling appeal lies in its potential to let us stare into the real lives of those we know or admire – to see the world through their eyes. At the same time, this emphasis on authenticity makes Instagram and its users the perfect targets for the different types of deception O’Neill describes. It’s hard to know which could be more damaging: the loss of Instagram's sense of spontanaeity and authenticity, or the rabid attempts to get it back or fake it. 

Meanwhile, O'Neill may have moved on to different platforms, but she is still reaching fans through screens on her new website and videos. Indeed, her new persona is, at heart, "authentic": she speaks with messy hair and tear-swollen eyes about the "real" life behind her Instagram feed. Perhaps it is this which gives a sour edge to her reinvention. If social media really is an authenticity beauty pageant, O'Neill just won herself a rosette. 

This is the weekend, the second in November, when the Lord Mayor of the City of London Corporation, the leader of the governing body for the Square Mile, takes up office. The annual passing of the baton begins on Friday morning with the Silent Ceremony in the Guildhall and ends on Monday evening when the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with every last dark corner of the British establishment, come for an evening of great feasting.

Between these two ticketed events, there is the Lord Mayor’s Show, on Saturday, when the new incumbent travels through the City in his golden coach accompanied by his (and indeed, recently, by her) retinue. He receives a blessing from the Dean of St Paul’s on the steps of the cathedral, swears allegiance to the monarch at the Royal Courts of Justice and returns to take up residence in the Mansion House.

There will be military bands, liveried horses, pikemen, musketeers and ward beadles. There will be over a hundred motorised ‘floats’, some seven thousand participants as well as up to 500 thousand people lining the streets and 2.5 million people watching at home on the BBC. There’s a flypast courtesy of the Royal Air Force. It’s the largest unrehearsed pageant in the world according to Dominic Reid, the Show’s extremely pukka ‘pageant master’. If not exactly bread and circuses there will be artisan street food and fireworks. It’s certainly a jolly family day out.

I ask Mr Reid about the wider purpose to the Show and he says, when pushed, that it’s to demonstrate the tradition and stability of the Mayoralty. I ask him why that’s politically important. He tells me that the politics of the Show is above his pay grade. He says he’s just there to make it happen, that he’s following orders and that, besides, it’s popular and quite fun and most people seem to enjoy it.

“What would happen if the Robin Hood Tax people wanted to take a float? Would they be allowed to do this?”

“Who gets to have a float is in the gift of the Lord Mayor. I’m afraid you’d have to ask him. As I say, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not a political event.”

This year is a big one. It’s not just the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta but also of the charter granting the City of London the right to elect its own mayor. In the early months of 1215 King John was still hoping to secure the City’s loyalty in the face of the restive barons and offered to allow this commune of merchants the practice of direct democracy in exchange for its support. It didn’t work. The City pocketed the franchise and then put its weight behind the barons, forcing the King to bring his seal to Runneymede after all.

This bit of expediency tells us a lot about why the City has lasted as long as it has. It can look both ways at once (supporting, for example, both Parliament and the King during the English Civil War) whilst continuing to prize its own institutional independence. Of course independence is easier when you have at your disposal the colossal resources of the City Corporation, which today are mainly generated through the rental income on its property portfolio. Think of the City Corporation as primary a landlord and developer and you wouldn’t be far off.

Indeed it’s always been business before politics in the Square Mile. And in its ambition to remain above the fray of party politics the City Corporation has, in fact, been largely successful. Of the 125 elected representatives that make up the Common Council 124 of them come mob-handed as Independents. I’m the only councillor representing a party. I was elected in a by-election last year as the Labour member for the ward of Portsoken, one of only four wards in the City where people actually live (the electorate in the other nineteen wards is made up largely of office workers).

“I suppose you want to abolish us?” I am asked by a fellow councillor as we are milling around after a meeting, “I suppose, if you had your way, you’d cancel the Show and use the money to accommodate Syrian refugees in the City or something like that.”

“On the contrary” I say, equally fantastically, “when I’m Lord Mayor I’ll restore the Show’s status as a celebration of London’s actual workforce. We’ll have junior doctors, hospital workers and care assistants leading the way. We’ll have floats for Living Wage employers together with their office cleaners. We’ll have public transport workers parading with black cab drivers as well as street cleaners, the people who actually keep the London show on the road. And I’ll personally sponsor a float to promote the introduction of the financial transaction tax.”

“I think you’ll find the City of London Cleansing Department already has a float,” he says and disappears. It occurs to me that maybe I went a bit far there with the banter.

When it arrives in the post a few days later I check the Show’s official programme.  It’s true that the cleansing department is in the line up for this year, at float number 67. But so too, I notice, is a one promoting the Worshipful Company of World Traders (between those sponsored by Starbucks Coffee and the property developer that owns Canary Wharf). Where, I wonder, do these World Traders stand on the Financial Transaction Tax?

Then again, since the City eschews dirty old politics, like the pageant master they probably don’t have a view on any of this since all they want to do is to make sure that the City is clean, safe, well-caffeinated and free to represent the interests of untethered finance capital. I guess that’s what comes with 800 years of self-determination.

William Taylor is a vicar in the London Borough of Hackney and the first Labour councillor in the City of London. He tweets @hackneypreacher

How should we address the problem of our ageing society and its impact on the NHS? It’s a question that ministers and health professionals have long been grappling with.

The challenge is enormous. The needs of older people are complex. One in four hospital inpatients has dementia and one in three adults admitted acutely to hospital is in the last year of their life. With life expectancy increasing – by 2030, it will be 88 for men and 91 for women – demand for services won’t slow down. This has created a difficult situation for the NHS, which simply doesn’t have the capacity to cope with the numbers coming through its doors. Indeed, many hospitals are reporting huge pressures from both increased A & E attendance at the front end and delayed transfers of care at the back end, according to a benchmarking report, Older People in Acute Settings, published by the NHS in April this year.

More integrated health and social care provision will help, as will the army of volunteers that Sir Thomas Hughes-Hallett recently suggested we need. The chairman of Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London believes that a “HealthForce” of volunteers could be trained to help care for elderly and frail individuals before, after and even during their stays in hospital.

However, there is a need to reduce the number of people physically accessing NHS services. Achieving this requires a combination of preventative measures that support healthy living and well-being and self-care initiatives that reduce reliance on hospitals.

Here, technology has an important role to play.

Better health at the push of a button

At their most basic level, websites provide information, support and companionship. Carers UK, for instance, has an online forum on which carers can pose questions and share advice; Cura offers a simple, secure and shareable online calendar that helps families find respite care for their loved ones; while Grannynet supports a community of more than 3,000 grandmothers.

Smartphone apps can also help to optimise personal ageing. There are some 100,000 health apps available today, many of which aim to address health inequity, increase physical activity and healthy diets and empower people to take control of their own health.

Loneliness and isolation have been linked to a range of health problems, from depression to the increased risk of heart attack and stroke. To try to address this, tech companies are developing easy-to-use tools to connect older people to their friends and relatives, such as a Skype-like video-conferencing facility that works through a set-top box and remote control, rather than through a computer. However, with the prevalence of smartphones and tablets these days even among the older community, tools such as SMS, WhatsApp, Snapchat and Instagram are also becoming more commonly used.

