The town of Tewkesbury is submerged in receding flood waters of the River Severn and Avon. Photograph: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The drowned world

As the planet warms, extreme weather is becoming a part of our daily life, but Britain is still ill-equipped to cope with the floods.

I arrived in Tewkesbury on the November day the flood waters began to subside. The Swilgate, the tributary of the Avon that runs round the southern edge of the town, had overflown its banks fours days earlier. The dark brown water had spilled across a car park and playground and was lapping at the edge of the site of the new hospital, which is being built beside the old one. The line of trees rising through the middle of the placid expanse of water was the only indication of the Swilgate’s normal course; even the local man standing on the footbridge that led across the river to his home on the far bank had trouble working out where it normally ran.

Another footbridge further down Howells Road was submerged, and there were sandbags piled against the gate of a builder’s merchant. A man sweeping the tidemark of dirt off his drive showed me pictures he had taken two days earlier when the flood was at its height: the water had reached halfway up the drive, covering the wheel arches of his car, but stopping short of the motorbike and the dinghy parked beneath the windows of the house.

He had not been living in Tewkesbury in 2007, when the house was under 18 inches of water and the town acquired its reputation as the capital of a newly flood-prone country. According to the Environment Agency, 414 millimetres (16 inches) of rain fell across England and Wales between May and July 2007, making it the wettest period since records began in 1766. When between 80 and 90 millimetres of rain – more than two months’ worth – fell on Tewkesbury on Friday 20 July, the saturated ground could not absorb it. Water flooded the streets and encircled the town’s celebrated abbey, the second-largest parish church in the country, which stands at the southern end of town.

“We had people who were trapped in their cars, and slept overnight here,” the Reverend Canon Paul Williams, vicar of Tewkesbury Abbey, told me. “We had 200 in the abbey, 200 in the hall and people dotted round about. It’s something quite deep in Tewkesbury, the idea of the abbey as a refuge: people ran for shelter, and it became an ark.” An aerial photograph of the abbey surrounded by dark brown water was transmitted round the world. Paul Williams says it became as widely recognised as the image of the dome of St Paul’s rising through the smoke of the Blitz.

A local councillor called John Badham was one of the people whose house had flooded. He lives in Abbey Terrace, which lies beneath the abbey, close to the Mill Avon, the canal built in the 12th century to service the mills in the southern part of the town. Yet it was not just the Mill Avon that caused the flood; the Swilgate had overflowed as well, and water swept through his house from both sides. “It was very frightening,” he said. “It brought down all the fences in the garden and it was so powerful that you couldn’t stand up in it.”

The flooding wasn’t over. In the summer months, the gauge on the Mythe Bridge on the River Severn usually records levels of 0.5 metres, but on Sunday 22 July 2007 it reached 5.43 metres, beating the record of 5.3 metres set in March 1947. Both the Severn and the Avon burst their banks.

“When I woke up, it was eerily quiet, and I walked outside and saw the water coming, and the Fire Brigade all over the place,” Paul Williams said. He maintains that the abbey is usually immune because the “monks knew where to build” – the story of the vicar who paddled a boat down the aisle in 1760 is a folk memory of the only time in its 900-year history when it was flooded – but at 3pm on Sunday it flooded again. Paul Williams had to go down to the pub and ask people to help him move everything out of the reach of the water. He held evensong at the gates of the abbey and people came out of the nearby houses to listen. “It was a powerful cultic event. You could see the power of ritual holding a community together,” he told me.

Tewkesbury was cut off for four days. Three people drowned, more than 5,000 homes and businesses were flooded, and the Mythe water treatment works shut down for two weeks, depriving 140,000 people of running water. The pattern was repeated across the country, in Yorkshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire. In total, 13 people drowned, more than 55,000 homes and businesses were flooded, and the emergency services conducted more “search-and-rescue missions” than at any time since the Second World War.

The floods of 2007 are often described as the worst civil emergency in British history, and the Environment Agency estimates that they caused £3.2bn of damage. The true figure is probably higher, because places such as Tewkesbury suffered a “double whammy”, according to Paul Williams: its shops, hotels and restaurants depend on the tourist trade and many people cancelled holidays in the aftermath of the floods. He says it took Tewkesbury three or four years to recover, and many people in the town are still feeling the effects.

