Why I am voting for the Greens

In 2019 the New Statesman didn’t endorse any party during the December election. They announced this under the headline “Britain deserves better.” Well, nearly five years later I’m here to say something similar, but crucially different.

I’ll come to the bit where I say Keir Starmer and the Tories are basically the same. Don’t worry. First, I want to say something else. Something I believe more strongly.

This parliament, the one since the 2019 election, has been unlike any I have experienced before. Brexit finally happened, then we were hit with a pandemic, the Queen dying, Liz Truss’s five minutes in power, Donald Trump’s capital riots, Putin invading the Ukraine and a whole host of other things. It’s been a whirlwind.

All the beauty and all the terror

Since the pandemic ended and we have come back into the world, I have experienced more beauty than I could have ever imagined when we were locked inside. The collective joy of live music, the intensity of theatre, the communal pleasure of sharing a horror or comedy film with a room full of strangers, all these things I had forgotten. I had forgotten what it was like to sit in the pub with friends or take a train to somewhere new. There are so many beautiful things in the world that my heart swells with joy to think of it.

There is also so much terror. From mass death in Gaza, where civilians are killed in horrific numbers, to rockets raining down on Ukrainian cities, to lives forever ruined by the aftermath of the pandemic, to victims of an ever-worsening climate and ever-increasing racism towards people from outside Europe, this is an age where living can be a terrifying ordeal.

Sometimes I feel like these moments of beauty - finding something genuinely funny or beautiful on Instagram, eating something sweet, or singing along to a song with friends - are amongst the last we will experience as humanity hurtles towards oblivion. I want to treasure every single second of them.

Shared values

Injected into this mix of fear and elation is this year’s general election. Putting an X on a ballot paper once every four or five years shouldn’t be the end of our political engagement. The world is too complex for that. However, everything has been focused down to this one moment and we need to make a choice from a range of parties.

I simply don’t feel that Starmer shares my values. Not socialism - I am a socialist, and he obviously is not - but valuing these moments of heartbreaking beauty in a world of terror. Sometimes I don’t know if I want to cry or sing, sitting on a late-night Overground train. I don’t believe anyone who sees the fragile beauty of this world, and how it is assailed by soul crushing terror, could stand on the platform of minor change and not rocking the boat.

We live on a knife edge. Terror or beauty. Sometimes a better world is so close that I can almost smell it. I see people organising fundraising drives for refugees thousands of miles away that they will never meet because it is self-evidently the right thing to do. I see people striving hard against the cost of living, a government that makes everything difficult for regular (i.e. non-rich) people and indifference to bring a little more joy to their communities, such as by keeping a much-loved bookshop or cafe open. Every day so many people choose beauty, but a few powerful people choose terror and the bookshops close and death reigns from the sky.

Maybe I am wrong

Against this backdrop Starmer chooses indifference. I don’t understand it. We need a rallying cry for a better, more beautiful, world. If not now, then when? All Starmer gives is indifference to terror dressed up as pragmatism.

Maybe I’m wrong about Starmer. Maybe this is all a clever plan to win the necessary support of the angry boomer swing voters, so that Labour can get into power and then radical reform can follow. If this is what happens then I owe Starmer an apology and a vote. As well as an apology to all the people, friends and writers, who say this is the case. I don’t believe it. I may be wrong.

This brings us to the Starmer is just like the Tories bit. From dropping the £28bn green investment pledge, to saying Israel has the right to cut off water and power to Gaza (they don’t), to pandering to widespread hysteria about trans rights, Starmer is so determined to win the support of a pathologically angry boomer in Nuneaton called Steve -  who hates young people, hates migrants, hates trans people, hates ULEZ, hates spending money on making things better and above all hates people who go on protests - that Labour looks a lot like the Tories. It’s just so depressing.

Getting over the line

For what it’s worth, I do think Starmer will be a better Prime Minister than Rishi Sunak or any other Tory. If he drags the Labour Party over the line and into power then I will raise a hoppy craft beer to him and say, “good job, you did it where Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn failed.” Doubly so if the Tories get a massive and justly deserved kicking. In that case it will be a double hopped IPA.

Hopefully Starmer with his massive majority can use the huge power of the British state (whatever the condition of the economy) to alleviate the worst problems caused by the Tories over the last 14 years, from the huge rise in homelessness, to the inhuman levels of child poverty, to the dire shape of the NHS. Then again, without wanting to turn on the spending taps, remove the two child benefit cap or do anything to worry landlords, improvements might not happen.

The issue of the climate

My main issue with Starmer is on environmental policy. This is the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced and is the defining issue of the present. The time for radical action has passed and we need very radical action to avert the worst of the climate disaster we are racing towards.

There is a beautiful sustainable world within our reach, where we work less and enjoy life more, but again our leaders in politics and business are choosing climate terror. Starmer needs to be bolder on this issue, which is why I am voting Green: to send a clear message to Labour that more needs to be done and soon.

Getting the Tories out

I have no problem with anyone who wants to vote Labour to get the Tories out. In fact, I salute you for using the choice you have today to make this country a better place. The Tories are awful and they have to go. Voting Labour is the most expedient button to press to achieve this.

My beef is not with Labour voters, or Labour Party members, or even many Labour MPs. It’s with a small group at the top of the party whose view of humanity is so cynical that they cannot make a case for something better, so instead move to the position that will get them into power; even if that involves pandering to prejudice on migration or trans rights.

I am aware of the irony of not voting Labour in an election where Labour is about to win very big. Through backing Corbyn and Miliband, and not Starmer, it’s clear I cannot choose a winning horse. I have voted Labour in only one general election that the party won (2005) and even then, the candidate I voted for lost out to a Tory.

I do like my local Labour MP, Stella Creasy, who has been very good on several key issues, from feminism to the war in Gaza. Her office was vandalised recently, which is a disgusting act of intimidation aimed at someone who is genuinely striving to make the lives of people in Walthamstow better. I’m sorry not to be able to vote for Creasy this time, but it makes little difference as she’s likely to win the seat by about 20,000 votes.

Labour winning without my support

I’m not going to vote Labour and Labour are going to do very well tonight. I guess that means Labour was right to alienate people like me. So be it. Perhaps this justifies everything Starmer, and his pals, have done to drive out people like me and win the vote of Steve from Nuneaton (or at least make him stay home on election day). This is even more the case if Starmer does some good with power.

In my darker moments, I wonder if I am the problem for Labour. Maybe my values - improving the environment, equal rights for trans people, welcoming migrants and wanting a world full of beauty and not that of terror - are so wildly out of step with the average person in the street, who has their own struggles and dreams, that I must be driven from mainstream politics as an extremist. Certainly, lots of people I meet disagree with me and feel the need to tell me I am wrong.

Am I an extremist for wanting things to be different? I still want a world filled with beauty for everyone, and around me I see a lot of people who want terror for people who are different to them. You might say that no one wants terror, but with the glee that people, from friends to writers, have endorsed military actions with massive civilian casualties in Gaza and a hostile environment for migrants trying to find a better life in the UK, I feel confident in saying that some people do want terror. I won’t change or compromise in my love of beauty.

Labour needs to do better

I want to send a message to Labour that they need to do better. There will never be a better chance to be honest with the electorate about what needs to be done to improve the country, now the Tories have completely self-destructed, but there has also never been a better time to make a case for why we can build a more beautiful world, while so many people are suffering and crying out for something better.

It’s not just on the climate, Labour needs to do more in so many areas to help those suffering right now. More than just pointing to growth and hoping that sorts things out. The Greens have some good ideas in their manifesto, such as a no-fault eviction ban, free personal care and cancelling trident. I am voting Green because I want these things and because I want to send a message to Labour that this slide to the right is against my values as a long-time supporter of the Labour Party. Labour needs to do better than its current festival of political cynicism.

I’m tired of being told that we need to be pragmatic by cynical people when the whole world is dying. If anything, the pragmatic thing to do is something bold, something inspirational, something beautiful. Not to just shrug our shoulders and say this is the best we can do.

"Extinction Rebellion-11" by juliahawkins123 is licensed under CC BY 2.0 

Lack of enthusiasm, forgone conclusions and stirrings on the right: this could be the strangest election of my life

I can honestly say that this is the least discussed general election of any general election of my life. The campaign is nearly done and outside of the major news publishers practically no one is talking about it. I have seen very few people out canvassing and far fewer than normal signs in gardens. I’ve seen the country get more excited about local elections than they are about the first opportunity in nearly five years to kick out the government.

The main reason for this is that everyone thinks this election is a foregone conclusion. Labour were way ahead in the polls from the start of the campaign and the Tories dismal performance so far - starting with Rishi Sunak getting soaked when announcing the election, moving onto his tax claims collapsing, before he offended everyone by leaving a D-Day commemoration event early and finally having loads of Tories caught up in the election betting scandal - has not changed anyone's mind about who to vote for or who will win.

The most interesting thing about this dull campaign, so far, is Nigel Farage unexpectedly standing to be an MP and taking over Reform. People are talking about who will represent one seat, Clacton, after the election more than they’re talking about who will be in Number 10. Everything else has been a walk for Labour, so there is absolutely no suspense at all about the outcome of this election.

“Starmer, I guess.”

Coupled to this is a complete lack of enthusiasm for Keir Starmer. He’s riding high in the polls because dissatisfaction with the Tories has reached epic proportions and the SNP collapsed at the same time. Sunak has done nothing to improve the Tory’s image or dismal record in government and people want them gone. It’s as if the whole country has shrugged it’s shoulders, sighed and said “Starmer, I guess.”