Staying independent for longer

“For older people whose illness and disease have been diagnosed, assistive technology has the potential to help them manage their conditions much more easily,” says Alan Davies, director of home health care at Philips. He refers to how telecare, telehealth and telemedicine can all contribute to longer independent living, more cost-effective provision of care and less wasted time.

“Telecare is the provision of remote alerting technology for people often living in their own homes. It doesn’t replace physical care itself but it can reduce the supervisory element of it, encouraging more independence whilst giving the person peace of mind that when they do need help they can still get it,” he says.

Davies uses the example of fall detectors to illustrate the benefits of telecare. Falling is the most common cause of injury-related death in people aged over 75 in the UK. There are around 282,000 reported falls each year, costing the NHS £2.3bn. Fall detectors can be an effective way to combat this problem. The Philips Lifeline AutoAlert is a pendant that people wear around their necks. It uses a series of sensors and algorithms that can detect when someone has fallen and will subsequently notify the carer or health team. This enables the wearer to access medical treatment much more quickly and potentially prevent further complications.

Telehealth involves the remote collection of physiological trend data – for example, by monitoring vital signs, such as blood pressure, heart rate and glucose levels – all from the comfort of the individual’s home. “At its most complex, it uses a range of sensors that would have previously required a trip to hospital. Nowadays, however, it can also simply mean an SMS-based care-plan prompting tool into which the user manually enters data or even a preventative, change-of-behaviour-oriented app linked to an mHealth [mobile health] wearable sensor. Whichever is used, the data is collected for interpretation against goals or thresholds and can be used by both the individual and clinicians to make decisions about actions to improve an individual’s health,” says Davies. “It can also mean individuals can get home earlier from hospital with a complementary programme of step-down recuperative care.”

Telemedicine, in which consultations are delivered remotely through video and audio, also reduces the need for patients to travel to hospital or the GP surgery.

“Telecare, telehealth and telemedicine enable patients to remain at home and give them back some measure of control. For example, for a COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] patient, if they are feeling anxious, they could review their recent trend data against the clinically defined thresholds set for them to get a sense of how the aggregate information collected measures up. If the equipment is showing that they are within acceptable boundaries, then that can reassure them and reduce the need for calling an ambulance,” says Davies. “Meanwhile, this same information is being received by a clinical multidisciplinary team (MDT) member, who, on a different week, seeing the trend moving in a concerning direction, might be in touch with the individual to help them take corrective action well in advance of the situation becoming more serious. It’s technology like this that can play a useful role in freeing up capacity within the NHS and better leveraging the available resources.”

For all the benefits that technology can bring, there are challenges, too – especially around adoption.

In May 2014, Philips and the Global Social Enterprise Initiative (GSEI) at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, Washington, DC, held an event titled “Ageing Well Working Session: Creating Connected Communities for Ageing Well” to try to identify some of the attitudinal barriers that need to be overcome if smart home technologies are to be more widely adopted. Some 91 per cent of older Americans say that they want to live in their own homes as they age; however, most do not plan to take the necessary steps, such as remodelling their home or adopting smart technologies.

One way to tackle this, the event report suggests, is to focus on developing and promoting tools that involve technology they are familiar with. “Ageing Americans are willing to invest in new tech for things that they are comfortable with and use regularly and in which benefits are tangible,” argues the report, which also suggests that people will “age into tech”. “Product strategies are needed to expose boomers to smart apps now to ensure a seamless transition to more assistive, smart technologies later on,” it says.

Older people are becoming more familiar with new technologies. The number of people aged 65 and over accessing the internet rose by more than a quarter in the space of a year, driven by a threefold increase in the use of tablet computers to go online, Ofcom revealed in 2014. The proportion of those aged over 65 who are accessing the web reached 42 per cent in 2013.

Despite this, older people can also have very complex needs that can make the provision of appropriate technology more costly and complicated to deliver. For example, a study by the Blackpool Teaching Hospitals found that the average 65-year-old with diabetes will have several other morbid conditions. Making sure that the telehealth provision meets all of those needs and is delivered in a way the individual understands can be challenging.

Telehealth-supported remote care is not suitable for every patient. “If you have a history of self-harm or alcohol abuse, it can be difficult to provide remote technology that can improve the quality of life. In these cases, a different approach to developing a goal of wellness must be taken but, once stabilised, this technology can then be introduced to support,” says Davies.

Support for carers, too

It isn’t just older people who can benefit from technology. It also helps their carers. Of the 6.5 million unpaid carers in the UK today, some 40 per cent look after their parents or parents-in-law. Technology can help reduce or remove some of the many duties they have. For instance, tablet dispensers help them manage medicine, while remote consultation facilities and online services allow them to connect with service providers. It is even possible to place GPS trackers in shoes to help care for patients with dementia who are prone to wandering off by themselves and getting lost (assuming a “best interests” test has been undertaken or consent provided, in accordance with the Mental Health Act).

Again, there can be barriers to adoption. A study by Georgetown University, also as part of the Ageing Well hub that is supported by Philips, showed how some caregivers are unconsciously disregarding enrichment as a goal in their care recipient’s life, instead focusing on the functional and practical duties of each day. For this to change, the report suggests, much more support and training for carers is needed.

Technology provides us with the opportunity to reimagine ageing and to find creative ways to address the challenges that our health service currently faces. Increased use of the facilities mentioned here and more can help maintain independent living and encourage cost savings. A win-win for everyone.

This article is part of a thought-provoking series on living health, brought to you by the New Statesman in association with Philips, which looks at how technology, innovation and big data are helping to improve your health and our health-care system.

So the Valletta Summit came and went, and it will soon be forgotten. The one thing it has achieved was putting migration from Africa back in the news for a day or two: while the Syria refugee crisis matters and needs urgent attention, the patterns of migration from Africa are not going to change anytime soon: according to Frontex in 2014 arrivals by sea from Africa accounted for up to 60 per cent of total border admission across Europe. It would be a mistake to think that this is no longer an issue just because right now people are not dying off the coasts of Lampedusa: people are dying in the Sahara in what is probably the most dangerous journey of all. Yet this is a ‘forgotten’ crisis, at least until next spring - and the Action Plan agreed at the Summit is a spectacular failure to do anything about this.   

The most tangible outcome is a not so new - and not so big - EU aid package for Africa: €1.8bn in exchange for easier deportation of economic migrants back to Africa. With remittances to Africa dwarfing aid  by a ratio of nearly three to one and €3bn recently agreed by the EU to support Turkey alone in its response to the refugee crisis, all things considered this deal is not worth much for African leaders, who left Valletta unimpressed and underwhelmed.

What the officials that struck the deal have also overlooked is that even when and if aid ‘works’, to reduce poverty and foster development, it is likely to lead to more, not less migration– at least from the very poorest countries.