They are not alone: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says 5.2 million households in England are at risk of flooding, and the present agreement between the insurance industry and the government that guarantees affordable insurance to flood-prone homes is due to expire in June. On 26 November, as flood waters rose again, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said that negotiations over a new deal had broken down. It issued a statement saying it wanted taxpayers to provide a temporary overdraft for a non-profit fund that would be used to pay claims in the early years of the scheme before it had a chance to build up reserves, but the government had refused. Defra says that negotiations are ongoing, but the ABI says they have reached an “impasse” that will leave 200,000 high-risk households struggling to find affordable insurance.

There are other points of contention: the last agreement proceeded on the basis that the insurance industry would continue to provide affordable insurance to flood-prone homes on the assumption that the government would continue to invest in flood defences, and the ABI maintains that “investment in flood defences needs to be at a level to match the flood risk”. It is estimated that every £1 spent on flood defences saves £8 on the cost of clean-up and repairs. And yet, no matter how much we invest, flood damage is sure to increase as climate change begins to take effect. A report commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in 2004 predicted that the cost could increase from the current yearly average of £2.2bn to as much as £29bn by 2080.

Natural variations in the weather make it difficult to establish the cause of any one event, but the pattern of increasingly extreme weather we are beginning to witness is probably the result of a warming planet. Ten of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past 11 years, and in September it was discovered that the Arctic sea ice had shrunk to its smallest recorded extent. A heatwave in late June and early July in North America broke many records, and sea-level rise has doubled the risk of flooding in many parts of the US and Canada. There were harsh droughts in China, Brazil and Russia between January and September and severe flooding in West Africa and Pakistan. Hurricane Sandy caused scores of deaths when it struck New York and the east coast of the United States in October, just days before the US presidential election. In early December, the “super-typhoon” Bopha killed more than 1,000 people in the Philippines.

In the UK, the March heatwave that contri - buted to hosepipe bans in the south-east of England seems more improbable now than it did at the time, because the following month turned out to be the wettest April in 100 years. There was more heavy rain and flooding throughout summer and early autumn. In late September, 570 houses and businesses flooded and the River Ouse in York reached its second-highest recorded level. In October, the Devon fishing village of Clovelly was hit by a flash flood that sent water cascading down the main street. Yet the worst flooding was triggered by the heavy rainfall that began on 21 November, with Wales and the south-west of England hardest hit. A woman drowned and 500 households were evacuated in the small Welsh town of St Asaph after the River Elwy burst its banks. The government has been criticised for cutting 294 flood defence schemes that had been approved in 2010, and on the day I arrived in Tewkesbury it announced that it would spend another £120m on flood defences.

When I left the abbey I walked down Mill Street to Tewkes - bury Mill, which stands on the banks of the Mill Avon. The mill had been cut off in 2007 – Paul Williams said the people set up a bosun’s chair to ferry supplies back and forth – and now it was cut off again: water covered the base of the steps leading up to the entrance and spilled through the open doors of the cellar, though it wasn’t until I looked at Google Street View and saw photographs taken on a summer afternoon that I realised how high the Mill Avon had risen, and how much it had altered the layout of the streets. The water that surrounded the mill and lapped at the picturesque half-timbered houses on St Mary’s Road concealed a park and a road, as well as the reed-fringed banks of the Mill Avon and the flat green fields beyond.

As I made my way along the edge of the town, following the course of the Avon as closely as I could, I kept passing steps that sank into the water, and signs directing me towards submerged footpaths. I passed Ye Olde Black Bear, “Glosters oldest inn”, which stands beside the bridge across the Avon Navigation, and turned into a cul-de-sac of terraced houses called King John’s Court. A sign restricting parking to permit holders protruded through the surface of the water at the end of the street. The way the railings at the side of the car park diminished in height as they advanced into the water confirmed that the land fell away in front of me, though it must have risen again in front of the marooned lock-keeper’s cottage, for the bench positioned for looking out across the floodplain was only half submerged.

Trees and telegraph poles marked the borders of the drowned fields, which stretched west towards the confluence of the Severn and the Avon. The still surface of the water mirrored the trees and clouds, and the silhouette of the water treatment works shut during the floods of 2007 was the only sign of human occupation. It reminded me of the descriptions of “the Lake”, the “inland sea of sweet water” that covers central England in Richard Jefferies’s prescient novel After London (1885).