People want change and Starmer is offering as little of it as possible, because a few thousand easily spooked swing-voter Boomers could curb his majority if they think he'll do something crazy like spend money on schools or be nice to immigrants. “Starmer, I guess,” is the best possible result that Labour can get from these people.

The rest of the country has buckled up for the thrilling ride of “more of the same,” with the added bonus of the government being less nakedly corrupt and awful. It’s not exactly the sort of campaign that songs will be written about. It’s not Barack Obama’s hope and change. It’s continuity with minor tweaking around the edges in the hope that this makes things better for everyone. I guess it’s better than the Tories not caring about anyone at all.

Things can only get a bit better

Even the music that we have had during this campaign - “Things can only get better” being blasted at Sunak when he made his electoral announcement - is just recycled Blair optimism and has nothing to do with Starmer.

The most radical moment of the campaign has been Abigail Morris from The Last Dinner Party telling people on stage at Glastonbury that the election is not the end of the struggle if the Tories lose and that we need to keep protesting, signing petitions and boycotting after the election. I wish the Baroque hyper-femme rock band were the leaders of the opposition, instead of Starmer. He probably likes Coldplay.

All this might produce an odd result. Low enthusiasm for Starmer and a general feeling that the election is a foregone conclusion might mean low voter turnout for Labour. Whereas the Tories that are still voting for Sunak are very passionate about the party, and really hate Labour, and will turn out. Plus, they have the motivation that if they don’t vote it will be a huge Labour landslide.

Strange times. Or maybe not

Farage and Reform are also adding to the complications. Reform are a new party, so it’s difficult to judge how well they will do. Sure, UKIP and The Brexit Party, both previously led by Farage, didn’t get many candidates elected outside of European Elections and Farage himself has failed to become an MP seven times.

That said, these are strange times. Anger on the right about immigration, net zero targets, ULEZ and “the woke” has never been higher and support for the Tories from the right has never been lower. A huge number of people might be about to vote Reform, which will happen at the same time as a record low Tory vote and possibly a low Labour vote, driven by either complacency about Labour’s poll lead or lack of enthusiasm for Starmer.

I think polls predicting the Tories being knocked back to 50 seats and the Lib Dems or Reform becoming the official opposition are over excited. There are a lot of shy Tories out there who will be voting. Lib Dems will likely have their best performance since 2010 and Reform might get one to two MPs, but the first-past-the-post system means that these two parties can get record high numbers of votes and will it translate into very few seats, while Labour and the Tories gain from their built in advantages (especially the Tories).

Dark times to come. Most likely

A big Reform vote will hurt the Tories and help Labour in a number of Red Wall seats that Starmer has his eye on. Also, a strong Reform vote and Farage getting into parliament will have a big impact on the Conservative leadership election that will likely take place this summer in a state of despair and panic.

Farage is more likely to get serious power by being welcomed into the Tory Party post election than by his party replacing the Tories as the dominant party of the right. He might even end up being Tory leader by the next election. That’s more likely than 150 Reform MPs being returned on July 4th.

Then again we live in dark times, so I’m not offering to eat my hat on any account as there is a good chance that I end up chowing down on a piece of cheap canvas I bought from a tourist vendor near the Brandenburg Gate.

Radioactive zombie Tories

Strange things are occurring in this election. Starmer is less popular than Ed Miliband was at this point (although, it must be noted he is way more popular than Sunak, and voters preferred Cameron in 2015). Also, Reform voters are especially angry about Starmer and Labour, hating them more than the Tories, which is not good news for Starmer’s program to rebrand Labour as not a Corbyny woke party by plastering the flag over every single election leaflet. The best Starmer can hope from these human stains is that they stay home with Euro hangovers on Thursday. 

Most likely Starmer will win big - although I doubt he will get a 200 seat majority, as some polls are saying, or even a 100 seat majority. Starmer will win, but it will be off the back of a divided right, huge Tory resentment, the belief that his victory is inevitable and little enthusiasm for what Starmer is offering.

He’ll then have to tackle the huge problems of the country to defend his electoral gains, whilst facing a challenge from the right (possibly led by Farage) and the twisted rump of the Tory party that survives this election who, like zombies a nuke has been dropped on, will stumble on with horrible intent made more ugly and more dangerous by the blow that was supposed to kill them. If Starmer can’t summon some enthusiasm from the public to face this threat, then his government won’t last long.

The general election is coming and everything is at stake

So, it’s finally happening. Election time. We knew it was coming this year and now we have a date. Honestly, it’s a relief.

Part of me expected Rishi Sunak to hold out until January next year. He’s really likely to lose this election, so why not be Prime Minister as long as he can? There’s always the hope that a miracle will save him.

Between some better-than-expected economic figures and rising speculation about a leadership challenge, the pressure has mounted on Sunak enough to call an election. Like a man dangling from a footbridge over a motorway, he’s had a tense few moments but has finally decided to take the plunge.

Election predictions

Now the intros are out of the way, let’s move onto the good stuff: election predictions. Keir Starmer is going to be Prime Minister after this election. As a prediction, it’s not as certain as “the sun will rise tomorrow” but it’s about as certain as “I will have a pint of strong hazy craft beer on Saturday.” It’s going to happen, unless an unprecedented disaster occurs.

There are a few big questions unanswered. How big will the majority be? It could be anything from historically massive to merely comfortable enough that Labour doesn’t have to worry about passing its legislative agenda for a while. The answer to the “how big will the majority be?” question is linked to a host of other key questions. How well will Labour do in Scotland? How well will the Lib Dems do? What about Reform and the Greens?

I see big gains for Labour in Scotland at the expense of the SNP, due to their internal turmoil and Labour leading on issues like the economy and health that are top of voters’ minds everywhere, including in Scotland. The Lib Dems are likely to do well in the southwestern Blue Wall, winning seats from the Tories and we’re likely to see the most Lib Dem MPs returned since 2010. Reform will steal votes from the Tories everywhere, but this will mainly benefit Labour and they won’t get any MPs.

Disgruntled lefties

Many disgruntled lefties will vote for the Greens (although I can’t blame anyone for voting Labour just to make sure the Tories definitely go) but I think they’ll only get one MP from this (Bristol not Brighton). It’s a shame as a lot of left-wing voters, myself included, are annoyed at Starmer for how far he has moved Labour to the right (compared to his leadership bid, or Jeremy Corbyn’s platform, or even Ed Miliband’s time as leader) and want to vote for a party to take serious action on the environment, child poverty, housing, etc.

The first past the post system means that the Greens might get more votes than ever, but they’ll end up with fewer MPs than the DUP. George Galloway’s Workers Party of Britian will do very little of anything. The best thing to be said for the left in this election is the Tories are on the way out. Beyond that, well, we’ll see.

Government by over promoted management consultants

Starmer doesn’t deserve the huge majority that is, most likely, about to be delivered to him. The Tories have lost this election; between Boris Johnson partying while we said goodbye to our Nans on Zoom and Liz Truss crashing the economy and whacking up everyone’s mortgages (particularly swing voters’).

Sunak has been blown around by economic headwinds and spent the little political capital and room to manoeuvre that he has doing very little of anything. At least Johnson could effectively bang the drum for Ukraine. Sunak is government by over-promoted management consultant.

The Tories deserve to lose this election

The Tories deserve to lose this election. They deserve the massive kicking they’re about to get. Since David Cameron started rolling out his austerity programme, they have been making this country worse in every way for everyone, (especially for the poor and vulnerable) apart from their rich mates. Even when the economy grew, real wages fell and life got harder for everyone (especially for the poor and vulnerable).

Since the 2010 election the Tories have consistently plunged new lows of vindictive cruelty (the two-child benefit cap, the Windrush Scandal, etc) economic mismanagement (take a look at your gas bill) and political dysfunction (Brexit, Covid-19, etc) and it’s all at yours and mine expense (I assume you’re not a rich pensioner or owner of a FTSE 100 company).

The day after victory

If Starmer can drag the creaking mess of the Labour Party over the line and into government then on July the 5th (the NHS’s 76th birthday) I will pop open a can of hoppy craft beer and raise it to him and say: “Good on you, you kicked the bastards out of power.” Then I will indulge in some very pleasant Tory schadenfreude.

The day after I will be asking one question: what are you doing, Starmer, to fix the huge list of problems facing this country? Yes, the list is long. Yes, there will be multiple conflicting crises. Yes, the money and political room to manoeuvre will be tight. Doesn’t matter. History has conspired to give you the vast power of being Prime Minister and (most likely) a big enough parliamentary majority to make your vision a reality.

Wield power for our benefit. Wield power to help the single mum working two jobs who can’t afford to eat, pay rent and heat her flat. Wield power to help the pensioner on an NHS waiting list waiting for a vital treatment. Wield power to help the people sleeping rough under the Finsbury Park railway bridge or the families stuck in temporary accommodation. Wield power to help the migrant stuck in administrative limbo unable to access housing or health. Wield power to help debt burdened millennials who can’t afford a home, to start a family or to save for a pension. I could go on.

Starmer stress test time

Of course, there is the chance that Starmer will lose (or not have a majority). Things looked pretty good for Theresa May in 2017 and we all know how that worked out. There are elements of the Starmer programme that haven’t been stress tested.