Aid – or any form of charity for that matter- also misses a fundamental point of what drives migration.  People move not only to escape war and poverty, but also to fulfil their aspirations to a better life for themselves and for their families. For this reason alone, an action plan grounded in strategy of containment and hand outs is doomed to fail.

Unsurprisingly, much of the language in the plan is weak: the document is peppered with vague and meaningless words like mainstreaming, enhancing and supporting.  The commitments are generic, and where they are specific, they are spectacularly unambitious - charges to remittances to Africa will be cut down to three per cent, but only by 2030. 

And yet, the claims around fighting root causes of migration, from poverty to conflict and human rights abuses, as well as the promise of job creation and economic opportunities all across Africa are dangerously unrealistic and misleading. Addressing these challenges requires political action, not summits or emergency aid. Yet political engagement was not on the cards in Valletta, whether bilaterally between European and Africa countries or through the much anticipated, but currently vacuous ‘European response’ to the migration crisis. 

The limited financial resources and political capital that Europe can offer on migration from Africa would be better spent on more specific and realistic initiatives – such as enhancing legal migration where politically feasible through visas for a variety of migrants, not just students and entrepreneurs, temporary humanitarian visas for refugees fleeing wars and conflict and better, more reliable data, analysis and information especially on the economic benefits of migration.

Well intentioned as it may be, the Valletta Summit was a waste and the EU leaders who called for it have missed an important opportunity to take any meaningful action.

Marta Foresti is Director of Governance, Security and Livelihoods at the Overseas Development Institute.

Oscar Wilde, who knew a few things about censorship, once wrote that he could "tolerate everything except intolerance". Today, the rhetoric of free speech is being abused in order to shut down dissent and facilitate bigotry. On behalf of everyone with liberal tendencies, I’d like to know why and how we’ve allowed this to happen.

Before we start, let's all take a deep breath and acknowledge that sometimes change can be scary. Right now, cultural politics are changing extremely fast. Right now, ordinary people can speak more freely and organise more efficiently than ever before.

That single fact is pushing culture to the left too quickly for some people's comfort, and the backlash is on – including from liberals who don’t like the idea that they might have to update their ideas. Writing on Facebook, Marlon James named this backlash "the Liberal Limit", and spoke about mainstream writers in every centre-left outlet from the Guardian to the New Republic who are:

“Tired of learning new gender pronouns . . . Tired of having to figure out how to respond to a Rihanna video. Tired of feminists of colour pointing out fissures in whatever wave of feminism we got right now. Tired of black kids on campus whining all the time. Tired of everybody being so angry because without their alliance all you coloured folk would be doomed. Liberal but up to the point where it scrapes on privilege.”

Every generation of self-defined progressives has to tackle the fact that progress doesn’t end with them. Every generation of liberals has to deal with its own discomfort when younger people continue to demand liberation.

Instead of doing that hard, important work, today’s liberals – particularly older, established white male liberals – are dismissing the righteous activism of today’s young radicals as petty "outrage". They are rephrasing critique of their positions as ‘censorship’ so they don’t have to contemplate the notion that those critics might have a point. They are enraged that they are being challenged, and terrified, at the same time, of being deemed regressive. But liberals need a reason to think of themselves as just while ignoring alternative views, and "free speech'’ has become that reason.

I hear the phrase "freedom of speech" so often from people trying to shut down radicals, queers, feminists and activists of colour that the words are beginning to lose all meaning.  So before that happens, let’s remind ourselves what freedom of speech means, and what it doesn’t. I didn’t want to have to write a listicle, but you brought this on yourselves.

Ten things "freedom of speech" doesn't actually mean, and one thing it does:

1. Freedom of speech does not mean that speech has no consequences. If that were the case, it wouldn’t be so important to protect speech in the first place. If you use your freedom of speech to harass and hurt other people, you should expect to hear about it.

2. Freedom of speech does not mean you never get called out. In particular, it does not mean that nobody is allowed to call you out for saying something racist, sexist or bigoted. At the University of Missouri, according to the New York Times, students erected a "free speech wall" because they were worried that if they said what they really felt they would be "criticised". There are a lot of words for the phenomenon of not wanting to speak your mind for fear that someone might give you a piece of theirs, but "censorship" is not one. "Cowardice" is more accurate. Right-wing students and aging national treasures are perfectly free to hold and express opinions, but freedom of speech also includes other people's freedom to disagree with them – including protests and demonstrations.

3. Freedom of speech does not mean that you’re not allowed to challenge authority. On the contrary – the principle of free speech is all about our right to challenging authority, including the authority of employers, educators and political candidates.Too many liberal public intellectuals seem to have forgotten that this process did not end in 1968.

4. Freedom of speech does not mean that all citizens already enjoy equal access to free expression and movement. The United States, for example, repeatedly congratulates itself on being a society that allows far-right racists to march, and even allows them a police escort, while young black men are murdered merely for walking down the street in search of snacks. Somehow, every modern argument for free speech in America seems to begin and end with the defence of bigotry. In fact, some people’s speech is always privileged above others’.

5. Freedom of speech does not mean that all views are of equal worth. The notion of a "marketplace of ideas" allows for the fact that some ideas are less worthy than others and can slip out of popular favour. The principle of free speech requires, for example, that we do not arrest a public figure for saying that transsexual women are disgusting – but it does not demand that we respect that public figure, or elect her to office, or invite her to give lectures. If what seemed progressive 20 years ago is  deemed intolerant today, that simply means that the world is moving on. 

6. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for the consequences of your speech. Nobody else is actually stopping you from saying things other people might interpret as racist, or sexist, or transphobic. You are stopping yourself. And you're stopping yourself for a reason, because part of you knows that the world is changing, and it will continue to change, and you might have to change with it. You are allowed to make mistakes. What you can't do is ignore and dismiss the voices of less privileged groups and expect to hear nothing but polite applause.

7. Freedom of speech does not mean that "intellectual environments" like university campuses exist in a bubble outside politics. Universities have never been politically neutral. These are the same university campuses where young women are raped in large numbers, and  where the spectacle of young men marching into class with guns has become so routine reporters are struggling not to recycle news stories. And yet, somehow, it is not women and students of colour whose learning experience is deemed under threat – it is racism and rape culture that cannot be challenged on campus without calls of "censorship", or "political correctness run amok".

8. Freedom of speech does not mean that we are never allowed to analyse or re-interpret culture. The occasional use of "trigger warnings" on campus, for example, has been wilfully misinterpreted by those who did not grow up with them as an attempt to censor classic literature. In fact, trigger warnings are a call for cultural sensitivity and a new way of interpreting important texts. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is part of what studying the humanities has been about for decades. Back in real life, nobody is going around slapping "do not read: contains awful men" on the cover of Jane Eyre. There are no undergraduate mini-Hitlers burning books in Harvard Yard. The people who've got carried away by outrage here are the people devoting endless column inches to denouncing trigger warnings. 

