Category: Media

Enough

I’m not a supporter of the Labour party leader but his call for change is surely one that is echoing through every street of the land. By the way, good choice for a location to make a national New Year speech[1]. And all the Conservatives could do in response is make populists claim that he’s a populist whilst doing nothing other than being populist. Populism eating itself. Populists accusing others of being populists. Admitting the flaws in what they do whilst trying to paint those flaws on others.

No, Prime Minister Sunak procrastination is not the way forward. He’s without core principles, hanging on to exploit whatever comes along. There’s zero authenticity only maximum opportunism.

Liberal Democrat party calls for a General Election are spot on. The reality is that we are destined to have a year’s worth of election campaigning ahead if the election date if not called for the spring.

Liberal Democrats “Tory Removal Service” may signal a love for publicity gimmicks but getting national attention when the media landscape is polarised is not a simple business.

Leader Ed Davey is showing that there is an alternative to the worn-out outdated political parties[2]. It’s a challenge to the British electorate. Do you want the stale ding-dong of national political debate to go on disappointing forever? We can do better. We can mend a political system that has been fundamentally broken for an age.

Rather than feathering the beds of supporters we need a government commitment to equality. Rather than short-termism we need a government that takes the long view. Rather than shunning our neighbours we need a government that embraces internationalism.

Yesterday’s resignation of Conservative MP Chris Skidmore[3] appears much like a rat leaving a sinking ship but it’s more important than that classic media interpretation of events.

Skidmore addressed the issue of short-termism head on. He’s resigning citing the on-going legislation to boost North Sea oil and gas drilling. Next week, the UK Parliament returns to consider an Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. This Conservative Government’s move is a kick in the teeth to the country’s green credentials. He states, I can no longer stand by. The climate crisis that we face is too important to politicise or to ignore.

Promoting the production of new oil and gas sources is a backward move. Yes, we need energy security but that should be a driver to invest in electrification and reducing energy waste. There’s a list of policy moves that could return the UK to a position of leadership on climate change.

2024 is likely to see the current Conservative administration flaking like peeling paint as it slowly decays. We do not need opportunistic papering over the cracks. It would be so much better for the whole country if they stood aside – soon.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67880324

[2] https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/new-year-2024

[3] https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-chris-skidmore-to-stand-down-over-bill-that-promotes-production-of-new-oil-and-gas-13042746

Comment

Custom and practice are as important as the rules and regulations that are part of our lives. Now and then, someone is criticized for applying the letter of the law without care for the spirit of the law. The same is true for custom and practice. Whereby, acting outside past norms can trigger a backlash.

Because, in free countries we believe in a free press, the rules and regulations that imping on what should and should not be said about events are always hard fought over. The banner of the “public interest” is touted as overriding. It may or may not be, but there’s an argument to be had.

In the aviation safety profession, I’ve grown up with an instinctively “need to know” disposition. I’ve shaken it off, mostly but there are signs that the attitude persists. This instinct can run counter to the transparency and openness that most people expect to see.

Why talk about the way major events are talked about?

A case in point is the recent runway collision in Tokyo. There’s much already written about the newsworthy aspects of the event, so I’ll desist from adding much more. There’s a lot of speculation too.

Graphs can be drawn of the media attention given to such tragic events against time. It’s typical that from moments after a major aviation accident until a few days after most initial facts are known there’s a huge surge in activity. This used to be described as newspaper column inches.

Today, wide ranging speculation is inevitable. It can be highly literate, and, on the other side of the coin, it can be badly informed, and now and then damaging.

In over three decades, I’ve been dealing with aviation accidents and incidents there has been notable changes in media and communications. For one, the universality of the INTERNET is now unquestionable. For another, the deference offered to authorities has diminished markedly. For yet another, the speed of with which images can travel around the globe is astonishing.

Most aviation professionals are tempered by caution. Aware of the techical complexities that can arise in aviation accident scenarios. What can seem in the heat of the moment to be an obvious cause and effect, after detailed analysis turns out to be wrong, or only a partial picture.

So, should aviation professionals be scathing about the enormous growth in commentary and public speculation? Especially when some of it is wild and or even outrageous on social media. No. I don’t think so. Like it or not this is our digital world. The freedom it affords to throw-up any opinion or theory can only be tempered a bit. The hope is always that the pure dross fades away when a reputable authority challenges it.