He hasn’t published a manifesto. How will it be costed? Will there be debates? Tory/Labour/Reform swing voters are very angry about immigration and Labour is weak on this issue (from their point of view). There is a chance that Starmer might come unstuck when he gets asked serious questions, or stupid ones (like “can a woman have a penis?” - asked only by people with a weird obsession with what other people have in their underwear).

Who knows what will happen. There might even be an explosion of concern about the climate or for people in Gaza. Starmer’s approach of saying and promising as little as possible might come undone when faced with election media frenzy. Yes, he’s likely to win, but it’s not certain.

Reshape this country for the better

We’re about to have an election. The outcome is the most certain in advance since 2001, if not ever. What I want to see is a debate about what will happen on July the 6th; as what will happen on July the 4th is pretty obvious (the 5th is for counting votes and sleeping). Let’s talk about what Labour can do to reshape this country for the better.

I’m not hugely excited for a Starmer victory in July. If you read this blog, you’ll know that. I haven’t decided yet if I will vote for him or not. So, I will say this: convince me Starmer, like I’m the dude from that meme looking smug behind his table. Show me how this country will be better when you’re in charge with a big majority.

Give me a reason

Go beyond competence and economic growth. Give me a reason to think that the pain that I read about every day, from homelessness to energy bills, can be alleviated by sensible Labour politicians deploying well debated policy.

My vote is right here. Take it. Make me believe that things can only get better. I’ll be watching (and writing here).

Polling station image taken by Rachel H and used under creative commons.

Disgruntled, ignored, demonised: the voters switching from Labour to the Greens

The local election results provided the satisfying sight of seeing the Tories getting a drubbing. It appears that the entire country is fed up with them. The Blackpool North by-election delivered a 26% swing to Labour, the third highest swing from Conservative to Labour ever and Labour won Rushmoor Borough Council, which controls the area that is the home of the British army. 

Sadiq Khan was also re-elected in London. He won in the face of the blatant Islamophobia of some opposition candidates. Many on the right implied that it was illegitimate for a Muslim to be mayor of London, which is a textbook definition of Islamophobia. The right also ran a vice signalling “we hate London campaign” which Londoners predictably rejected.

Still, all is not happy in the Labour camp. They have won huge amounts of councillors and every metro-mayor election apart from one. Despite this, Labour are worried about the rising number of green and independent pro-Palestine councillors elected. Truly Labour can never be happy.

“The words of a Conservative minister”

It should be no surprise that people are voting Green or independent. Kier Starmer has been courting Tory voters so hard he is alienating anyone to the left of Tony Blair. Recently, Guardian columnist Frances Ryan wrote that: “Labour leadership give soundbites that could easily be mistaken for the words of a Conservative minister.” She went on to say:

‘Recent weeks have seen the Labour leadership give soundbites that could easily be mistaken for the words of a Conservative minister, most notably when discussing the social security system. In a speech to the centre-left Demos thinktank last week, the shadow work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, stressed “a life on benefits” would not be an option under her party. It is not simply that such a statement is clearly nonsense – if “a life on benefits” is even possible, it is less a life of luxury and more one where claimants can’t afford toilet roll – but that it is not even original. Kendall’s phrasing was almost identical to the words of the work and pensions secretary, Mel Stride, who, in November, said, “Benefits shouldn’t be there for ever if they’re not required.”’

It’s no surprise that after being repeatedly told that the left are not wanted by Labour they are taking their votes elsewhere.

“Cranks, the bigots, the disgruntled, the lost and the angry”

Peter Mandelson - whose role in the Starmer shadow cabinet is … er … we don’t know but he’s always around - has been deployed to discredit the Greens, presumably to shore up Labour support amongst people who hate the Greens. In an interview for Times Radio he said the Greens were: “Becoming a dustbin, a repository not only for climate activists, but for disgruntled hard leftists.” This shows you exactly what Labour think of the Greens and the people who dare to want something better than a Labour Party that bows to every whim of socially conservative baby boomer homeowners who voted Tory in 2019.

It wasn’t just Mandelson, a recent edition of the New Statesman's Morning Call newsletter opened with the words: “Dismiss the cranks, the bigots, the disgruntled, the lost and the angry at your peril.” The comment was specifically about David Cameron dismissing UKIP as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” in 2006 and how that came back to haunt him, but the inference is clear: people to the left of Starmer’s Labour are cranks or bigots.

There is also the inference in the same newsletter from Labour MPs that more media scrutiny will undo the Greens (some media scrutiny of Labour policies, or lack thereof, would be nice) presumably unmasking them as a party of fringe conspiracy theorists, crazy hippies and people who support any foreign anti-Western power, no matter how dodgy.

Sensible politics

I am tired of being called a crank and a loon for wanting politics to be a little more left-wing. I’m not calling for a revolution, but just for there to be one party that is on the side of renters in poor quality accommodation, people struggling with low wages and debt, and immigrants. Not two main parties that love landlords, big business, and wealthy home owning socially conservative swing voters. I just don’t want there to be two parties that are strongly anti-immigrant, anti-protest and pro-bombing the shit out of poor countries.

Apparently the sensible grown up approach to politics is not to promise to make anything better (apart from delivering growth as a vague panacea) and to care more about fiscal rules than starving children or homelessness.

The sensible thing is also not to do anything to improve the environment so that you don’t have to have any confrontations with angry motorists. Angry students can be confronted, dismissed and, if necessary, given the sharp end of the police baton. Angry motorists from small towns must have their every whim pandered too and under no circumstances be confronted with the problems of the world that involve them making any sacrifices. Anyone who disagrees with this must be ignored or labelled an extremist.

Voting for other parties

Tired of being ignored by Labour, people who are not angry motorists in small towns have decided to vote green after being repeatedly told by Labour that the party doesn’t value their priorities or want their vote. Now, in a fit of worry, Labour are concerned that the people who have been told that Labour don’t want their vote are voting for other parties.

You probably have an image of these new Green voters as hardened activists who are vegan, attend every social justice rally and agitate on every political issue. Well, the few people like this aren’t voting Labour, and certainly a lot of Muslim voters are annoyed at Labour’s stance on Gaza, but most of these people are switching to the Greens (like myself, I voted Green in the London Assembly elections) because they want something done on the climate and child poverty.

“An age of fools”

It’s worth noting that the Guardian recently reported a leading climate scientist as saying: “I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south.” Another scientist was reported in the same article as saying. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

This is what voters switching to the Greens are opposed to: our leaders not being fools on the biggest issue facing the planet. Still Labour doesn’t care. It’s easier just to demonise Green voters.

No interest in Maddy

As usual there is no interest from pundits or journalists as to why this is happening. Whenever there is a surge in support for some new right-wing entity, from the BNP to UKIP to Lawrence Gobshite Fox, there is a rush of journalists shoving their notebooks and microphones in the face of the terminally grumpy and nationalistic to find out why they are so annoyed with the centrists in suits that they’re now voting for an unhinged nationalist.

The same curiosity is never extended to the left. No one appears to be heading down to Bristol to ask a social media manager - let’s call her Maddy - in her 30s who is working full time in a growth industry, is married to someone working full time in a growth industry - Maddy met her husband through work - and went to university to get a well paid job, how she feels about the fact that she can only afford to rent a shoebox in a cramped dangerously clad new build and will never be able to afford to buy a home, save for a pension or start a family. And then asking Maddy what she thinks of Starmer’s Labour.

No one is asking Maddy how she feels about Starmer pandering to angry boomers with mortgages who have a pathological rage at the idea that somewhere a young person is eating a tuna sandwich they don’t deserve. No one is asking Maddy why she’s voting Green when Labour will do nothing to make sure Maddy has a liveable environment when she’s old. No one is asking how Maddy feels about Labour not representing her values, from trans-rights to immigration (where Labour is too keen to signal its values align with Tory voters). No one cares.

Welcoming a Tory MP

While Labour is busy accusing Maddy of flirting with extremism, the party has also been welcoming with open arms a Tory MP who wants to send vulnerable people to Rwanda. Natalie Elphicke, MP for Dover, crossed the floor to join Labour on the 8th of May causing maximum embarrassment to Rishi Sunak. So, people who want food for starving children and the government to do something serious about the environment aren’t welcome in Labour, but someone who supports anti-strike laws is welcome.

Labour chair Anneliese Dodds said that Elphicke was a "good, natural fit" for the party. This is someone who was a Tory five minutes ago. Someone who supported Sunak’s Rwanda plan, which Labour opposes. It’s one of the decent stands that Starmer has made. If you wrote this in a satirical political satire novel no one would believe it.

This is why people are voting Green, because Labour is another Tory Party. Tory MPs are now joining. Of course, voters who want crazy things like homes, food and air that can be breathed are looking elsewhere, and of course Labour doesn’t care and thinks these people are crazy. Whereas they will do anything to win back voters who left in 2019. Maybe Starmer’s Labour should look at itself before accusing its former voters of being extremists.

Labour Party picture taken by Andrew Skudder and used under creative commons.

TikTok has many problems, but the hysteria around this app distracts us from the larger problem of unregulated tech companies

As a society, our distrust of social media has never been higher, but right now most of the ire is directed at one app: TikTok. Last month, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to force ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, to sell the platform to a non-Chinese company or be banned in America. This is the latest round of moral panic about TikTok, where everyone from Donald Trump to Real Clear Policy has criticised the app.