9. Freedom of speech does not mean that the powerful must be allowed to speak uninterrupted and the less powerful obliged to listen. Across Britain and America, students are organising to interrupt the speeches of transphobic and racially insensitive speakers. Black Lives Matter protesters have disrupted Democratic campaign events, demanding that their own agenda gets a hearing. Some of the most pernicious liberal attacks on the new radicalism imply that students and young people should never complain about the views of a particular speaker, educator or pubic figure, and that the place of the young is to listen, not to question, and certainly not to protest. ‘Respect My Freedom of Speech’ has become a shorthand for ‘shut up and stop whining.’

10. Freedom of speech is more than a rhetorical fig-leaf to allow privileged people to avoid thinking of themselves as prejudiced. Freedom of speech, if it is to mean anything, is the freedom to articulate ideas and the possibility that those ideas will make an impact.

11. Freedom of speech is the principle that all human beings have a right to express themselves without facing violence, intimidation or imprisonment. That’s it. That’s all.  It’s simple, it’s powerful, and it’s genuinely under threat in many nations and communities around the world. Somehow, those who are so anxious to protect the free speech of powerful white men and regressive academics fall silent when women are harassed, threatened and assaulted for expressing opinions online, or when black protestors are attacked by police. 

There is, in fact, a free speech crisis in the West. The crisis is that the very principle of free expression is being abused in order to silence dissenting voices and shut down young progressives. The language of free speech is being abused in order to dismiss the arguments of those whose voices have been silenced for far too long.

These are truths that should outrage everyone who pays more than lip-service to liberalism. In the name of free speech, those who have always enjoyed the largest platforms and audiences are defending their entitlement to do so without challenge or criticism. The free speech delusion has gone unchallenged long enough. It’s time to end this wilful stupidity.

The unprecedented EU-African summit that has just ended in the Maltese capital Valletta was proclaimed a success. It was an example of African leaders co-operating with their European counterparts to resolve a common problem: the refugee crisis.

The political communiqué (pdf) was replete with motherhood and apple pie.

 “We recognise the high degree of interdependence between Africa and Europe as we face common challenges that have an impact on migration: promoting democracy, human rights, eradicating poverty, supporting socio-economic development, including rural development, mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change.”

The reality, buried in the action plan (pdf) was rather different. Certainly there were elements that were welcome. These included a recognition that African states bear the greatest burden of refugees – only a minority of whom actually make the journey to Europe.

There was also an understanding that the camps in which so many languish need to be upgraded. Security in the camps must be improved, education and entertainment needs to be provided, so that young men and women are not simply left to rot. There are even suggestions that some – a tiny, educated minority – might be able to travel via legal routes to European destinations.

What is really worrying is contained in paragraph 4 of the document. Here are details of how European institutions will co-operate with the African partners to fight “irregular migration, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings”.

This aim is laudable enough. But consider the implications through the eyes of a young refugee struggling to get past Eritrea’s border force, with strict instructions to shoot to kill, or to escape from the clutches of the dictatorship of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

Europe will offer training to “law enforcement and judicial authorities” in new methods of investigation and “assisting in setting up specialised anti-trafficking and smuggling police units”. The European police forces of Europol and the EU’s border force (Frontex) will assist African security police in countering the “production of forged and fraudulent documents”.

While there would be few who would oppose offering such support to democracies like Ghana, what will be the implication for the majority of refugees fleeing from notoriously repressive African states like Eritrea and Sudan? The price of forged passports is certain to rise all along the paths refugees tread, from Khartoum to Niamey.

The threat this poses refugees is no idle speculation. The latest quarterly report from Frontex (pdf) indicates that Eritrea is the main driver of African refugees. Eritrea is responsible for the third largest exodus of all refugees landing in the EU (10 per cent of the total) behind Syria and Afghanistan. Even war-torn Somalia does not come close.

The Eritrean government has made plain its intention to end this embarrassing exodus. At the last high-level meeting with the EU in 2014 the Eritrean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Osman Saleh, told the gathering that:

“Eritrea values its partnership with the European Union and is determined to work with the EU and all European countries to tackle irregular migration and human trafficking and to address their root causes. We call for an urgent review of European migration policies towards Eritreans, as they are, to say the least, based on incorrect information, something that is being increasingly acknowledged.” [emphasis in the original]

The Eritrean government will never accept that it is its own policies that force its young people into exile. Yet this is clearly the case.

The UN Commission of Inquiry into Eritrea’s human rights made this clear in June this year. Its key finding was that: “The Government of Eritrea is responsible for systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations that have created a climate of fear in which dissent is stifled, a large proportion of the population is subjected to forced labour and imprisonment, and hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled the country... Some of these violations may constitute crimes against humanity.” [emphasis added]

Despite this scathing finding European leaders, including David Cameron, had no qualms about reaching an agreement with the Eritrean and Sudanese governments. The aim of the European leadership is to attempt to slam the continent’s doors shut at any cost. Hardly surprising that Eritrea’s Foreign Minister welcomed the outcome. “A clearer and more accurate picture of the reality is emerging,” he said.

In reality, the West has decided that it is prudent to live with African leaders, no matter how unsavoury they might be. The Arab Spring is today seen to have led to the chaos that gripped Egypt and the collapse of the Libyan state. Rather than face a renewed threat of Islamist extremist regimes foreign ministries from Washington to Rome would rather back the current dictators. Better the devil you know. . .

Boris Johnson has announced a new deal with London rail operators which would let under-11s travel for free when they're with a paying adult. 

In lots of ways, the move makes sense. Under-11s already get free transport across London's Tube and bus networks, plus selected train lines. In fact, the exception of some rail services was creating a north/south inequality: there are more Underground services north of the river, and more rail lines to the south. This effectively meant that families south of the river were shouldering a greater financial burden while travelling similar distances.

This map shows lines where under-11s can travel for free (green) and lines where they currently pay:

Image: TfL via the BBC.

The move, which comes into effect on 2 January, will cost TfL around £500,000 a year. Meanwhile, though, it's hoping to make an additional £43m this year from increases to adult ticket prices, including an increase on season tickets of under 1 per cent (so they don't surpass inflation), and increases to zone 1 and 2 single fares. None of the fare raises are extortionate, but as Labour London Assembly member for transport Val Shawcross pointed out, Johnson pledged at the beginning of his mayoralty to cut fares - and has instead overseen an overall increase of 40 per cent. 

Considering TfL is looking at £43m in increased revenues next year, the free fares for under-11s don't seem hugely expensive. But in the context of a transport system that's unfair in lots of ways, it's also an easy way to score with voters without actually tackling the big problems. The free fares are a little reminiscent of the Liberal Democrats' free school meals for all policy. No one will argue with free stuff for children, even when it's a blanket policy that doesn't take means testing into account, and doesn't help those who use London's transport the most - commuters.

If Johnson really wants to make London's transport fares fairer, here are a few other things he could do with those millions he'll make from fare increases this year.

More sensible bus tickets

In a highly developed transport system with sophisticated ticketing, it's ludicrous that a journey on one bus line costs you £1.40, but a journey including changes could cost you double, triple, or even quadruple the amount.

