In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling


Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.

Shaded​ by eucalyptus and dotted with masticating kangaroos, Canberra is an unlikely contender for ‘coup capital of the world’. But the Australian capital has seen five prime ministers in the past six years, the result of uprisings within the alternately governing Liberal and Labor Parties. No prime minister has served a full electoral term since 2007.

Malcolm Turnbull, the sitting prime minister and leader of the centre-right Liberal Party, succumbed to an insurrection from his party’s conservative fringe late last month. The facts are straightforward: after a series of poor polls and by-election defeats, he appeared vulnerable. Conservative members hated him for his support of the (successful) same-sex marriage plebiscite in 2017, his long-term involvement in the Australian Republican Movement and his belief in human-induced climate change. The fact that Turnbull had done little to support most of these causes since he became leader, ceding considerable ground to the right to shore up support for his economic agenda, didn’t mollify his critics.

Led by Peter Dutton, the anti-immigration minister for home affairs, the insurgents insisted that, with Turnbull as leader, the party would haemorrhage votes to smaller right-wing parties. In particular, the nativist One Nation Party (similar to Ukip) had been making significant gains in Queensland, Dutton’s home state. On 21 August Turnbull called the rebels’ bluff and declared the leadership of the party (and, by default, the country) vacant. The Liberal MPs and senators who gathered in the party room were faced with a choice between Turnbull and Dutton, and backed the former by 48 votes to 35. But Turnbull was far from secure. Three days later, MPs backed another spill – the term used for the declaration that the leadership is vacant – and this time Turnbull declined to stand. He initially supported the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, in a three-way contest with Dutton and Scott Morrison, the treasurer. Bishop bowed out after receiving only 11 votes, despite having served as deputy leader of the party for 11 years. At press conferences following the coup, she described the bullying she and other female Liberal MPs had experienced from the rebels. Morrison emerged as the compromise candidate, and became prime minister on 24 August. It may not have been an outright victory for Dutton, but it was certainly a failure for the moderate wing of the party: Morrison campaigned for a ‘No’ vote in the same-sex marriage referendum and, as immigration minister, launched a militarised campaign, known as Operation Sovereign Borders, to intercept and imprison refugees in defiance of international law.

The roots of the current turmoil are deep. Turnbull himself deposed the previous prime minister, Tony Abbott, in a spill in September 2015. Abbott remained in Parliament as the not so secret ringleader of the conservative faction, openly plotting revenge. Before Turnbull and Abbott, the Labor prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard had repeatedly moved through the revolving doors of leadership, deposing each other with increasing bitterness. And on top of this, since mid-2017 Australian politics has been convulsed by a series of scandals related to Section 44 of the constitution, which disqualifies citizens with dual nationality from standing for Parliament. Persistent digging by political rivals revealed almost twenty sitting members who were, in some cases unknowingly, still citizens of Canada, New Zealand, Italy or Britain. In a country where more than a quarter of all citizens were born overseas, it was striking to be reminded that a sizeable proportion of Australians could be constitutionally excluded from political power. One way and another, it isn’t surprising that public dissatisfaction with the ‘pollies’ in Canberra is at a record high.

Why the radical instability? Domestic commentators generally point to the particularities of the Australian political system. Voting is compulsory; failing to vote earns you a fine. Governmental terms last only three years – the shortest of any established democracy. These brief parliaments mean politicians keep a constant eye on the polls, and take swift and often brutal action to hold onto power beyond the next election. If the polls look bad, it is tempting to overthrow the current leader. The rules governing leadership ballots encourage factionalism. Most party leaders are elected by sitting members of Parliament, with no input from the party membership and with only a simple majority needed to ‘roll’ a prime minister. Following its own spills in 2010 and 2013, the Labor Party, now the main opposition, has changed its bylaws to give rank and file members a say in leadership decisions. But these rules have yet to be tested, and those watching the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn are nervous of a similar split between the parliamentary party and the members.

The two houses of the Australian government are modelled on the Westminster system: the majority party in the House of Representatives forms the government and introduces new legislation. There is a leader of the opposition, usually the leader of the largest party outside the government, and a shadow cabinet. There is an upper house, the Senate, which resembles an elected House of Lords, but has more powers. And, of course, the queen is the head of state. The six states – the former autonomous British colonies – have their own constitutions and parliaments; functions are divided between them and the federal government. Seats in the House of Representatives are proportional to population and the 150 MPs are elected by full preferential voting: you have to list all the candidates on your ballot paper in order of preference. This system, in place since 1919, means that a coalition (like the Liberal-National coalition currently in government) can contest the same seats without dividing votes.