The Chinese social media video sharing app is under the US legislator’s spotlight as suspicions over its effects on users mounts. In the UK, government employees are banned from having TikTok on their work phones by order of the Cabinet Office.

This fresh round of TikTok discourse reminded me of this article by G_S_Bhogal, aka Gurwinder, writer of The Prism on Substack. In this blog post, he explores the often repeated idea that TikTok has been designed by the Chinese as a means to undermine the West by destroying the attention span of the youth and spreading mental health problems amongst them.

Fast food, smoking and short videos

Gurwinder’s article makes a compelling case, but I am not convinced that TikTok has been designed to damage the West or is more dangerous than other social media apps, especially short video apps like YouTube Shorts or Instagram Reels. It’s more accurate to say that TikTok is bad for you, like fast food or smoking. Unlike fast food or smoking, TikTok (and other social media apps) can learn about you to make the product more perfectly tailored to what you will find addictive.

In Gurwinder’s article he said: "Since a TikTok video is generally much shorter than, say, a YouTube video, the algorithm acquires training data from you at a much faster rate, allowing it to quickly zero in on you.” This rapid absorption of users’ data contributes to the platform's addictive qualities.

TikTok (and other short video social media apps) are also on your phone, something you take everywhere with you, check constantly and is essential for modern life. TikTok might break new ground in how to make addictive products, but it’s still just a product that has negative side effects (like alcohol, fast food or cigarettes), not a conspiracy.

Is vodka a bioweapon?

Labelling TikTok a weapon seems akin to claiming vodka was invented by Russia and sent to Britain to poison our livers and cause anti-social behaviour. British people drink too much, especially strong spirits, and this has problems for public health and anti-social behaviour.

Vodka, or any other alcoholic drink, wasn’t invented by anyone to do this. We did it to ourselves because of our own human flaws and a free market that allows dangerous products to be sold (more on that later).

The same can be said of the effect that TikTok has on our attention span and mental health. The reality is, we've known for some time that TikTok, like many other social media platforms, can have negative impacts on users’ mental health. Whistleblower Frances Haugen revealed the harmful effects Instagram has on teenage girls in 2021. TikTok is bad for us, but it’s not been deliberately made to damage Britain or America.

The evidence social media is addictive

A Guardian article by Richard Seymour from 2019 highlighted the addictive nature of social media, drawing parallels to gambling addiction. Seymour referenced the Skinner box, an experiment to control pigeons and rats based on a variable reward mechanism that demonstrates how these mechanisms can lead to addictive behaviours. This is the same mechanism that makes scrolling any social media platform (or flicking through photos on a dating app) addictive, so that we keep coming back for more.

The Netflix 2020 documentary The Social Dilemma also exposed the dark side of social media, revealing how these platforms exploit human psychology to keep users hooked and get us angrier and angrier about politics.

In essence, social media addiction can be seen as a form of gambling, where users chase the elusive reward of virality or validation. Your next tweet could make you famous. The next swipe could be your future wife or the best fuck of your life. The next refresh of the feed could contain anything, something amazing, something that will change your life, or the funniest joke you’ll read today. Keep scrolling. Keep swiping. Keep posting.

The safe amount to consume

I’m not saying that social media is as bad for you as injecting heroin into your eye-balls. There are safe (or at least safer) amounts of vodka or any other amount of alcohol to consume. Anything is poison given the incorrect dosage, even essentials like water and oxygen. There is a perfectly fine amount of social media to consume, depending on who you are. I wouldn’t give vodka or TikTok to an eight-year-old, or someone who struggles with addiction.

Every boozy Brit (and I speak from experience here as I do love a craft beer to go alongside a bowl of Raman at the end of the week) knows someone who has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, if they don’t know an alcoholic. Some things are bad for you. Some things are addictive, which makes it easy to consume too much of a bad thing. Social media is one of these bad things.

There are also concerns about the effects of social media on children, just like there are concerns about underage drinking. Certain products should not be available to children and their use should be restricted for teenagers, whose bodies and minds are still growing. Even industry insiders have criticised the addictive nature of smartphones and social media platforms. Steve Jobs never intended for iPhones to be used in the way that we use them.

The problem is the entire business model

We have known for a while that smartphones and social media are bad for us. They are also addictive, which can make their negative effects worse as users get trapped in a cycle of addiction. They also hook respectable middle-class people, who think that addicts are people drinking in Wetherspoons at 9am or spending all day in betting shops. Not them. Even though they’ve read a thousand tweets using #FBPE today and post a huge overshare on Facebook every day just to see the likes roll in.

Getting concerned about TikTok now is not really concern about the danger of these products, especially for children. It’s concern about China’s growing economic, political and cultural power.

It's not just TikTok that is a problem. American social media platforms like Instagram, Twitter (or X) or Facebook face similar criticisms for their impact on mental health and well-being, especially for young people. The issue extends beyond individual platforms; it's about the entire business model of using addictive products to monopolise our attention to sell us more ads.

Misaligned goals

"We need to have a conversation about what business practices are allowed, like we did with alcohol and cigarettes," said James Williams, author of Stand out of our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy.

Williams argues that the goals of social media platforms often clash with users' well-being and our own personal goals. While social media companies aim to maximise time spent on the platform, to serve users more ads, users want meaningful connections and genuine experiences. The two are not the same. We seek one but are offered the other.

Supermarkets don’t try to keep us trapped in their stores. Our goals are aligned: we want to buy and they want to sell. Sometimes they sell us extra stuff we don’t need, but generally the experience of visiting a supermarket is a partnership that benefits both sides. The same is not true for social media. No one’s plan for the day is to spend all day staring at algorithmically selected content. We want to connect with our friends, family and community. The platforms want to keep us hooked.

Chinese vs Western markets

The strongest evidence for the negative effects of TikTok lies in different content that is available when using the app in China, where it operates under a different set of regulations and cultural norms. The content is a lot more restricted and a lot less addictive. The reason for this is not that China is protecting its citizens from a weapon it made, it’s that the Chinese government restricts its citizens’ exposure to dangerous products. This is mainly because it wants its citizens to compete with America, but the point about government restrictions stands.

I said above that Brits drink too much. I’m not trying to shame anyone into drinking less. We partly drink too much because of our culture, but also because of our free-market economies overseen by neoliberal policy makers. Products that are dangerous are allowed by free markets as they’re making money for someone, which is considered a higher goal than public safety. 

Thus we get cigarettes, high alcohol drinks, fatty fast foods and addictive attention damaging social media platforms. This is especially true of tech products that are less regulated than food and drink.

 Restrict products that are dangerous

Personal freedom and economic freedom are linked (although they are not exactly the same thing as neoliberals would argue) and people should be given the choice about what they consume. If you want to eat McDonalds for every meal of every day, then you should be able to do so free from interference of the state (although I would recommend against it). I feel the same about injecting heroin into your eye-balls, if you really want to do it then go for it (although I certainly wouldn’t recommend it). 

The state does restrict products that are dangerous. You can’t make cigarettes for children any more or sell alcohol to anyone despite their age. The state has the power to intervene to protect public health, whether that's banning cars that pollute too much or social media products that damage our mental health by monopolising our attention. The state just chooses to exercise that power in some areas and not others due to corporate pressure and ideology.

A moral panic about TikTok being a Chinese weapon is not helping tackle the real issue. What we need is to recognise that many social media platforms create products that are dangerous and then use the power of the state to restrict products that are dangerous, especially for young people.

The youth has bigger problems than TikTok

Also, while we’re having a moral panic about TikTok’s effect on the youth, it's essential to remember the real issues affecting young people today (and by this I mean people under 45), such as a lack of affordable housing, poor rights for renters (and bad conditions in a lot of rentals), high levels of student debt, low wage growth and not enough savings to name a few.

Blaming TikTok for societal ills seems misplaced when larger systemic issues are causing problems for young people. There’s no moral panic to fix the housing crisis to protect future generations. That would involve rolling back neoliberal policies that make money for powerful people.

Trump didn’t get started on TikTok

In the end, the problem isn't that TikTok is a weapon; it's that the under-regulated tech industry churns out products that can harm us. As we navigate this brave new world of social media, it's crucial to remain vigilant and advocate for regulations that prioritise user well-being over profit.

After all, in the age of Trump grabbing attention and power via Twitter, perhaps the biggest threat to the West isn't TikTok or China, but the unchecked power of tech giants.

My uncontroversial take on the Israel-Hamas War that will piss everyone off

The eagle eyed amongst you, the ones who really keep their nose to the ground and their attention focused on politics, will have picked up that there is a war going on between Israel and Palestine, or more specifically Israel and Hamas, in the Gaza Strip since October last year. The ones of you who follow this blog will also have noticed that since then I have posted a lot of grumblings about Keir Starmer and nothing on this war. 

It’s taken me a while to put together what I think on this issue. To be honest, I’ve had a little performance anxiety, not something I usually experience when it comes time to share my opinion. I’m sure some people, perhaps everyone, will be upset by what follows. All I can say is that none of this is written to deliberately offend.

So, this is what I have to say: the mass murder committed by Hamas last October - where they deliberately targeted civilians, including children - is completely abhorrent, disgusting and brutal. At the same time, the response from Israel has been excessively brutal and has shown a horrific callousness for the value of human life, with civilians being targeted and hospitals destroyed. In war we should seek to minimise civilian casualties, but from my perspective Hamas and the IDF try to maximise them.