London Assembly members have repeatedly asked for a system whereby you pay once an hour on buses, or have a twenty minute window to change in which you won't be charged. This would help make bus travel more affordable for those without Tube tickets, or those who must travel to and from work when tubes aren't running. 

Early bird fares

In the wake of the under-11s rail announcement, Caroline Pidgeon suggested a policy which could have helped out some of the capital's poorest workers: "We need to be implementing lower early-bird fares to help cleaners, security staff and other low-paid workers who get to London's offices hours before most commuters". This would also potentially take some of the pressure off peak time trains. 

Cheaper travelcards 

Weekly, monthly and yearly travelcards already make travel much cheaper for London's commuters than it is for tourists or daytrippers. However, the current system gives by far the biggest savings to those who can afford a yearly travelcard. For example, a yearly travelcard for Zones 1 and 2 works out as £107 a month; a monthly travelcard costs £123.00. This gives a huge financial advantage to those who can shell out over £1,000 at the start of the year - likely to be those working in higher-paid professions, or who don't pay rent. 

Sites like Commuter Club already offer a service which levels this divide: it allows you to pay by the month for your  travelcard, and pay something less than the price of twelve monthly travelcards (though more than an annual) over the course of a year. TfL could match this deal - or simply allow monthly payments on an annual travelcard. 

Editor Jason Cowley talks to Shiraz Maher about the threat Isis pose to Britain. Plus: we talk Corbyn's week in Westminster, and an interview with Goldsmiths prize-winner Kevin Barry. (Jason Cowley, Xan Rice, Shiraz Maher, Helen Lewis, Anoosh Chakelian, George Eaton, Tom Gatti, Kevin Barry)

You can subscribe to the podcast through iTunes here or with this RSS feed: http://rss.acast.com/newstatesman, or listen using the player below.

Want to give us feedback on our podcast, or have an idea for something we should cover?

Visit newstatesman.com/podcast for more details and how to contact us.

Francois Hollande has declared a national state of emergency, and partially closed France's borders, after a series of shootings and explosions in the north and east of Paris. Around 120 people have been killed and 200 injured, according to French authorities. 

There were attacks in six locations across the city: at Le Bataclan concert venue at the intersection of the 10th, 11th and third arrondissements; outside the Stade de France; at La Belle Equipe pavement cafe; and at two restaurants, Le Carillon and Le Petit Cambodge. The Bataclan attack was by far the most deadly, with 87 people believed to have died.

On Friday evening, explosions were reported outside the Stade de France, where the country's football team were playing Germany. (One was captured on a Vine by a spectator.) The president, Francois Hollande, was at the stadium and was evacuated. He has since called a Cabinet meeting and declared a state of emergency, closing the French borders to anyone trying to leave the country and banning traffic from some streets in Paris. He has called the events of the night"a horror" and vowed to wage a "merciless" fight against terrorism.

Eight of the attackers are dead, seven of them after detonating suicide bombs. (These are the first such attacks on French soil.) Police are continuing to hunt for accomplices, and no group has yet taken responsibility for the massacre, although the attacks appear to be co-ordinated.

In the Stade de France, the game was halted and some of the spectators at the game were held in the ground after Hollande left, before later being evacuated. 

Tout le monde est calme dans le stade. Un peu moins à l'extérieur, me signale-t-on. pic.twitter.com/KejRgMJ88z

— Maxime Dupuis (@maximedupuis) November 13, 2015

At the same time, a hundred people were taken hostage near the Bataclan arts centre, which is around 200 yards from the former offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked by gunmen at the start of the year. Witnesses reported two gunmen who started firing into the crowd. Just before midnight, the French police reported that the gunmen were dead.

There was also a shooting outside the Petit Cambodge restaurant in the 11th arrondissement. A BBC reporter on the scene reported seeing 10 people on the ground, either dead or seriously injured.

New Statesman contributing writer Shiraz Maher, a Senior Research Fellow at the International Center for the Study of Radicalisation at Kings College London who has written this week's cover story on whether Isis is planning to strike in Britain, tweeted: "I'm hearing from (well informed) contacts in France that this attack is Syria related."

Police and rescuers are seen outside a cafe-brasserie in 10th arrondissement. All photos: Getty

The US president Barack Obama gave a statement, saying: "We stand together with them in the fight against terrorism and extremism. This is a heartbreaking situation and those of us here in the US know what it's like we have gone through these kind of episodes ourselves." The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has tweeted:

I am shocked by events in Paris tonight. Our thoughts and prayers are with the French people. We will do whatever we can to help.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2015

In recent weeks Labour MPs have been asking when Jeremy Corbyn will make a speech defining his leadership and his policy agenda. Some have been surprised that greater efforts have not been made to draw the media's focus away from process and split stories. 

At tomorrow's Eastern region Labour conference, Corbyn will seek to address such concerns, delivering a speech setting out "where his leadership has come from" and where he wants "this movement Labour has launched to go, what we want to achieve and what our vision for Britain is all about". By far the most striking section is on patriotism. In a rebuke to David Cameron, who labelled him a "security threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating" at the Conservative conference, Corbyn will ask: "What’s pro-British about a government that slashes support for serving soldiers and military veterans? How is it patriotic to take money from the poorest, from working families, and hand control of your country to a super-rich elite? Labour will take no lectures in patriotism from the Conservatives, the political wing of the hedge-funds, the bankers and the 1 per cent elite.

"How dare Cameron’s Conservatives pretend that they speak for Britain. We stand for this country’s greatest traditions: the suffragettes and the trade unions, the Britain of Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley, Alan Turing and the Beatles – and perhaps our greatest Olympian Mo Farah - the working people of this country who fought fascism, built the welfare state and turned this land into an industrial powerhouse."

After criticism that he failed to reflect on Labour's general election defeat in his conference speech, Corbyn will do so tomorrow, saying that his party "failed to win back the economic credibility lost in the financial crash of 2008 or to convince potential supporters we offered a genuine alternative". Countering the charge that he is focused only on running the party, rather than the country, he will add: "If we focus everything on the interests, aspirations and needs of middle and lower income voters, if we demonstrate we’ve got a viable and credible alternative to the government’s credit-fuelled, insecure, two-tier economy, I’m convinced we can build a coalition of electoral support that can beat the Tories in five years’ time."

Corbyn will say that his leadership will be based on three pillars: a new politics, a new economy and a different kind of foreign policy. On the first, he will say: "The democratisation of public life from the ground up, giving people a real say in their communities and workplaces. Breaking open the closed circle of Westminster and Whitehall, and yes of boardrooms too."

"We want people to be able to participate in politics, to have a direct voice in every part of their lives. The leadership election gives an insight into what can be achieved – 400,000 people were mobilised to vote, and more than half voted online.

"And in our communities too, we can extend this process. That’s why we want to see a mushrooming of online democracy and citizen’s assemblies, and why we’re backing a constitutional convention to bring power closer to people in every nation and region of our country, in every community, town and city. That’s why we want communities to have more direct control of their own services."