That then puts a responsibility on someone, with professional knowledge to challenge ill-founded speculation. Or, at least, to ensure that the major media outlets have reliable sources of trustworthy information. I don’t think aviation professionals should remain silent concerning speculation. That may have been the strategy decades ago. It no longer works. The greatest degree of transparency and openness, based on verifiable facts, should be the aim.

Comment?

Privilege

How we choose the people who make our laws. That matters. Or at least it should matter.

We are persuaded to think that UK General Elections solve this by putting a ballot in the hands of every eligible voter. Those national elections are called at the behest of the party in power, so there’s an element of choosing the playing field. Also, levels of voter engagement depend a greatly on the current affairs of the moment.

The song goes: “why should we be ballot with the ballot in our hands”[1]. That’s to say that elections should matter in the determination of what happens next. History shows that this is not quite what it seems. The song is a nice sentiment when the ballot makes a real difference. However, for a great number of positions of power and influence there’s no such thing as a ballot.

Basically, the British Prime Minister (PM) has powers that Julius Caesar would have coveted. Elements of the British political system remains feudal. Conferral of honours is part of the power package. There’s no argument that being PM is a demanding job but that shouldn’t be an automatic trigger to bestow gongs and seats on the red benches of Parliament.

The Liz Truss resignation honours list is an abomination.

An affection for honours is much more of a Conservative addiction than any other. It fits so well with a view that statesman come from an elite branch of British society. The over representation of the famous public schools of the country is one indicator. People with certain backgrounds are grossly overrepresented in Parliament. More recently professional political manipulators and bag carriers have been favoured.

Contribution to the political life of the country is code for having helped a particular political party or politician to get where they want to go. To the average citizen there’s little or no relationship between bestowed influential honours and the general public good.

Any appointments process benefits from being accountable and transparent. In this case there isn’t much of either. Publication of a list after the event doesn’t count.

There should be some interest in maintaining public confidence in the system. Well, that’s an assumption I’m making but the evidence shows that there isn’t much interest. Confidentiality surrounds the appointments process. That gives licence to speculation, conspiracy theories and unusual people unexpectedly popping up on lists.

Parliament’s House of Lords is no longer construction exclusively from the landed gentry, but lot of appointees owe allegiance to the status-quo. That status-quo being inherently conservative.

This is a time when people are pulling together plans for the next year. Restructuring ought to be near the top of the priorities. Respecting the merit of meritocracy has some legs. Overriding all, currently, is restoring public confidence in the political system. To not do so will result in troubles ahead. Big troubles.

[1] https://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/papers/2005/McLean%20Nou%20Beggars3%20050617.pdf

Democracy in Danger

Here’s a proposition. We are more adjusted to day-to-day fibs than we have been in the whole of history. The art of telling stories and telling lies has merged. Conflicts and tensions have fuelled a deluge of misinformation. It’s easy to put aside the clams of a flat Earth supporter but who’s to know about a major event that has just happened unless capable fact checking is immediately deployed? The liar’s advantage is an unfortunate reality. Bad New travels fast but corrections travel slowly.

Here’s some examples. Hardly a day goes by without a junk e-mail in my mailbox. These junk e-mails tell blatant lies as a means of deception. Either pulling heartstrings or threatening vicious measures. Absurd fake News is easy to spot but subtle – could be true or is that real – doubts can hang in the air.

We have got accustomed to bombardment of advertising that promises a glamourous perfume will enhance our lives immeasurably. Cars that will propel us into a technicolour future. Shop banners that proclaim being obviously better than other. Gambling opportunities that are only about winning.

An unspoken assumption exists. That is that our education, however elementary, provides each one of us with a sufficiency of cynicism to see through overblown promises. An ability to look a con artist in the eye and see through their smoke and mirrors. An in-built discriminating nature.

In fact, most people are quite insulted if it is suggested that they don’t have these superpowers. It’s an afront to say that someone has been led by the nose and scammed. Most of us are embarrassed if it happens, and we discover it. I mean extremely embarrassed. Then pure human pride can kick in and a period of denial is almost inevitable.