Ceasefire now. Stop killing civilians

This isn’t a particularly exciting take, but deliberately targeting civilians and killing indiscriminately is wrong. I can’t bring myself to justify it from either side. There should be an immediate ceasefire now to stop the killing. Then serious efforts to negotiate a lasting two-state solution to the long-term Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I’m sure that some will feel that the conditions in Gaza (described as an open-air prison) justify war. I’m also sure that many people believe that the attacks on the 7th of October also justify war. In war (either side argue), civilians are killed and hospitals and schools are destroyed. Britain deliberately targeted these things during the bombing campaigns of World War 2. I don’t think killing civilians is justified. Not in this war or any other.

Not an exciting take

It’s not a particularly spicy or attention-grabbing take to say that killing civilians is wrong. You might think I’m a centrist, refusing to take a side or arguing that both sides are equally wrong. This is not my intention. Yes, one side has done a lot more killing than the other. Despite this, or any other arguments, I will not justify deliberately targeting civilians or civilian deaths.

The actions of the IDF - indiscriminately bombing Gaza, displacing people, killing civilians - only plays into Hamas’s hands and makes them stronger. Western governments’ failure to prevent this, or to get the IDF to show any restraint, or even to condemn the IDF’s actions is a moral stain on our consciences and has destroyed what little credibility we still have with the rest of the world.

The IDF are inflicting punishment on all Palestinians for the actions of Hamas, as if they were one in the same. This is not justifiable, even despite Hamas winning elections in Gaza. Hamas has support in Gaza because of the way that Israel behaved in the past. Israel’s actions now – killing civilians, cutting off power and water, laying siege to an area of land where 50% of the population are children - works against their stated goal of destroying Hamas. Collective punishment of civilians for the actions of their government is wrong.

No collective responsibility

Hamas’s killing of Israeli civilians, including children, and kidnapping civilians, including children, is also injuring the Palestinian cause and is leading to only more suffering. Hamas is an antisemitic military force that deliberately targets civilians, and I will not justify their actions anymore than I will justify the actions of the IDF. The world is better off without Hamas, but that doesn’t justify the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.

In the wave of discourse the war has triggered, invariably Palestinians are being held responsible for the actions of Hamas, or ordinary Israelis are being held responsible for the actions of the IDF. The political supporters of both sides (inside and outside the Middle East) like to blame a whole people for the actions of a few. At the same time, we don’t hold all Americans responsible for what Donald Trump does or hold every Russian we meet responsible for Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

I would hate to be held personally responsible for all the shitty things that the British government does or has done; from the Invasion of Iraq, to benefit cuts that have created an explosion in child poverty. We need to stop blaming all Palestinians or all Israelis for all the death in this war or the violence will never end.

Hatred in Britain

I have spoken to British Jewish friends who are frightened by the level of hatred directed at Jews this war has provoked. There has been an increase in antisemitic attacks in Britain. This is shameful. The Jews are a people who have been historically oppressed, denied a voice, driven out of many countries and faced mass extermination. You’re not living in a liberal, tolerant country when Jews are feeling threatened. This hatred must end.

I have also spoken to British Muslims who feel that this war shows that the lives of Muslims or people of colour are worth less than white people. We would never allow over 30,000 (as of February, finding reliably figures is hard) white European civilians to be killed by any country for any reason; yet when it’s Muslims in the Middle East, an army of talking heads springs up to argue that actually the best thing is to kill tens of thousands of Muslims and destroy their homes and communities, and anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive.

British Muslims are also worried that if you point this out you’ll be accused of justifying terrorism or being an Islamic extremist (or at least part of a community that shelters terrorists and extremists). There has also been an increase in anti-Muslim hatred in Britain since the war began. Time and again with this conflict, we are forcing everyone into narrow brackets, assuming what they believe and justifying hatred against them. This has to stop.

Moral horrors

Every time I see a news article or opinion piece about this war I see the civilian death toll climbing, or read about something else that crosses a moral line. From journalists being killed, to hospitals devastated, to universities destroyed, to starvation, to aid being cut off, to aid workers being killed, to safe areas for refugees being bombed, to talk from members of Israel's government about clearing out the entire Gaza Strip and driving its population into Egypt, to politicians in Britain (especially the Labour Party) refusing to condemn actions even a child knows is wrong.

The war needs to stop. The killing of civilians needs to stop. Food needs to be allowed into the affected areas. Palestinians must be allowed to return to their homes. Their communities must be rebuilt.

Israeli civilians must be able to live free and without fear of being killed, like music festival goers were on October the 7th. This can only come about through a negotiated piece, like what happened eventually in Northern Ireland. The thing is, no one thinks that by the end of all this Israel will be less secure; however, there is a chance Gazans will all be driven out of the Gaza Strip, or that they will be allowed to stay but with a severely reduced standard of living and having to live under the constant watchful gaze of the IDF creating a climate of fear no one would want to live under.

Not justifying death

You might feel that saying that the war must stop now is taking one side. So be it. If you feel this view is antisemitic, or that anything I have written here is antisemitic or gives cover to antisemites, then please let me know. I don’t want to add to the fear that Jews live with. I want to see less death in the world, and I don’t believe this huge amount of killing will lead to less death.

I know this isn’t bold, but it’s better than the talking heads who seem to wake up each day to think of new ways to justify the deaths of huge numbers of people who belong to a different culture and religion.

How could this happen?

I am left wondering how could this happen? So much death. So many lives destroyed. The products of civilisation laid waste. Things that are supposed to be sacred and protected, from hospitals to universities, destroyed. Have we entered a phase in history where might makes right and if you want to destroy your neighbour then you can, because the West can’t think of a way to say to Benjamin Netanyahu and his government that it’s wrong to kill so many people? After asking nicely, we’re powerless to stop the killing.

There is more than enough blame and hypocrisy to go around. Many people have shown solidarity with Ukraine when they came under a brutal attack from Russia, and rightly strongly objected to Russia for laying waste to Ukraine, yet they remain silent when Israel lays waste to Gaza. Is this because Israel is in the club of powerful Western allies that get to do what they want to poorer countries? Or is it because we in the West also collectively blame the Gazans for what Hamas did?

Maybe it’s because we tried asking the Israeli government nicely to not kill quite so many civilians and they didn’t listen. If we were to go further and say, stop sending weapons to the IDF, then this would involve admitting that all those people who bang on about the rights of Palestinians have a point, and Western governments cannot allow a sudden outbreak of caring about people in non-Western countries.

Starmer and his reasons

The Labour Party is one part of the British political establishment that has worked hard to prevent there being a sudden outbreak of concern for dead civilians who are Muslims. Since the beginning of this war, they have pretty much explicitly made the point that Israel can do whatever it wants to its Palestinian neighbours. Keir Starmer appeared to say in an LBC interview that Israel has the right to cut off water and power to Gaza, which is a war crime. Later he tried to row back on that, after his subordinates defended what he said.

Starmer was a human rights lawyer, so he knows that this is a war crime. Why has he and many senior Labour politicians (aside from a few notable exceptions such as Sadiq Khan) refused to condemn the mass killing of Palestinian civilians? I guess its for the same reason Labour does anything else: they are completely committed to winning the vote of an angry Boomer Tory/Labour swing voter called Neil from Nuneaton who hates lefties, young people, people who march and probably Muslims as well.

I guess tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians have to die so that Labour can avoid having an awkward conversation with Neil about the fact that he can’t have his every angry whim indulged in a world filled with so many problems. Then again, if Starmer were not going to tell Neil he’s wrong about child poverty in the UK or the environment, then he’s not going to risk enraging Neil by challenging his view that all Palestinians are bad and deserve what happens to them.

Cynicism about politics

Refusing to condemn (and even giving his blessing to) war crimes is a disgusting moral failing from Starmer. There have been many war crimes and moral failings in this war from the IDF and Labour has not condemned them. It’s yet another sign that Starmer doesn’t care about anything other than moving counters from the blue column to the red so that he can become Prime Minister without offering any change to the status quo.

I had hoped that having a human rights lawyer as Labour leader would mean that human rights (such as the right not to wake up to a guided bomb for breakfast) were respected, but I guess I’m just a naive fool for believing that politicians would care about Muslim civilians in a country outside Europe. This is just another step on my road to complete cynicism.

Living free from the horror of war

There will be those on the left who think that I don’t go far enough, or even that my measured comments are covert support for Israel. If you draw that conclusion from my honest words then I have failed. I am working on a longer article about this war and the left’s response to it. Who knows when I will be happy that my thoughts are clear enough to post it, but I continue to think and to read and try to empathise with people who are suffering.

I can imagine that the uncontroversial take outlined above will piss everyone off because I’m not coming hard enough down on one side or signing up to someone else’s take. I’m okay with that. Being angry right now in the face of so much death is fine.

All I have to say is that there should be a ceasefire now to stop the killing and then we need to move towards a two-state solution and a lasting peace. No more killing now so that there can be peace later. That plan has failed. We need to stop killing now so that everyone can live free from the horror of war.

Image of the Gaza War taken by Hosnysalah and used under Pixabay Content License.

The discourse around extremism is based on hand waving at best and Islamophobia at worst

What is an extremist? It’s hard to find an answer that we all agree on. The only thing we can all agree on is that extremists are bad. Whatever you believe, regardless of political ideology or religious belief, everyone thinks that being extreme is a bad thing. 

In Britain, the issue has come to a head recently as the government, flayling around to find someone to demonise as it becomes increasingly unpopular, has unveiled a new definition of extremism. Ostensibly this is to tackle rising levels of hatred and the growing threat of violence, but more likely it's to make it legal to lock up Palestinian solidarity protesters and climate activists.