He will also again signal that he wants to give both Labour members and registered supporters greater influence over the party's policy-making. "We want to see that democratic revolution extended into our own party, opening up our decision-making to the hundreds of thousands of new members and supporters that have joined us since May. It’s a huge opportunity for Labour: to remake our party as a real social movement, organising and rooted in our communities. That’s not about fighting sectarian battles or settling political scores. It’s about opening up to the people we seek to represent and giving them a voice through our organisation and in our decision-making, and drawing individual and affiliated members into political action." 

 On the economy, he will say: "We want to see a break with the failed economic orthodoxy that has gripped the establishment in this country and others for decades.

"The City elite that was supposed to know best brought the economy to its knees. The 1980s orthodoxy of privatisation, deregulation and low taxes on the rich hasn’t developed either sustainable growth, decent living standards for the majority or economic security. That model of how to run an economy is unmistakeably broken.

"We will put public investment first: in science, technology and the green industries of the future front and centre stage. We want to see the re-industrialisation of Britain for the digital age, driven by a national investment bank as a motor of economic modernisation for the 21^st century, not the phoney Northern powerhouse of George Osborne’s soundbites and platform speeches - but a real economic renaissance of the north: a renaissance based on investment in infrastructure, transport, housing and technology that provides a solid return - but that this government prefers to spend on cuts in inheritance tax for corporate giants and the wealthy. 

"Change that puts the interests of the public and the workforce ahead of short-term shareholder interest. Only an economy that is run for the real wealth creators and puts them in the driving seat – the engineers, the web designers, the cleaners, office and supermarket workers, technicians and health workers, as well as the entrepreneurs and the growing army of self-employed – is going to deliver prosperity for all in the future."

Corbyn will call for the government to take a public stake in the steel industry to combat the current crisis, declaring that "We need Cameron and Osborne to act as decisively in 2015 as Gordon Brown did in 2008, when Labour part-nationalised RBS and Lloyds to prevent economic collapse. If the Italian government can take a public stake to maintain their steel industry, so can we. That’s why Labour will be pressing Cameron to use the powers we have to intervene and, if necessary, take a strategic stake in steel - to save jobs and restructure the industry". 

Finally, on foreign policy, he will promise "A different kind of foreign policy — based on a new and more independent relationship with the rest of the world. For the past 14 years, Britain has been at the centre of a succession of disastrous wars that have brought devastation to large parts of the wider Middle East. They have increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security in the process."

Corbyn's speech is the fullest account he has given of his agenda since his Labour conference address. But it is notable that the pre-briefed extracts do not include any reference to Trident - the issue that so divides him and his shadow cabinet. While there is a greater degree of consensus within the party over economic policy than often suggested, there is no prospect of the nuclear divide being bridged. For Corbyn, resolving this issue, most likely through a free vote, will be one of the greatest challenges he faces. 

Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour’s leader has been accompanied by all sorts of talk about taking Labour back to its ‘core values’, its ‘traditional roots’, or its ‘original policies’. It is a beguiling image: an old-fashioned, straight-talking, rough-hewn, unspun Old Labour hero who’s ridden into town, saving the party from the initially successful, but ultimately shallow, ‘modernity’ of trim and muddle and compromise. The main flaw involved in this idea? It is almost entirely inaccurate.

Such claims cannot just float freely in the air: they should and can be tested, by reference to the historical record. And what that shows – once you clear away the accreted myths and stories that surround Labour’s foundation and early years – is that Labour has never before been led by a politician so far from its historic centre of gravity, so distant from the electorate, or so fundamentally divorced from the party’s intellectual mainstream.

Start with Labour’s foreign policy. Only one leader – George Lansbury, who took over in 1932 and led Labour until just before the 1935 General Election – has been an unequivocal pacifist. And the rather more realistic and belligerent trade unionists of the time made sure he was removed as the threat of European fascism became clear. Although not an absolute pacifist, Corbyn’s recent revelation that he could imagine no circumstances in which he would commit British forces to combat means he comes as close as you can without actually using the word, a position no Labour leader since Lansbury has come anywhere near.

His isolationist instincts – witness his call this week for a review of UK operations in Iraq – run clean counter to almost all of Labour’s post-Lansbury history. From Clement Attlee’s coalition with Churchill and the Conservatives to defeat Hitler and Imperial Japan, and then his alliance with the USA to fight in Korea, on to Jim Callaghan’s decision to upgrade the Polaris nuclear weapon system, through Michael Foot’s devastating denunciation of the Argentine military junta during the Falklands crisis in 1983, the party’s criticism of John Major’s weak-willed policy in Bosnia, and on to the Blair government’s intervention in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, Labour always been willing to fight to defend international peace, law and security. That is why Ernie Bevin, surely its greatest foreign secretary, fought so assiduously to found the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; it’s why Aneurin Bevan, so lionized by many Corbynistas, came to renounce his outright opposition to the atomic bomb; it was the means by which both Attlee and Harold Wilson, with mixed results, tried to effect leverage in Washington. To abandon this tradition as a return to “Labour’s principles” may or may not be wise: it is certainly not historically justified.

The second useful category here is how Labour is supposed to campaign – and what it is actually for. The Labour leader who Corbyn most closely resembles in tone and pitch is its first, Keir Hardie. The insistence that everything must be clear, that everything must be painted as black and white and not in shade of grey, recalls Hardie, and has helped Corbyn to the leadership with members and supporters tired of political doublespeak. But scratch a little deeper and Hardie abandoned the Liberals for a campaigning new “Labour” group not because he believed in campaigning for its own sake, and not because he wanted to stay pure and unsullied by contact with rivals and electors, but because he believed from the very start that a new party was needed to seize power and use it on behalf of the workers.

There’s a personal class element here, too. Hardie spoke in the language and accent of real lived hardship, a deeply-felt inheritance from his upbringing in the Lanarkshire mines – into which he had been sent at the age of eleven. Corbyn does not have that really instinctive feel for actual working people. He speaks in the language of the rallies he has so successfully mobilized: of younger idealists and older nostalgics. There is no doubt that there is some fallow soil for a new Left idealism, mined among others by Syriza, Podemos and Bernie Sanders. Sadiq Khan is in with a chance of being London Mayor, for instance, partly because of his inspiring life story as the son of a bus driver who grew up in a council flat. Watch Corbyn for but a moment, and read just about anything he’s ever said, and you realise: his oratory and prose are full of jargon and concepts, supposition and theory, not of a lived life as Hardie would have understood it.