Has this atmosphere where truth and shams fight for attention put democracy in danger?

The origins of democracy weren’t about universal suffrage. Everybody being involved. Voting was reserved for citizens who held that status as a privilege. Today, we have come to think of democracy as every single person on a level playing field. This is idealism, but it’s a beautiful model.

Just as in ancient Rome, legislators exaggerate, manipulated information, build dubious alliances, and tell porkies to advance their positions. Some of this is the warp and weft of politics. It’s reasonable to say that we have evolved a discriminating nature. Only that discrimination is rather fragile.

The speed and volume of media communication grows with no seeming limit. Technology has enabled this advance. However, I’m wary of blaming technology for a proliferation of misinformation. That’s to deny that there’s an intent behind deception.

It’s going to be useless to have a highbrow intellectual discussion about Artificial Intelligence (AI) if the outcome is no change. We may as well blame the fibre optic cable that pump data around the world. Even with AI there is human intent behind the technology. These are behavioural matters.  

Yes, democracy is in danger, but the solutions are in our hands. We need not become victims.

Election

US President Donald Trump a second time around. Now, there’s a thought to concentrate minds.

It was our summer holiday in 2015. Doesn’t seem all that long ago. In July, we took a British Airways flight out of London Heathrow to Boston[1]. Picked up a car and drove. This may have been my last flight on a jumbo, a Boeing 747-400 before COVID struck and pensioned them off[2].

It was a terrific adventure as we had about 10 days to explore New England and the Hudson Valley. Sue and I had done a similar trip before but this time we had a well-thought-out itinerary that took us to new places. A couple of nights here and a couple of nights there, as we drove through the beautiful countryside in the sunshine.

This is not a travelog. A part of the story of the trip is of arriving at a motel after a long day, switching on a scruffy TV and watching practically whatever comes on first. On this road trip, often, the News was first. The News had a focus on the selection process for Republican candidates for the coming Presidential race. That’s the November 2016 United States presidential election.

The News was really like a scene from The Usual Suspects[3]. A line of suited and booted candidates vying for position, looking uncomfortable and one strange turbulent outlier. It was as if an alien had landed at a bank clerks’ convention. Commentators were going out of their way to say that the outlier didn’t have what it took to win a grown-up race. Of course, you know who I’m taking about.

As we went from motel to motel it became apparent from the viewing that we snatched that the Republican selection was not a normal one. The orthodox candidates had no idea how to deal with a bawdy cocky Donald Trump. The idea that Trump might serve as the 45th president of the United States was way off the chart. This media personality, come self-proclaimed successful businessman was hammering away at the mild-mannered dull opposition somewhat like a man with a chainsaw might attack a chicken coop. Still commentators derided the idea that he might win.

Let’s just say we have all learnt a lot since mid-2015. There are few people who can claim to have predicted what was to happen for the next 8-years. That is with 2017 to 2021, with Trump installed as the most powerful man on Earth. It sends shivers down my spine thinking about it. That said, the golf courses of world probably gained a lot and social media has never looked back.

The habit of spewing out constant streams of falsehoods and odious propaganda worked first-time around. Aided and abetted by shadowy media forces and with loads of funding the real estate man won. Surprisingly, all of this is alive and kicking in 2023. Ready for the same outcome.

Millions of people believed Trump, and guess what, they still do. By urging his supporters to march on Capitol Hill, when the last election result was being certified, he showed what he might do next. An insurgency, the like of which the United States hasn’t ever seen. The Usual Suspects maybe two movies in one. 2016 and 2024 maybe two elections with one outcome. It doesn’t seem like the law, however it’s interpreted, will prevent him standing for public office.

[1] BOS Boston United States, Logan International

[2] https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/18590175.boeing-747-jumbo-jet-graveyard-gloucestershire/

[3] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814

Pod

Will podcasts overtake broadcast radio? It’s a question that it had not occurred to me to ask until yesterday. I’ve not been a first adopter as far as listening to podcasts. There’s a routine of turning the radio on at a particular time of day to listen to news and current affairs. That daily routine or habit is born of a long tradition. The morning starts with the Today programme on BBC Radio 4.