The new definition

The new definition is long and complex. It will be used for legal and policy making purposes, mainly to prevent extremists getting access to state funds. It won’t be used in political arguments or general discussion, but its unveiling has led to more discourse around the problems of extremism and accusations that some people tolerate extremism.

The question I want to ask is: who is an extremist? Everyone knows who they think are extremists, the people whose views are too different to their own; however, no one can put forward an accepted definition of what an extremist is. If some communities or ideologies tolerate extremism, then we need to know what an extremist is to deal with the problem. As we all agree extremism is a bad thing.

Focus on Islamic extremism

Let’s be honest, the recent discourse around extremism is mainly focused on Islamic extremism, the favourite bogeyman of Western governments wanting to make a power grab at the expense of our civil rights. This time there’s a side order of rage aimed at Just Stop Oil and the like, who do annoying things like closing bridges and reminding us that we’re hurtling towards a climate catastrophe.

Let’s return to the question I want to answer: what is an extremist, Islamic or otherwise? What makes someone extreme, compared to passionate or devout? Recently, Tim Stanley wrote in The Daily Telegraph that Baroness Warsi asked him to define what an Islamist was. His response was “I know perfectly well what it is.”

Not good enough

This doesn’t fill me with confidence. We need a better definition. Even extremists think extremism is bad, as no one thinks they are an extremist. They might think that people they agree with are unfairly considered to be extremists, such as those on the left who are accused of being Communists for saying we should have a wealth tax to fund more healthcare provision (especially in America), but we all agree that the real extremists are too extreme to be allowed a voice in public debates.

If we all agree that extremists are so bad they must be ostracised, then we need to know exactly what an extremist is and which views are not allowed. Stanley’s internal compass, or anyone else’s, isn’t good enough. The definition also needs be fair, and not deliberately constructed to clamp down on one religion or political belief’s activities as that would be prejudiced.

Different religions and football teams

An Islamic extremist can’t be someone whose views become completely fine (or silly) if you substitute “Islamic” for “Christian” (or “Arsenal fan”).

Take this for example: “An Islamic extremist is someone who thinks that society would be better if everyone in Britain was a practising Muslim.” On paper that sounds like a workable definition of Islamic extremism. Certainly, someone who wants to make everyone think like they do is opposed to freedom of thought, tolerance and diversity.

Okay then, what about this: “A Christian extremist is someone who thinks that society would be better off if everyone in Britain was a practising Christian.” This definition would cover several writers at national broadsheets or political magazines, thus meaning Christian extremists have a powerful position in the media. This must mean that wanting everyone to be a practising Christian is fine, as the one thing we all agree on about extremists is that they are bad and should be purged from public life.

Finding a definition that works

Therefore, the definition of “A [blank] extremist is someone who thinks that society would be better off if everyone in Britain was a practising [blank]” cannot stand. It also doesn’t stand up to being made fun of. Consider: “An Arsenal extremist is someone who thinks that society would be better off if everyone in Britain was an Arsenal fan.” This is clearly silly, but someone with this view wouldn’t be chased out of public life.

The problem might be that the definition of “A [blank] extremist is someone who thinks that society would be better off if everyone in Britain was a [blank]”. It’s too restrictive. However, I can’t think of any definition of Islamic extremism that doesn’t become fine if you substitute “Islamic” for “Christian” or silly if you substitute “Islamic” for “Arsenal fan.”

A problem in itself

The definition can be made to work if we add violence into the mix. However, the way we talk about extremism makes it sound like a problem in itself, not a symptom of a different problem (i.e. people being violent). For example when Prime Minister David Cameron said that he wanted to crack down on non-violent extremism, which made it sound like extremism is the problem, whether violent or not, and the violence flows from extremism, not the other way around.

If an Arsenal fan killed a Spurs fan over their team allegiance, we would say that is extreme and thus bad. If this did happen, we would blame said Arsenal fan’s mental health or something similar. The same if a Christian shot someone because of their religious beliefs.

Extremism is not talked about as if it is the product of bad mental health or people who are violent looking for an outlet. Non-violent extremists are still bad. If extremism was a problem caused by something else, then we wouldn’t need to tackle extremism; or come up with a new definition of it. We would just need to tackle whatever the root cause was. It would also mean that we wouldn’t need to understand the different flavours of extremism as that would be irrelevant if the problem is bad mental health or a predilection towards violence.

Don’t be Islamophobic

So, extremism is a problem in itself, but we don’t know what makes someone an Islamic extremist and not a Christian extremist. Islamic extremism cannot be defined as different and worse than extremism of another religion, as that is Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hate; saying that Islam is more dangerous or violent than other religions.

Look back at the statement above or read this: “A Buddhist extremist is someone who thinks that society would be better off if everyone in Britain was a practising Buddhist.” This sounds like someone who has strong opinions on how we achieve inner peace, not a dangerous person who should be purged from public life. If the sentence becomes scary when you take out Buddhist and put in Muslim, then you’re being Islamophobic.

A cover for Islamophobia

Of course, most people with their knickers in a twist don’t want (or feel that they need) a watertight definition of Islamic extremism because “they know it when they see it” or “they know what they mean.” This is the sort of vague obfuscation that allows people to mask bigotry directed at Islam.

What people like Stanley mean when they say they know what an Islamic extremist is elaborated in more detail in his Telegraph article above, where he writes: ‘“Were I to call Jesus a fraud,” I said, “I’d get a few angry letters. If I said something analogous about Islam, I’d get threats of violence.”’

Most of these people who “know an Islamist when they see one” are like Stanley and his religious leaders' fraud comments. Their defence is that they are “criticising Islam” as if they are Martin Luther writing his 95 Theses. What many of them want is the freedom to say anything they like to brown people and not face any consequences.

Fear largely in their heads

I want to be clear about one thing: people shouldn’t get death threats for their opinions and I strongly condemn events such as the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in France. That said, the climate of fear that most “critics of Islam'' like Stanley feel that they live under is largely in their head.

I don’t believe any right-wing commentator has been beaten up, or anything like that, for expressing their views that there is something wrong with Islam and it's worse than the other religions. The reason why I know this hasn’t happened is because if it had then we would never hear the end of it. They might have been called rude names on Twitter, which is hardly a sign of the dangerous climate of extremism that Stanley claims we are living under.

The only journalist in Britain I can think of who has been beaten up is Owen Jones who was deliberately targeted in 2019. These right-wing columnists with huge platforms, regular media appearances and the ear of the powerful like to think they are free speech rebels, and are as brave as Voltaire or Germaine de Stael, for penning angry articles about Muslims and multiculturalism from their Islington town houses. They are not under any threat for their beliefs, and they can say anything they like and face no repercussions.

One flavour of extremism is much more dangerous to society than others

Any ideology or religion can produce extremists, whatever way you define extremism, but they don’t all produce them in the same number. I have met a few left-wing people who defend Joesph Stalin or North Korea, positions I consider to be extreme, but they are vanishingly rare.

On the far-right, we see extremists influencing governments across the West, gaining huge followings and instigating mass shootings. One flavour of extremism is much more dangerous to society than others.

Handwaving the other’s bigotry and opposition crackdowns

As well as there being problems defining an extremist, I don’t trust this government to fairly implement any definition of extremism. You could argue that trashing ULEZ cameras and Welsh farmers protesting in Cardiff over environmental legislation is as disruptive as what Just Stop Oil does, however, we all know that this new definition won’t be used against farmers or drivers. They will be used against climate activists, students and Muslims.

This new definition of extremism seems like another expansion of state power directed against those who oppose the government, such as the crack down on climate protests that the United Nations objected to or calls to ban the Palestine Solidarity Campaign or others.

Without a definition of extremism that is logical and is universally applicable to tell us what the extreme views are (separate from those who promote violence) then we are no closer to understanding what society should accept and it shouldn’t. If we’re going by hand waving about who sends death threats, then all this talk of extremism is just a cover for Islamophobia or a desire to stop annoying climate protesters.

By dropping the £28bn green pledge Labour are saying it doesn’t want the support of people like me

Part of me is surprised that it took Labour this long to walk away from their £28bn a year green investment pledge. By this point it’s clear that they are committed to running on the platform of “we cannot afford to do anything nice,” which they think is the sensible, grown-up thing to do. This is why Keir Starmer committed to keeping the two child benefit cap despite the fact that it’s driving families into poverty. If Labour won’t help starving children, then what chance does the environment have?

I guess protecting us all from the looming environmental disaster and making sure that the natural world is not irreversibly damaged, is the sort of thing that craft beer drinking metropolitan lefties like and is not a priority for the real people that Labour cares about. That is, people from Nuneaton who want to drive a 4x4 a hundred yards down the road to get milk six times a day and have a diet consisting entirely of meat, and will be damned if anyone wants to tell them this is a bad idea.

Labour would rather be on the side of the people who eat raw steak outside vegan food festivals instead of telling anyone who voted Conservative in 2019 that they might want to change their minds about a few things (apart from who they will vote for). At this point, Starmer’s plan might be to change the Labour party’s logo to a tree and see if they can confuse 2019 Tory voters into voting Labour by accident.