Only under Lansbury has Labour even really considered going down a full-throated left-wing path. Stafford Cripps won some support with his call for a more efficiently and socialistically planned war economy in 1941-42, before Churchill cemented his position as War Premier at El Alamein; Tony Benn threatened to take over the Party between the passing of Labour’s Programme 1973 and his deputy leadership defeat by Denis Healey in 1981. But neither looked truly likely, for more than a few weeks and months, to actually become leader. The unions were too right-wing, and the selectorate too deeply rooted in practical ways of thought and life, for that: while the parliamentary party, until the 1980s, remained in control of who was Labour’s actual leader in the Commons. Both Labour’s moral and pragmatic impulses have either come from the Party’s centre (Attlee), from its soft left (Wilson, Foot, Neil Kinnock), its old right (Hugh Gaitskell, John Smith) or its trade union traditionalists (Callaghan). Even Tony Blair’s radicalism bore many of the hallmarks of long-established revisionist thought, crafted by Tony Crosland among others, insistent that the ownership and control of public enterprises and services was far less important than how they actually worked in the real world. Corbyn’s leadership rivals all stood to some extent for quite old and crucially Labour traditions: Yvette Cooper for Brown’s adaptation of Labour’s centre; Andy Burnham for its Kinnockite soft left; and Liz Kendall for full-on Blairite revisionism. Despite their new image as heretics, they are much more obviously “Labour” in a historical sense than Corbyn.

In place of all this Labour’s new leader is seeking to reawaken the plebiscitary and centralizing semi-democracy of Benn’s endless seminars and “consultations”, all the better to bore and cajole the right and centre of the party into submission. Allied as it is to the clicktivists and crowdsourced Greens and Leftists so evident from Stop the War and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, that means Labour as we know it is now subject to a takeover from outside as well as from within. All in the service of a more insular, controlling and – ironically – technocratic vision than Labour has ever before advocated, confident in the belief that the Government can reshape the economy, mildly sceptical about the European Union, supine in the face of Russian expansionism. It is beguiling, emotional, emotive – and deeply un-Labour. Attlee, Bevin, Bevan and Gaitskell would all have been appalled at the implied diminution of both Britain and Labour itself; Wilson and Callaghan would have understood just how little influence the UK could exert under these conditions; Kinnock and Smith would have sensed just how potentially dangerous such ideas are if Labour is to maintain a pluralistic, mixed, outward-looking, liberal and – yes, let’s say it – socialist view of the world.

Most Labour people can avoid the kind of divisive language that says any type of socialism or social democracy is a “virus” – if they try. And it’s certainly the case that there have always been awkward backbenchers, principled visionaries and far left activists in Labour’s ranks. But Labour has never, ever been led or even guided by its ultra-ideologues on the left. That’s a matter of historical fact, not opinion. Something entirely new and experimental is happening on one side of British politics, more novel than New Labour, more of a partisan wrench than compassionate Conservatism, and stranger than either: an attempt to bring the ephemeral campaigning techniques of the twenty-first century to the aid of policies we thought had been tested in the 1970s, before dying in the 1980s. Its fate remains to be seen. 

“As far back as I can remember,” reflects the narrator of Lucia Berlin’s short story “Stars and Saints”, “I have made a very bad first impression.” So much of Berlin’s distinctive world-view is concentrated in the resounding simplicity of that single sentence, with its swarming upper partials of regret, glee, nostalgia and a certain defiant comic fatalism.

Berlin, who died on her 68th birthday, 12 November 2004, led a turbulent life. She was born in Alaska, where her father worked as a mining engineer, and spent her early childhood in mining camps in Idaho, Montana and Arizona before moving in 1941 with her mother and younger sister to live with her grandparents in El Paso. Her grandfather, “the best dentist in West Texas”, later inspired her fearsome child’s-eye account of gonzo dentistry, “Dr H A Moy­nihan”. On her father’s return from war service the family settled in Chile, where Lucia learned fluent Spanish.

As a child she was diagnosed with scoliosis (spinal curvature), for which she had to wear a metal brace. She studied at the University of New Mexico, where she met the poet Edward Dorn and began to write. Strikingly beautiful, she married and divorced three times by the age of 32 and had four sons, whom she raised while working as a teacher, nurse, cleaning woman and switchboard operator, and struggling with the alcoholism from which her mother, grandfather and uncle also suffered.

These experiences are recorded with jewelled directness in the 76 short stories that Berlin composed during her lifetime. She received an American Book Award in 1991 for her collection Homesick, but popular success came only posthumously, when the present selection of 43 stories made the New York Times bestseller list on its US publication this summer.

Berlin writes about extremities of shame, humiliation and degradation with a ferocious elegance that allows neither bleakness nor sentimentality: “I don’t mind telling people awful things if I can make them funny,” says the narrator of “Silence”, the story of a disastrous childhood (“home was bad and school was bad”) in which graceful gestures of kindness and friendship are briefly proffered and as swiftly lost.

“Silence”, like many of Berlin’s stories, ends with a slashing final sentence that acknowledges the possibility of grace, while firmly closing it down. Considering a childhood incident in which her beloved uncle, then a hopeless drunk, now sweetly sober, ran over a boy and his dog with his pick-up truck and drove on, the narrator remarks, “Of course by this time I had realized all the reasons why he couldn’t stop the truck, because by this time I was an alcoholic.”

The depth of Berlin’s experience as the child of an alcoholic family and an alcoholic mother herself, as pupil and teacher, patient and nurse, lends her writing a complex humanity, to which she brings a glittering sense of the strangeness of the world. In “Temps Perdu”, a minute detail – the “little beady black eyes laughing from epicanthic gray-white folds” of an old diabetic – blooms into a rapturous, exquisitely controlled recollection of childhood friendship.

The editorial arrangement by Berlin’s friend Stephen Emerson is particularly sensitive to the jazzy musicality of the stories, with their vivid observational grace notes (“The fields around the county jail are like the grounds of a French castle”) and looping thematic riffs. Detox is a recurring figure. The fragile hopefulness and undertow of dread of “Her First Detox” (“I think I’ve had [delirium tremens] all my life, if, in fact, they are visions of demons”) fragments into scalding shame in “Unmanageable”, whose narrator, struggling shakily through the streets of Oakland to buy vodka at six in the morning, returns to her apartment (where the bookshelves are lined with titles by Jane Austen and Paul Auster) to plead for the return of the keys and wallet confiscated by her 13-year-old son. “You can’t stop anymore without a hospital, Ma,” he tells her.

Laundromats are another leitmotif, with their opportunities for the lengthy contemplation of the intimate detail of other people’s lives: the narrator of “Angel’s Laundromat”, wanting to dye a bedspread, drives across town to an Albuquerque laundry with a sign reading “YOU CAN DIE HERE ANYTIME”. Cleaning, too, offers a tempting cache of material: “I love houses, all the things they tell me . . .” the narrator of “Mourning” remarks. “It’s just like reading a book.” In the title story, a psychiatrist asks his cleaning woman why she chose this particular line of work. “I figure it’s either guilt or anger,” she drawls.

Each of these stories is like that: the narrative blade so sharp that you don’t feel it go in, until suddenly you notice that it has drawn blood, or tears, or laughter. One might think it a pity that Berlin didn’t live to enjoy her success, but the fierce virtuosity of this collection suggests little cause for regret. These perfectly poised cadences are the work of a writer who knew exactly how good she was. 