Yes, I’m way behind the curve. Go into any large electrical shop, one wall of the warehouse will be filled with earpieces and headphones of every size and shape. The variety of choices is staggering. Sit on bus, train, or aeroplane and more than half the people around will be turned into a source of audio entertainment. Music and talk fight for our attention.

This is great for the streamers and downloaders but lossy for conversation. Sitting next to an interesting person on a long flight is a wonderful way of occupying a couple of hours. That opportunity is diminishing as people become absorbed in digital media. Even the smallest of phones has become a multipurpose entertainment system.

I have long been converted to digital media. FM radio is great for its universality but with less DAB[1] blind spots its life expectancy must be diminishing. Broadcast digital radio based on DAB is a global standard even though coverage is not universal. The digital avalanche is pushing aside any remaining analogue system that populate our lives. Ironically, as far as physical media ownership is concerned, vinyl and even cassettes are resurgent. On the airwaves it’s less likely there will be a romance for analogue radio.

Why have I reassessed the virtues of podcasts? Yesterday, I listened to The Rest Is Politics[2]. This podcast has a conversational style. It’s Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart talking about current affairs in the UK. Two people who have had their moment in the political sun but remain articulate and inquisitive. They have something to say and it’s engaging.

This is a bridge to podcasts from broadcast radio in that the material is up to date. The topics discussed are wrapped around the news. It’s refreshing too. The ability of the two to argue in a calm and collected manner is unusual in our time. So much of the presentation of news is calamitous and confrontational that this is shocking to say.

Maybe that’s the role of podcasts. Reflection and analysis can be better done in slow time. Broadcast radio news is crammed full of snippets of what’s happening. It would loose its edge if it drifted off into too much extended investigations or drawn-out interviews. So, what may seem like competition between two forms of readily accessible media should be viewed as complementary. Both can fulfil an appealing role in the digital media landscape.

[1] https://www.worlddab.org/

[2] https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-rest-is-politics/id1611374685

Change needed

In so far as voting systems are concerned, it’s often been misleadingly said that Proportional Representation (PR) would result in endless back room deals and politics conducted behind the scenes. This is because different political parties would need to negotiate more often than they need to do so in a purely adversarial system. However, whether that political negotiation is in public or in private isn’t on the ballot.

Today, we have a perfect illustration of the downside of the current First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system in the UK. The results of the UK’s voting system are not a broad representation of the views of the voting public, rather it’s the representation of the factions of the dominant political party. That is dominant in terms of numbers of elected Members of Parliament (PMs).

Instead of negotiations going on between political parties with defined aims and objectives UK citizens have negotiations conducted behind the scenes in back rooms inside a political party.

Rather than tolerating more than one secret “star chamber” of MPs, we ought to be questioning these unstable undemocratic practices. The fragile coalitions within political parties, like the Conservative Party, are completely fragmented and hold wholly different views on important issues.

Surely, it would be much better if different party factions were honestly represented by the own political party. That would give the voting public a fair choice. That would make voting more meaningful. Today, under FPTP the voting public have no idea what they will get. Don’t doubt that statement just recall what has happened in the UK since 2010. The UK’s electoral system is broken. That’s why current opinion polling says that the level of trust in politicians is low and getting lower.

With PR difficult issues are openly discussed. Political parties exist to promote their philosophy. If they are liberal, they are liberal. If they are authoritarian, they are authoritarian. If they are progressive, they are progressive. If they are conservative, with a small “c”, they are conservative. If they are internationalist, they are internationalist. If they are nationalist, they are nationalist.

Today, for the two political parties often taking power in the UK their official names don’t mean a thing. It says little about what they will do when elected to a position of power.

In 2019, the Conservative Party were given a big majority of the seats in Parliament despite only winning 44% of the vote. Yet, MPs from fringe factions will stand-up pontificating about their representation of the people. Constantly, saying that the British people want this or that when such loud assertions are clearly untrue.

The UK’s FPTP system means that millions of public votes are wasted. Large numbers of people are denied a voice, and the make-up of Parliament does not reflect how people cast their votes. The UK’s electoral system is not fit for purpose.

Half full

Winter Sunday mornings are a good time for mild depression. Awake to grey skies as the bedroom radio clicks into action. Well, that’s one way of looking at the words dribbling out of the airwaves. Bouncing off the bedroom walls and hitting my half awake ears.