Investing in left behind regions

The Guardian called dropping the pledge “wrong, wrong, wrong” but swing voters don’t read the Guardian so that’s fine. Hopefully, The Daily Mail and The Sun have run stories about how this shows that Labour are sensible, grown-up politicians and now that they have dropped the £28bn a year pledge their readers should switch to voting Labour. Although, I have had a quick Google and the coverage hasn’t been great.

There is more going on here beyond the old divide between city dwelling lefties with blue hair who like nice things - like not dying - and the people who Labour really care about - who are presumably pro-hungry children and anti-clean air (if the backlash to the ULEZ is to be believed). There is a strong economic argument for investing this £28bn. It would create jobs in areas of the country that have suffered from post-Thatcher deindustrialization and have lower levels of economic growth, lower wages and lower living standards.

The industries of the future

This sensible economic policy was also about making Britain a world leader in green technology, a key industry now and in the future. This is about protecting the future from more than rising sea levels, it’s about protecting the economy from falling behind other nations and making sure we all have jobs and growth industries after we stop using oil for everything. America and the EU, not known for their radical left policies, are both investing heavily in green industries.

Even China is pumping money into solar and other green technologies (as well as burning vast amounts of fossil fuels). Surely, everyone from Workington to Walthamstow can agree this pledge was a sound economic plan?

A tactical error

Of course, all of this is to stave off Tory attack lines aimed at the policy. Now, so the thinking goes, Labour MPs won’t have to answer difficult questions, such as how will the £28bn be paid for: tax raises, borrowing or cuts elsewhere? The problem is dropping the pledge has now opened up the same Tory attack line on any number of other policies.

Now every time Labour MPs are asked about plans to make it easier for people to better insulate their homes or to set up a green energy supplier, (both good ideas) instead of being able to say the funding for this will come out of the £28bn they will now have to answer the awkward tax, borrow, or cut question on every single policy.

Strong arguments

There is tactically a case that this is the wrong decision. You can also defend the pledge on the basis that it makes economic sense to use the power of the state (who can borrow at low interest rates) to invest in the industries of the future and to try to locate these in parts of the country that suffer from the lack of jobs and lower standards of living. This is better than leaving it to the free market, which will inevitably locate more jobs where it is most efficient: in London, the South East and other large cities.

There is also the case that with the world facing dangerously high temperature rises, and other alarming environmental warnings, then we need to start acting now and drastically to protect the future of life on Earth.

Anti-saving the environment. Pro-cheap mortgages

Starmer is unmoved by all this. I’m sure it’s been pointed out to the people at the top of the party. Labour are mainly concerned about winning the support of the people who don’t care about the future of the planet or the British economy. Or at least, don’t want a government that makes it a priority. Y’know, Tory voters.

These are the people who want everything to stay pretty much as it is even after years of Tory ruin; rising homelessness and child poverty, economic stagnation and crumbling schools, the NHS on its knees, etc. etc. These people are only switching to Labour because Liz Truss pushed up the cost of their mortgages.

People like me

This is the last, of many signs, that Labour doesn’t care about people like me. I don’t mean people like me who voted for Jeremy Corbyn and support socialism - both of which I did/do - I mean people who want a Labour government that will change people’s lives for the better.

If Labour doesn’t want the support of people who want to improve society, clean up the environment and feed hungry children then Labour doesn’t want my support and I don’t want to support it.

Is voter apathy a problem for Labour?

Labour are way ahead in the polls thanks to their daring political strategy of saying as little as possible, promising nothing, ruling out anything that will make the country better and generally pandering to anything small “c” conservative swing voters want. Now, this brilliant plan might be coming unstuck as it turns out people aren’t moved by the position of “vote for things to stay pretty much as they are.” 

I might be being a bit unfair to Labour here. They are saying that some things will be different under a Labour government. Namely that the useless Tories will no longer be in charge and everything will work better under sensible and moderate Labour management, thus the economy will grow and we’ll all be better off. The problem is, where is the enthusiasm for this change?

Have you ever met someone who is a fan of Keir Starmer? I don’t mean someone who will vote for him, or thinks he would make a competent Prime Minister to efficiently oversee our continuing national decline, but someone who really digs Starmer? Saying you're a fan of Starmer is like saying you’re a fan of Sainsburys supermarkets. Fine on a Sunday to get some reasonable quality chicken breasts, but my god sir, dream a little bigger. You can aim to go to M&S.

Depressing effect on election day turnout

Maybe I tortured that particular metaphor to death, but my point is that this is not 1997. Rock stars and footballers don’t want to hang out with the next Prime Minister. He’s not a celebrity or riding a wave of positivity about the future. Most people are thinking: “I’ll vote for the guy with a polo shirt, I guess. What alternative is there?”

Labour are worried that this might have a depressing effect on turnout on election day. Whereas anyone stupid enough to still want the Tories in power will certainly be out voting, whatever the weather, as you must really love incompetent, cruel toffs if you’re going to vote Conservative this year (or really hate Labour).

If Labour are concerned about voter apathy, especially from anyone to the left of Peter Mandelson, then maybe they should look at what they’re offering. The reason why no one is inspired by Starmer’s Labour is that he is so uninspiring. This isn't as complicated as reading Immanuel Kant’s philosophy.

Take doctor’s strikes, as an example

Starmer was asked about the doctor’s strike on a recent LBC phone-in and he urged the government to “get in the room and get on with” negotiations. However, he wouldn’t say if Labour would end the strikes by offering junior doctors more money. “What I’m not going to do is hypothetically say what we might do,” he said.

So, he won’t confirm that he will give more money to doctors who work hard saving lives. Y’know, the people we were clapping for during the pandemic? No wonder people aren’t inspired. No one is out in the streets, waving banners saying: “Possibly more pay or possibly no more pay for doctors.”

The first Labour government

One hundred years ago, on January 22 1924, the first ever Labour government came to power. That was a huge achievement, filled with hope and optimism for the future. It began a process that led to future Labour governments who introduced the NHS and the welfare state, built social housing, reduced homelessness and introduced the minimum wage (yeah, even credit where credit’s due to Tony Blair). Sadly, in 100 years since that first Labour government, only three Labour leaders have won a majority at a general election.

Labour always has an uphill battle to get into power. However, when it does, it achieves this via a burning ambition to improve the lives of working people. Labour wins when it offers voters meaningful change; whether that be a new social contract after the devastation of the Second World War, unleashing the “white heat of technology” for the benefits of all or ushering in an era of youthful, forward-looking politics to sweep out the fusty, old and small-minded Conservatives. Where is Starmer’s burning ambition to match that of his predecessors?

If Labour voters from 100 years ago were around today, they would probably agree with most of us that any Labour government is better than a Tory one, especially this useless, corrupt government that delights in inflicting suffering on people it deems to be beneath them, from migrants to benefit claimants.

A century of struggle

Would they also ask: how did a century of struggle come to this? Promising not to rock the boat too much to win the votes of homeowners with middle-management jobs? No plans for fighting poverty or improving public services; despite levels of poverty and the public realm being overburdened to the same degree as it was in 1922.

Has a century of Labour struggle come to a leader who won’t help starving children or guarantee doctors a decent wage? 100 years on from the first Labour government, Labour is good at blaming the Tories for the state of the nation, rightly so, but shows none of the desire to change the country that previous Labour governments had.

The Guardian said Starmer “powerfully diagnosed the ailing state of the nation” but argues that Labour “continues to exhibit extreme caution regarding the detail of proposed cures.” They go on to say that “there are also risks attached to not taking any risks” and says that Labour should “boldly make the case for public investment as a catalyst for economic revival.” This last bit sounds like previous Labour governments, but not Starmer.

An inspiring vision for the future

Starmer might be the first Labour leader to win a majority by being the default opposition, rather than because he offered the voters something they wanted. If he succeeds in kicking out these awful Tories, maybe we won’t mind. We’re all pretty pissed at them - for good reason, look at the country after 14 years of Tory rule - and I will be one of many to be pleased to see the back of them.

Maybe Labour doesn’t need enthusiasm to win? Perhaps apathy is okay and I’m out of step with the country by wanting an inspiring vision from Labour. I don’t decide on strategy for Labour, which is probably for the best, but I can speak for myself, and I feel that the burning ambitions of the past and the challenges of the present require an inspiring vision for the future.

Labour need to be more than the default other guys for when the Tories piss everyone off enough that people want to vote for something else. They need to offer an alternative that will inspire people, and then they need to build a better country for everyone.

Labour Party picture taken by Andrew Skudder and used under creative commons.

2023: The year nothing got better

A year ago, when I wrote my summary of politics in 2022, I was feeling very depressed about the state of the world. A year later I’m not much more optimistic, if anything I feel worse.

Global temperatures have continued to rise, the weather has become more extreme and warnings from climate scientists have become increasingly panicked. They’re now publishing academic papers that are the equivalent of jumping on a desk, firing off an air horn and shouting “do something you fucking morons before we all die.” Still the wise and mighty leaders of the world twiddle their thumbs and focus their efforts on wringing more economic activity out of ever depleting resources for billionaires.

Where is the opposition?

Once again, I find myself asking: where is the opposition to this? What democratic button do I press for things to be different? I’m not asking for a revolution, red flags to be flying over Westminster, the British military and police to be abolished and for Nigella Lawson to be declared Eternal President of the UK. Although, all of that would be great.

I want a government that will take serious action on climate change, invest in infrastructure, make sure that children don’t starve, work to make sure food banks aren’t needed anymore, help people with the cost of living crisis and help people who are forced to sleep on the street. Apparently, this is extremist nonsense that should be suppressed.