The full scale of the horrific attacks in Paris is becoming clear this morning. At least 120 people are thought to have been killed in six co-ordinated shootings and bombings, with a further 200 injured, 80 of them seriously. The eight attackers are also dead, seven of them after detonating their suicide belts. The deadliest assault took place at the Bataclan concert venue where 87 people are reported to have died. No one has yet claimed responsibility.

Here's how political leaders have responded. 

François Hollande

In a televised address, the French President said:

My dear compatriots,

As I speak, terrorist attacks of unprecedented proportions are underway in the Paris area. There are dozens killed, there are many injured. It is a horror.

We have, on my decision, mobilised all forces possible to neutralise the terrorists and make all concerned areas safe. I have also asked for military reinforcements. They are currently in the Paris area, to ensure that no new attack can take place.

I have also called a cabinet meeting that will be held in a few minutes.

Two decisions will be taken: a state of emergency will be declared, which means that some places will be closed, traffic may be banned , and there will also be searches which may be decided throughout Ile de France. The state of emergency will be proclaimed throughout the territory.

The second decision I have made is to close the borders. We must ensure that no one enters to commit any crimes and that those who have committed the crimes that we have unfortunately seen can also be arrested if they should leave the territory.

This is a terrible ordeal which once again assails us. We know where it comes from, who these criminals are, who these terrorists are.

In these difficult moments, we must - and I'm thinking of the many victims, their families and the injured - show compassion and solidarity. But we must also show unity and calm.

Faced with terror, France must be strong, it must be great and the state authorities must be firm. We will be.

We must also call on everyone to be responsible.

What the terrorists want is to scare us and fill us with dread. There is indeed reason to be afraid. There is dread, but in the face of this dread, there is a nation that knows how to defend itself, that knows how to mobilise its forces and, once again, will defeat the terrorists.

French citizens, we have not completed the operations. There are still some that are extremely difficult. It's at this moment that the security forces are staging an assault, especially in a place in Paris.

I ask you to keep all your trust in what we can do with the security forces to protect our nation from terrorist acts.

 

Long live the Republic and long live France.

 

Jeremy Corbyn

The Labour leader tweeted:

My thoughts are with the people of Paris tonight. We stand in solidarity with the French. Such acts are heinous and immoral.

— Jeremy Corbyn MP (@jeremycorbyn) November 13, 2015

Xi Jinping

The Chinese president said: "At the sorrowful moment of the French people, I, on behalf of the Chinese government and the Chinese people, and personally, condemn in the strongest terms the barbaric acts."

Angela Merkel

The German Chancellor said: "My thoughts in these hours are with the victims of these apparently terrorist attacks, their relatives, and all people in Paris,” Ms. Merkel said in a statement. “The German government is in contact with the French government and has expressed the sympathy and solidarity of the people in Germany."

Justin Trudeau

The Canadian prime minister told reporters: "It is still very early moments in figuring out what is indeed happening as we speak right now on the ground in France. It's too soon to jump to any conclusions. But obviously, governments have a responsibility to keep their citizens safe while defending our rights and freedoms. And that balance is something that the Canadian government and indeed all governments around the world will be focusing on."

Malcolm Turnball

The Australian prime minister said: "Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this terrible time. But our solidarity is with them too. When the French people left the stadium after that shocking attack, they were not cowed. They sang their national anthem proudly and that is how all free people should respond to these assaults.”

"In France, and Australia, all around the world, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of France and with all free peoples in the battle against terrorism."

Benjamin Netanyahu

The Israel prime minister said: “Israel stands shoulder to shoulder with French President Francois Hollande and with the people of France in our common battle against terrorism.”

Ashraf Ghani 

The Afghan president said: "The brutal attacks in Paris prove that global terrorism does not recognise borders. The Afghan people have for many years been the victims of terrorist attacks. They feel the pain of Parisians, and share the grief of the victims’ families. The people of Afghanistan stand with France on this terrible day. Terrorism is a serious threat to the entire world and we are united in the struggle."

I wouldn’t say that I’m obsessed with cookery books but I spent more time deciding my top ten than I did choosing my flat. Having finally settled on a list and sent it off to the online 1,000 Cookbooks project as requested, I suffered agonies of remorse the moment it appeared online. Months later, my dreams are still haunted by Delia, Hugh and all those other old friends I reluctantly had to leave out.

Picking just ten from my enormous collection made me feel as if I was Captain von Trapp being asked to choose between his children. It couldn’t just be about usefulness: I have yet to pot a lamprey or roast a cygnet but I treasure Florence White’s Good Things in England, a collection of “traditional and regional recipes suited to modern tastes contributed by English men and women between 1399 and 1932”.

Though the first bite is with the eyes, it had to be about more than mere aesthetics, too. Beautiful books of restaurant recipes feature prominently on the site’s overall list, collated from the top tens of over 400 chefs, food writers and addicts such as me. Thomas Keller’s stunning French Laundry Cookbook, which comes in at number seven, is a prime example, with its sabayon of pearl tapioca with Malpeque oysters and osetra caviar – the kind of food it is pleasurable to perv at over a big bowl of cauliflower cheese.

That said, I was heartened to see Fergus Henderson’s robustly meaty Nose to Tail Eating, a book that I have actually cooked from in the past, top the poll. Though I am still working up to his cold lamb’s brains on toast (“a dish”, he notes, “for those who particularly enjoy the texture of brain”), anything served on bread sounds eminently achievable to me.

Now, with Christmas approaching at vertiginous speed, I find myself wondering again what makes a great cookbook. The joy of each new one, rammed through my letter box from week to week, is largely in the savouring of the artfully styled photographs, the thrill of the unexpected. But the handful that I cook from regularly fall into two main camps.

First, there are the road maps: the trusty guides to unfamiliar culinary territory. Looks are less important than clarity and reliability here – I love the sumptuous Jerusalem (number 12) by Yotam Ottolenghi and Sami Tamimi but my tattered paperback copy of Claudia Roden’s 1968 Book of Middle Eastern Food still gets more use. An obscure book on Gujarati home cooking that taught me how to make a masala falls into the same camp, as does Geraldene Holt’s Cakes, first published in 1980 and still my go-to for British baking.

The others are the ones that fit my tastes like a glove: anything by Nigel Slater (Real Food was the book that turned me on to cooking in the first place), Diana Henry or Simon Hopkinson. Their pleasure in good ingredients, often treated very simply, shines through in every recipe and they are not afraid of big flavours, or a dollop of fat, either. Indeed, I make Nigel’s Parmesan garlic bread and Diana’s revelatory roasted tomatoes so often that I sometimes forget that I didn’t come up with them myself.

Perhaps that is a useful definition of a good cookbook. It is one that becomes part of you as a cook, the sacred, sauce-splattered repository of that birthday cake, the secret behind your famous fondant or celebrated soup, the one you give as a gift again and again, tearfully urging the recipient to try this recipe or that while clasping their hands with real, rather awkward sincerity.

In a year’s time, when the charity shops are groaning with glossily gorgeous “clean eating” titles, these old favourites will still be going strong. So when you’re doing your Christmas shopping, remember: no one ever died wishing that they had had more kale smoothies.

Next week: Nina Caplan on drink