It’s billed as a weekly reflections on topical issues from a range of contributors. That’s elementary well-crafted BBC wibble[1]. Range of contributors means radio chums who sit well with the semi-religious Sunday schedule.

If we go back a couple hundred years, a middle-class family would be huddled around a hulking great bible looking for insights and explanations of the world around. Technology, namely radio, gives us the opportunity to squeeze all that into a short morning sermon. Now, the internet means a keen listener can revisit an ephemeral broadcast, any time, and any place.

Sunday morning should, in my mind, mean an articulate 10-minute essay on anything. Yes, anything. Often, it’s a rush to be profound and tickle unwilling asleep brain cells. This can start with controversial words that are then diluted for the breakfast table. Rather than writing a best-selling self-help book that only sells at international airports, Radio 4 drags in a version of deep thought to churn over a subject that’s vaguely topical but not quite. Vaguely philosophical but not quite.

Strangely, I like listening to the laconic warbling of someone like Wil Self[2]. It’s true that I can only do that if the dosage is reasonably thin. An excessive exposure to early and intense thoughts about the human condition can get overwhelming. Especially when sentences are the length of a double decker bus.

Sunday’s awakening is a moment in the week when I can be assailed by adolescent optimism or gravelly pessimism. Bravura passages can run the gamut of the whole of history. Equally, they can dissect a microscopic moment of personal revelation.

I’m going to get Confucian. If I recollect correctly, he has something to say about NOT being obliged to accept gifts that are not given with the best of intentions. It’s a kind of allegory. It’s a good one for the social media age.

Let’s say Suella Braverman does a slot on the BBC’s Point of View. I might be included to turn the radio off. But that’s not a good reaction for me, a person who believes in freedom of speech within civilised and reasonable limits. There’s the rub.

The essence is that it’s one thing to be offered a gift of someone’s great “wisdom” but there’s no obligation on my part to accept it. I think, in this country there’s too much a tradition of not rocking the boat. That’s to accept a gift as a matter of politeness. Even if the gift is quite appalling or bound to be harmful. Some cultures and countries don’t have that problem. I’m a great fan of Dutch bluntness. It’s a classical Britishness that has unwanted repercussions whereby we tolerate that which should be given short shrift.

How did I get to this point? Don’t tell me pessimism is good for us on a damp gloomy Sunday morning. Human events are not mostly random. Agreed randomness is a big part of life but please drop the “mostly”. Understanding probability is a useful skill. Randomness isn’t so random. But don’t let such an understanding led you to think that choice is immaterial.

I will choose. Radio, on or off. Get up now, or slumber.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001t34q

[2] https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/out-of-their-minds/

B. P.

A forensic dissection of the recent past is highlighting how major decisions are made in the corridors of power. It’s not nice to hear but it is good to hear. Transparency is a benefit of democracy. What we see is not pretty. There’s that saying about politics and making sausages being much the same. We desire results but are shocked if we study how sausages are made.

We easily get trapped in the noisy interchange between personalities. Newspaper headlines draw on our fascination of who said what and when. The more embarrassing the chatter the bolder the headline. The questions how and why are not given as much attention.

Even sampling a little of the reports of the compilation of evidence there’s a trend emerging. Much of this has to do with the way administrators, politicians, and scientist (practitioners and the theoretical) understand each other or don’t.

The classic divided between the Bachelor of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (BA) and the Bachelor of Sciences (BSc) is firmly embedded in our society. The divide between Oxbridge and the rest can look like a deep gorge. The divide between those who are instinctive hustlers and gamblers, and analytical reasoning calculators is uncomfortable.

Putting the above to one side, what shines through the submissions of the UK COVID inquiry is an embedded lag between events and a reaction to events. Knowledge with hindsight is wonderful. Time and time again after big events, files are taken down from a dusty shelf and on their pages is a register of risks. Within that the register is a discussion of risk of an event that has just become history. This week we heard a former Prime Minister almost admit that the COVID pandemic wasn’t taken as seriously as it should have been until it nearly killed him.

What does this say about our propensity to plan or take plans seriously? What does it say about becoming overcome or steamrollered by events? What can we do better to be prepared in future?