Depictions of post-apocalyptic worlds became commonplace in 20th-century fiction, but Jefferies was a Victorian naturalist. “At the eastern extremity the Lake narrows, and finally is lost in the vast marshes which cover the site of the ancient London,” writes the novel’s unnamed narrator. He does not know exactly how the Lake formed, but speculates that “changes of the sea level” threw up great sandbanks at the mouth of the Thames, while a “broad barrier of beach” obstructed the mouth of the Severn: once the rivers’ eastward and westward flow was blocked, they “turned backwards . . . and began to cover hitherto dry land”. London becomes a foul, decaying swamp, but “the Lake” in the novel is as “clear as crystal, exquisite to drink, abounding with fishes of every kind, and adorned with green islands”.

J G Ballard’s early novel The Drowned World (1962) offers a less idyllic vision of a flooded planet. The rise in global temperatures that precipitates Ballard’s version of the catastrophe is caused not by human activity, but by “a series of violent and prolonged solar storms” that deplete “the earth’s barrier against the full impact of solar radiation”. As once-temperate areas become tropical and tropical areas become uninhabitable, the human population is reduced to no more than five million, who live on the polar ice caps. As the novel begins, “the South” has been abandoned, and Ballard’s protagonist, Kerans, is one of the few people to have remained in London. The city that once lay on the chilly fringes of northern Europe has become a tropical lagoon; giant ferns sprout through the windows of the abandoned buildings and the air is thronged with giant bats and mosquitoes. Reptiles are the dominant species.

Yet it is not only the external landscape that is changing. As the natural world cycles back through its evolutionary history, its human inhabitants are also drawn into what one calls the “archaeopsychic past”. Far from fearing the disintegration of the life they knew, they welcome the re-emergence of a primeval world with which they are subconsciously familiar: “How often recently most of us have had the feeling of déjà vu, of having seen all this before, in fact of remembering these swamps and lagoons all too well,” one character says. “Each one of us is as old as the entire biological kingdom, and our bloodstreams are tributaries of the great sea of its total memory.”

I was contemplating Tewkesbury’s own drowned world when I became aware of a man watching me from the window of the nearest house. It transpired that he was more concerned by burglars than flooding – his neighbour’s car had been stolen the previous day and he was wary of a return visit. Once reassured that I was not a threat, he told me of his disdain for people who fail to appreciate that Tewkesbury always floods, and argued that his house was perfectly safe despite being located on a promontory enclosed on three sides by water. “These houses were built with flooding in mind,” he said, indicating the slab that raised the front door half a metre above the ground.

He conceded that the November flood water had been higher than usual and that it had taken longer for it to subside, but he insisted it had not been a threat: the Severn had peaked at 4.8 metres – only 70 centimetres lower than 2007, but an enormous volume of water was required to effect any rise in the level across the thousands of acres of floodplain. A family had to be rescued in Sandhurst, Gloucestershire, ten miles downstream; flood defences failed in Kempsey, Worcestershire, 12 miles upstream; and even the White Bear, which stands on the main road a hundred metres north of the Black Bear, had flooded; but King John’s Court had remained untouched. “Personally, I don’t see a problem for us here,” the man said. “There is a problem in other places, but that’s the subtle difference with Tewkesbury –we don’t try and stop the water, we just let it flow through.”

It was another version of the two contrasting views that I heard repeated several times while I was in the town. Paul Williams told me that he takes communion to housebound old ladies who used to regard flooding as so routine that they would move upstairs and let the water flush out the downstairs rooms, yet other people were not so sanguine. Councillor Badham, who moved upstairs for six months after the floods of 2007, said that 10 per cent of Tewkesbury’s residents live in fear of being flooded. “It would be nice to have security, not just for me, because I’m relatively well off, but for other people in the town,” he said. “This is a workingclass town. There are a lot of people in Tewkesbury who don’t earn very much, who face enormously increased bills on their insurance – if they can get it at all – and face the anxiety every time the water comes up of being flooded. In some parts of the town, there are a lot of very, very anxious people; often quite poor people, and elderly people: vulnerable people.”