The cascading coups have eroded voters’ faith, with critics calling for direct accountability. Opinion polling, which is increasingly fetishised, gives mixed messages. Turnbull justified his successful spill against Abbott in 2015 by pointing to thirty polls showing the ruling Liberal-National coalition well behind the Labor opposition. This year Turnbull’s opponents used this metric to justify their challenge when under his leadership the party suffered a similar fate. Although politicians publicly call for surveys capturing a broad cross-section of the population, privately they are more interested in gauging the strength of their own base support. In the case of the Liberal Party, disproportionate weight was given to the views of a small section of the electorate: those voters thought to be at risk of jumping ship to the far right and voting for One Nation.

Australia is not alone in its current unease about the nature of representative democracy, or in its politicians’ anxious concessions to the right. Dutton’s ability to challenge Turnbull rested on his claim that his social conservativism would prevent similarly minded voters from turning to extremists. This strategy might have benefited Dutton in the short term, but it distorts the political field. Parliamentarians, insecure about their legitimacy, are behaving increasingly undemocratically. The Liberal Party’s conservative faction has little appeal to the almost 50 per cent of Australians who were born, or have a parent who was born, outside Australia, and against whom the Anglophone, nationalist rhetoric of One Nation is directed. But Canberra’s political elite seems unable to decide how much the opinion of this segment of the population matters. Until it does so, the bloodletting looks set to continue.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 40 No. 19 · 11 October 2018

Philippa Hetherington may ‘still call Canberra home’, as I once called London home (LRB, 27 September). But it helps to live at the coal face. The ‘particularities of the Australian political system’ long preceded the recent ‘radical instability’ represented by our having had five prime ministers in six years. Certainly these particularities have contributed to the instability, not least by facilitating the rise of ‘Nativist’ populism, which has boosted the vote of the minority One Nation Party, mainly at the expense of the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition.

But arguably the main reason has been an unfortunate sequence of prime ministers, especially Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. All three had powerful, even narcissistic egos, and arrogant know-it-all dispositions. None of them could run governments. All of them were finally voted out by parliamentary colleagues worried about their jobs. Turnbull was a great disappointment, particularly in his political ineptness, right down to calling a spill that fateful recent Tuesday morning when he didn’t have to. He failed to call an election in late 2015 to capitalise on his then huge poll lead. Instead he stumbled badly in the 2016 election, emerged clinging to office, all the better to be picked off by opponents inside and outside his party.

Where now? Well, Scott Morrison has shown early signs that he has an ear sensitive to the middle ground. He may well prove a much tougher opponent for Labor at next year’s federal election than his predecessors were.

William Etheridge

For readers who aren’t accustomed to seeing the word ‘spill’ in a political context, Philippa Hetherington explains that it’s ‘the term used in Australia for the declaration that the leadership is vacant’.

The Editors

Vol. 40 No. 21 · 8 November 2018

In her report on the ‘radical instability’ of Australian politics, Philippa Hetherington refers to the 2017 ‘same-sex marriage plebiscite’ and also to ‘the same-sex marriage referendum’ (LRB, 27 September). It was neither. Today the term ‘referendum’ is confined to a poll seeking to amend the constitution. The government in fact wanted to hold a plebiscite on the issue but the legislation enabling it was rejected by the senate. The government then came up with the strange idea of a postal survey to be conducted by the Bureau of Statistics. This did not require legislation and would only be advisory – voting would not be compulsory, as it is in elections and referendums.

Supporters of marriage equality were at first hostile to the proposal, seeing it as a delaying tactic, but the Bureau took its responsibility seriously, widely publicising the poll and encouraging people not on the electoral roll to add their names in time. The Bureau’s meticulous preparation of the survey encouraged supporters of marriage equality to launch a vigorous campaign. Then a remarkable thing happened. Voters were, it seemed, eager to respond. In the end an impressive 79.5 per cent responded, with 61 per cent voting ‘Yes’. Every state and territory voted ‘Yes’ by a large margin. Conservative opponents were shattered. Parliamentary opposition withered away, and in the end only four members of the House of Representatives were prepared to vote against the required legislation.

The emphatic result of the postal survey can, in some measure, be seen as a censure directed at our parliamentarians, who had evaded their responsibility for resolving the issue. But, alas, after that brief glimpse of something resembling bipartisanship, we are back with the politics of vengeance and policy paralysis.

John Rickard

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.