Lessons learned are fundamental to improving any way of working. It’s a feedback mechanism. Taking what can be derived from a crisis, catastrophe or momentous event and writing it down. Using that to make strong recommendations. Then tracking changes and moving forward to what should be a better prepared state. 

We know we don’t have to wait for bad events to happen before we prepare. Our human imagination provides us with an effective means of anticipation. Tragic in the case of COVID is the ignorance of warnings that previous events had provided. The lesson from SARS[1] were know.

Maybe this is the Cub Scout coming out in me. Yes, that was part of my early upbringing in the village of Somerset. The motto of the British Scout movement[2] has a lot going for it: “Be Prepared”. Much of what goes with that motto is anachronistic, but the essence is immensely valuable.

[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome#tab=tab_1

[2] https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2017/05/08/be-prepared-scout-motto-origin/

GE2024

Let me spectate. I’m no professional commentator, pollster or political pundit but do try to keep myself up to speed with the current affairs. The question in the mind of a lot of people is: when will the next UK General Election take place?

In these days before Christmas, it’s possible the Prime Minister (PM) doesn’t even know the answer to this question. It’s a balance of how strategic or opportunist he will be when it comes to making such big decisions. Most current predictions are that the Conservatives are destined to be defeated. The gap in the national opinion polls is substantial. That makes the decision of timing of an election one that could mark the end of the current PM’s term of office or elevation to Conservative saviour. Currently, political parties are desperately selecting candidates for each constituency. Something is afoot. Better stop there before I get tempted into a pun.

Let’s put aside any consideration of a winter vote. Arctic weather gloom hovers like cold mist. With the prospect of large heating bills upsetting most of the population there’s no politician who will want to accept the blame for that situation. Naturally, they will say that they are working at pace to tame inflation and overseas conflicts are the root of the pain.

The first step on the road ahead is next year’s springtime. Local elections are expected. Every year, they take place on the first Thursday in May. This is when a third, or less of the electorate put a cross in a box. At the same time London’s next mayor will be elected. So, 2nd May 2024 will be like a mini political barometer. Real votes in real ballot boxes are always a better indicator than sampling or sage views.

The European Parliament election is scheduled for 6th to 9th June 2024. You may think this European Union (EU) election has no bearing on the UK, but I beg to differ. If there’s a significant advance of right-wing political parties across Europe, then the impact will be felt in the UK.

The 2020 United States (US) presidential election was quite a show. In prospect, for the 2024 US presidential election is a gripping event despite the weak selection of candidates. That US national election is scheduled for Tuesday, 5th November 2024. Guy Fawkes day[1] in the UK.

Let’s assume the Conservative party will want to hang on, not to the bitter end, but to get as much time elapsed after the pandemic shockwave, Partygate, mini budget madness and the cost-of-living crisis as they can. We are still reeling from the post-Brexit political earthquakes that have trashed confidence and the economy. Will the cost of government be political exile? That all said, people have shifted a long way since last year. The big question is: who do you trust?

The UK’s Labour party opposition should be confident and smiling. However, the opposition probably feels aggrieved having to wait so long for others to fail before getting an opportunity to win a general election. What doesn’t help is that the electorate are now pessimistic about any sustained recovery. Sadly, the public mood is beset with quite a sense of decline-ism.

Traditionally, in the UK, September is party conference season. That leaves October open for an election. But as noted above there’s a news media attention getting clash between what’s happening in the UK and US. Since significant geopolitical tensions are going to be raging throughout 2024, I think that topic may not be an influencing factor on the UK election date question.

Rolling the dice as late as October 2024 has several advantages for the incumbents. If there’s good summertime news, say inflation reduced and a modicum of economic growth the government will claim a great success. The struggle between democracy or autocracy around the globe could give a UK PM a platform on which to make one or two grand gestures. Also, with nearly a year to go, the opportunity for the opposition parties to trip-up increases.

When polls ask is Britain a better place to live than it was ten years ago or a worse place to live than ten years ago the pointer points at worse. It’s hard to imagine this will not impact voter intentions. 

#ukpolitics #ukpolitics #politics #generalelection

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/the-gunpowder-plot-of-1605/overview/people-behind-the-plot/guy-fawkes-/