Yet both groups had one thing in common – whether they fear the flood or view it with equanimity, the residents of Tewkesbury are used to living with it. They have made the kind of accommodation that more of us will be required to make if water levels continue to rise as predicted and flooding becomes more frequent. Paul Williams believes that we will have to accept we are not “above nature”, though J G Ballard raises the more disturbing possibility that we already have done so. Perhaps we do not fear the flood, and will do nothing to avert it, because we recognise it as part of the cycle of life on a planet that sustains us, and yet remains indifferent to our existence.

Edward Platt is a contributing writer for the New Statesman. His latest book is “The City of Abraham” (Picador, £18.99)

This article first appeared in the 07 January 2013 issue of the New Statesman, 2013: the year the cuts finally bite

Show Hide image

When it comes to responding to Islamic State, there is no middle ground

If Britain has a declared interest in curtailing Islamic State and stabilising Syria, it is neither honourable nor viable to let others intervene on our behalf.

Even before the brutal terrorist attacks in Paris, British foreign policy was approaching a crossroads. Now it is time, in the words of Barack Obama, addressing his fellow leaders at the G20 Summit in Turkey on 16 November, “to step up with the resources that this fight demands”, or stand down.

The jihadist threat metastasises, and international order continues to unravel at an alarming rate. A Russian civilian charter plane is blown out of the sky over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, killing 224 people, most of them returning from holiday, and the various offshoots of Islamic State bare their teeth in a succession of brutal attacks in France, Lebanon, Tunisia, Turkey and further afield. Our enemies are emboldened and our friends want to know to what extent we stand with them. The UK can no longer afford to postpone decisions that it has evaded since the Commons vote of August 2013, in which the government was defeated over the question of joining US-led air strikes against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime following a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians. MPs’ continued introspection is on the verge of becoming both irresponsible and morally questionable. There is no fence left to sit on.

On Sunday night, two days after the Paris attacks, the French – with US support – launched a series of bombing raids against Islamic State targets in Raqqa. With much more to come, the choice facing this country may not be easier but it is certainly clearer. Britain must determine whether it wants to be a viable and genuine partner in the fight against Islamic State, and in the long-term efforts to bring an end to the assorted evils of the Syrian civil war; or whether we are content to sit on the sidelines and cheer on former team-mates without getting our knees dirty. We can join our two most important allies – France and the United States, at the head of a coalition involving a number of Arab and other European states – in confronting a threat that potentially is as grave to us as it is to France, and certainly more dangerous than it is to the US. Alternatively, we can gamble that others will do the work for us, keep our borders tighter than ever, double down on surveillance (because that will certainly be one of the prices to pay) and hope that the Channel and the security services keep us comparatively safe. There is no fantasy middle ground, where we can shirk our share of the burden on the security front while leading the rest of the world in some sort of diplomatic breakthrough in Syria; or win a reprieve from the jihadists for staying out of Syria (yet hit them in Iraq), through our benevolence in opening the door to tens of thousands of refugees, or by distancing ourselves from the ills of Western foreign policy.

That the international community – or what is left of it – has not got its act together on Syria over the past three years has afforded Britain some space to indulge its scruples. Nonetheless, even before the Paris attacks, the matter was coming to the boil again. A vote on the expansion of air operations against Islamic State has been mooted since the start of this year, but was put on the back burner because of the May general election. The government has treated parliament with caution since its much-discussed defeat in the House in summer 2013. The existing policy – of supporting coalition air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq but not Syria – is itself an outgrowth of an awkward compromise between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, an attempt to reverse some of the damage done by the 2013 vote in parliament.

The Conservatives have waited to see where the ground lies in a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party before attempting to take the issue back before the Commons. Labour pleaded for more time when Corbyn was elected, but there is no sign that the Labour leader is willing to shift in his hostility to any form of intervention. More significantly, he has now ruled out Labour holding a free vote on the matter.

If anything, the coalition of Little Englanders, anti-interventionists and anti-Americans in the House of Commons seems to have dug its trenches deeper. This leaves the Prime Minister with few options. One is to use the Royal Prerogative to announce that an ally has been attacked, and that we will stand with her in joining attacks against Islamic State in Syria. The moment for this has probably already passed, though the prerogative might still be invoked if Isis scores a direct hit against the UK. Yet even then, there would be problems with this line. A striking aspect of the killing of 30 Britons in the June attacks in Sousse, Tunisia, is just how little domestic political impact it seems to have made.

Another option for Cameron is to try to make one final effort to win a parliamentary majority, but this is something that Tory whips are not confident of achieving. The most likely scenario is that he will be forced to accept a further loss of the UK’s leverage and its standing among allies. Co-operation will certainly come on the intelligence front but this is nothing new. Meanwhile, the government will be forced to dress up its position in as much grand diplomatic verbiage as possible, to obfuscate the reality of the UK’s diminishing influence.

Already, speaking at the G20 Summit, the Prime Minister emphasised the need to show MPs a “whole plan for the future of Syria, the future of the region, because it is perfectly right to say that a few extra bombs and missiles won’t transform the situation”. In principle, it is hard to argue with this. But no such plan will emerge in the short term. The insistence that Assad must go may be right but it is the equivalent of ordering the bill at a restaurant before you have taken your seat. In practice, it means subcontracting out British national security to allies (such as the US, France and Australia) who are growing tired of our inability to pull our weight, and false friends or enemies (such as Russia and Iran), who have their own interests in Syria which do not necessarily converge with our own.

One feature of the 2013 Syria vote was the government’s failure to do the required groundwork in building a parliamentary consensus. Whips have spent the summer scouting the ground but to no avail. “The Labour Party is a different organisation to that which we faced before the summer,” Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, has said. It is ironic, then, that the Prime Minister has faced strongest criticism from the Labour benches. “Everyone wants to see nations planning for increased stability in the region beyond the military defeat of the extremists,” says John Woodcock, the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party defence committee, “but after two years of pussy-footing around, this just smacks of David Cameron playing for time when he should be showing leadership.”

The real story is not the distance between the two front benches but the divisions within both parties. There are as many as 30 Conservative MPs said to be willing to rebel if parliament is asked to vote for joining the coalition against Islamic State in Syria. It seems that the scale of the Paris attacks has not changed their position. A larger split in the Labour ranks also seems likely. Even before Paris, there were rumoured to be roughly 50 MPs ready to defy their leader on this question.


At first, in the wake of last week’s attacks, it seemed as if the Prime Minister might force the issue. To this end, he began the G20 in Turkey with a bilateral meeting with President Putin. His carefully chosen words before and after that discussion, in which he was much more emollient about Moscow’s role, showed the extent to which he was prepared to adapt to the changing situation. Cameron hoped that if he could show progress in building an international coalition on the diplomatic front, that might just give him enough to get over the line in a parliamentary vote.

This new approach has not had the desired effect. At the time of writing, the government believes it is too risky to call another vote in the short term. It calculates another defeat would hugely diminish Britain’s standing in the world. In truth, the government was already swimming upstream. On 29 October, the Conservative-
dominated Commons foreign affairs select committee, chaired by Crispin Blunt, released a report on the extension of British military operations into Syria, in anticipation of government bringing forward a parliamentary vote on the question. The report recommended that Britain should avoid further involvement unless a series of questions could be answered about exit strategy and long-term goals. The bar was set deliberately high, to guard against any further involvement (even the limited option of joining the existing coalition undertaking air strikes against IS in Syria).

The most flimsy of the five objections to further intervention in the report was that it will somehow diminish the UK’s leverage as an impartial arbiter and potential peacemaker. This is based on an absurd overestimation of the UK as some sort of soft-power saviour, valued by all parties for its impartiality in Middle Eastern affairs. Britain cannot hope to have any influence on policy if it is always last to sign up while others put their lives on the line. As so often in the past, what masquerades as tough-minded “realpolitik” is nothing of the sort. It is just another post-facto rationale for inaction.

Although it is sometimes said that Britain has yet to recover from the consequences of the invasion of Iraq, the committee report had a retro, 1990s feel. Many of the objections raised to burden-sharing in Syria were the same as those raised against humanitarian intervention in the Balkans two decades ago, when Blunt was working as special adviser to Michael Rifkind as defence and foreign secretary, and the UK was at the forefront of non-intervention. Likewise, two of the committee’s Labour members, Ann Clwyd and Mike Gapes, were veterans of the other side of that debate, and strong supporters of the Nato intervention in Kosovo in 1999. They expressed their dissent from the report’s conclusions but were voted down by their Conservative and SNP fellow committee members. “Non-intervention also has consequences,” said Gapes when he broke rank. “We should not be washing our hands and saying, ‘It’s too difficult.’”

Polling figures have shown majority public support for air strikes against IS since the spate of gruesome public executions that began last year, but nothing seems to change the calculus of the rump of anti-interventionist MPs.

All this promises an uncertain future for British foreign policy. On 6 November, the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, suggested that the UK’s existing position, of joining the coalition in Iraq but stopping at the borders of Syria, is “morally indefensible”. The killing of Mohammed Emwazi, aka “Jihadi John”, by a US predator drone on 12 November demonstrates what he meant. Emwazi was a Briton who was responsible for the beheading of British and American citizens, as well as countless Syrians. While the UK government was closely involved in that operation – and has previously used the justification of “self-defence” to “take out” targets in Syria – such are the restrictions placed upon it that we are forced to ask our allies to conduct potentially lethal operations (which are in our core national interests) on our behalf. The very act of “self-defence” is subcontracted out once again.

How long can this last when Islamic State poses a much greater threat to the UK than it does to the US? There is an issue of responsibility, too, with hundreds of British citizens fighting for and with Islamic State who clearly pose a grave danger to other states.


The very notion that Britain should play an expansive international role is under attack from a pincer movement from both the left and the right. There are two forms of “Little Englanderism” that have made a resurgence in recent years. On the left, this is apparent in the outgrowth of a world-view that sees no role for the military, and holds that the UK is more often than not on the wrong side in matters of international security, whether its opponent is Russia, Iran, the IRA or Islamic State. The second, and arguably just as influential, is the Little Englanderism of the right, which encompasses a rump of Tory backbenchers and Ukip. This is a form of neo-mercantilism, a foreign policy based on trade deals and the free movement of goods that regards multilateralism, international institutions and any foreign military intervention with great suspicion, as a costly distraction from the business of filling our pockets.

The time is ripe for long-term, hard-headed and unsentimental thinking about Britain’s global role. The country is not served well by the impression of British “decline” and “retreat” that has gained ground in recent times; and it is no safer for it, either. Given how quickly the security and foreign policy environment is changing, the publication of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in the coming week, alongside an update of the National Security Strategy, is likely to raise more questions than it answers. The officials responsible for its drafting do not have an easy brief, and news forecasting is a thankless task. Strategic vision and leadership must come from our elected politicians.

For all the talk of British decline, we are still one of the five wealthiest nations in the world. What we do matters, particularly at moments when our friends are under attack. However, until a new broad consensus emerges between the mainstream Labour and Conservative positions on foreign policy, the Little England coalition will continue to have the casting vote.

Syria continues to bleed profusely and the blood seeps deeper into different countries. There will be no political solution to the civil war there for the foreseeable future; to pretend that there is a hidden diplomatic solution is to wish to turn the clock back to 2011, when that might have been possible. Nor is the security situation any easier to deal with. A few hours before the attacks in Paris began, President Obama gave an interview in which he argued that he had successfully “contained” Islamic State. For the wider Middle East and Europe, that is simply not the case. Now, France will escalate its campaign, and the US will do more. Russia already has troops on the ground and will most likely send reinforcements.

The war in Syria is becoming more complicated and even more dangerous. The best that can be hoped for is that the Syrian ulcer can be cauterised. This will be achieved through the blunting of Islamic State, simultaneous pressure on Assad, and the creation of more safe places for Syrians. All roads are littered with difficulties and dangers. Yet, in the face of this ugly reality, is Britain to signal its intention to do less as every other major actor – friend and foe alike – does more? If we have a declared national interest in curtailing Islamic State and stabilising Syria – both because of the growing terrorist threat and because of the huge flow of refugees – then it is neither honourable nor viable to let others take care of it on our behalf.

John Bew is an NS contributing writer. His new book, “Realpolitik: a History”, is newly published by Oxford University Press

This article first appeared in the 19 November 2015 issue of the New Statesman, The age of terror