Hot takes and woke royals

The year began with a media pile on after Prince Harry published his book Spare. I dislike the Royal Family in general and Prince Harry’s push for woke royalty is as much an oxymoron as fighting for peace (I say this as someone who identifies as woke), but if we’re going to have a royal family they shouldn’t be racist to the one person of colour in it. After all, they’re the royal family of everyone in Britain, including the people of colour.

This was the first event of 2023 that triggered an endless barrage of angry hot takes as everyone got in their two cents on Twitter and in the press. This wasn’t the last or the worst case of this in 2023, sadly. It was another year where we nearly drowned in pointless bile because it makes money for tech companies.

Tory schadenfreude

Things continued to go badly for the Tories, which was at least pleasing to watch. Kinda like the powerful sense of catharsis in watching your annoying neighbour’s house burn down. The only problem is that we all live in the Tories’ house.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak continues to do this whole ‘I’m a sensible, moderate, safe pair of hands, centrist politician’, whilst making populist outbursts that make even the most beetroot-faced Red Wall Tory/Labour swing voters cringe. His biggest “I’m a tough, nasty, politician who picks on the less fortunate” policy is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, which so far he’s been unable to do due to little inconvenient things like human rights. I’m sure he’ll be ripping those up soon.

Sunak is unable to hang onto cabinet ministers or get his MPs to vote the way he wants. His Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, quit as she wants more time to devote to far-right politics. His MPs are up in arms about everything because his government’s massive unpopularity is likely to mean many of them lose their jobs and will have to beg their rich mates in the private sector for well paid lobbying positions so that their children can stay in expensive private schools.

All this ineptitude and looming electoral disaster would be fun, apart from the fact that I wouldn’t put it past the Tory party to start a war with France to hold onto power. The outcome of the next election could be a surprise. Especially after months of the Tories accusing Labour of being woke. That will be fun to watch.

Worse things waiting in the wings

I’m pleased that the Tories are likely to get the electoral kicking they so rightly deserve, apart from the fact that they will then mutate into something worse. As well as Braverman waiting in the wings to take over, Liz Truss is doing the rounds, blaming the shit show of her 45 days as PM on the woke metropolitan liberals; confirming that there is literally nothing that cannot be blamed on woke metropolitan liberals as a means of distracting attention from how awful the dominance of right-wing politics over our political class has been for everyone.

Watching Braverman and Truss rip the Tory Party apart as they try to yank it in different directions of awfulness would be satisfying to watch, if I wasn’t so scared that whichever bat-shit faction takes over was likely to win a future election. If you’re saying that having a right-wing idiot take over will be electoral suicide for the Tories, just look at the Republican Party.

Only nominally better

There’s also the problem that the other side is only nominally better. Labour leader Keir Starmer has distanced himself from plans to help starving children, invest in infrastructure, raise taxes on the wealthy and clean up the air. Labour are also down playing their plan to avoid a looming environmental apocalypse, because an angry man called Neil from Coventry hates Just Stop Oil and wants to drive his private tank to Sainsbury’s twice a week to buy vast quantities of meat with thousands of food miles on it and will literally vote for a fascist if anyone points out this is all a bad idea.

Labour’s plan is to pander to this as much as possible, whilst giving the Boomers the right to put non-binary London-based Millennials in the stocks if they like. Probably. It honestly sounds like something they would consider if the Daily Mail wanted it.

I have little hope that a Labour government can be much better than what we have right now. Especially one with no clearly stated plan to make the country a better place. A few more details of how Labour will end the nightmare we are unable to wake from, please Mr Starmer. More than just “more growth” as that wealth is likely to be gobbled up by greedy rich people; I’m sorry “honest wealth creators”.

Gary Lineker using his free speech

The problem with this country is that most of the people who will decide the outcome of the next election are cunts, which makes it hard for politicians to offer anything good. This is mainly because our unfair electoral system gives disproportionate power to grumpy socially conservative Boomers and angry middle-aged people with mortgages. You know, the sort of people driven to apoplectic rage by the thought that somewhere someone is eating a tuna-mayo sandwich they didn’t earn.

About half the country wanted Gary Lineker kicked off the TV for exercising his right to free speech on Twitter (I’m not calling it X) and criticising the government. If loads of people think that saying that we shouldn’t treat migrants horribly is a sackable offence, then what hope is there for this country? Again, it would be nice if Labour didn’t pander to this and offered some opposition.

Donald Trump might be heading back to the White House

At the same time Americans are about to have another of their increasingly frequent bouts of “let’s elect someone who might destroy the world.” The only thing that can stop Donald Trump from winning next year’s election is his own coronary arteries finally giving up.

I feel bad for President Joe Biden. He has achieved economic growth in difficult circumstances and has tried to tackle some of America's problems; from investing in new high-tech industries, to trying to tackle the climate and student debt. Although, most people aren’t feeling the benefit, certainly not the 100,000 or so people in swing states who will decide who the next President is, which is insane when you write that down.

Even being on trial for trying to overthrow the government and the chance that Trump will campaign for the next election from a prison cell is not denting his popularity. Certainly not with his base (all hope of them seeing sense died long ago). But worryingly, even sensible moderate conservatives are likely to vote for this guy, because they think all liberals are paedophiles or some shit.

Decomposing in public

Biden continues to decompose in public. I had the privilege of visiting the USA this year and talking to many lovely people there (that’s not sarcasm, Americans are lovely people let down by a horrible political class). My main takeaway was that even the Democrats I talked to said Biden is too old to stand again. He looks and behaves like a doddery old person and he’s likely to be an electoral liability.

The fact that the Democrats are too terrified to put anyone else forward for fear of Fox News destroying their chances with swing voters is both depressing and horrifying. Biden’s legacy should be that he was the person who brought everyone together to beat Trump. If he carries on like this, his legacy will be that he didn’t step aside and let Trump back in to be even worse.

Bloody conflicts around the world

There has also been an explosion of awful news from around the world this year. The War in Ukraine continues its bloody stalemate. Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of seeing sense and stopping the carnage. The West remains unable to beat him or to help Ukraine out of this horrible situation, without dangerously escalating a conflict with a nuclear armed mad man. I’m sure before long the sensible moderates will be agitating for selling out Ukraine, because they can’t think of anything else to do.

The liberal world order has also been unable to stop Israel from killing, so far, over 20,000 Palestinians and laying waste to Gaza. If you look up indiscriminate slaughter in the dictionary the definition has now been replaced by the logo of the IDF. No amount of gentle cajoling from Israel’s allies has stopped them from deliberately killing children and journalists.

The liberal world order doesn’t really have tools it can use to stop states being incredibly violent. All they can offer is “sorry Palestine, we tried asking nicely but it didn’t work and we can’t think of anything else.” Yes, Hamas are a bunch of shits and they deliberately target civilians and kill children. They’re awful, but what has followed their attack on the 7th of October is a disproportionate collective punishment of all Palestinians, who have as much influence over their Hamas government as I do in stopping the Tories being corrupt hate mongers.

Tech companies and social problems

The War in Gaza also unleashed the worst hot take war of the year, with thousands of people dedicating themselves full time to online performative rudeness. As if this will help the civilians on either side who have died or will be killed. Then again, if you can fill Twitter with hatred directed at public figures for not saying exactly what you want, then you can feel like you have achieved something.

Speaking of tech, we managed to collectively lose our shit over AI this year. Looks like the tech companies aren’t done cooking up social problems. After turning us all into angry Fox News presenters with Twitter, then giving us platforms to find new ways to scam each other whilst wrecking the environment with crypto, tech is now all about taking away all the good jobs with AI.

Looks like AI will be writing all our songs and books in the future, leaving people free to spend more time pissing in bottles as we all try to make some money being Uber drivers. The prize for biggest lack of self-awareness of the year goes to our own PM, Sunak, for arguing, in front of five times billionaire-dumb-ass-of-the-year Elon Musk, that people should take more risks and start tech companies, whilst being part of a government that has slashed the social safety net.

I guess people who rely on food banks should start tech companies. That seems like a sensible suggestion. Of course, what we need is better regulation of AI and some economic redistribution to make sure there is wealth for people who aren’t tech billionaires in the future. Or maybe someone can invent that computer that destroys the world because it can’t stop making paper clips. The future will be one or the other.

Democracy year

Next year will be democracy year, with the US, UK, India and many other countries having elections. Something like two billion people will be eligible to vote, the most ever in human history. This would be a beautiful sign of how far humanity has come, if all this voting wasn’t likely to elect a series of authoritarian shits from Narendra Modi to Donald Trump. Still, in the UK, we might get a bland technocrat to protect the status quo and manage the nation’s decline, whilst food gets harder to come by.

It’s Christmas time, so I should think of something optimistic to say. The only thing that gives me hope is the kindness of ordinary people, like church groups and schools raising funds for food banks or for Palestinians or Ukrainians, or people doing small things to help their communities through these dark times.

I remain hopeful that the fundamental decentness of ordinary people (most Brits are actually nice, it’s just the swing voters who are likely to decide who the next government is who are cunts) will find some political outlet to make the world a better place. At times like these, I’m comforted by the words of David Graeber who said: “The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.” Let’s see if we can do that in 2024.

How we think about Brutalism and social housing is changing, but this isn’t helping the homeless

Adverts at tube stations in London are promoting walking along the eastern section of the Thames as a fun family day out for middle-class Londoners. This only shows how much the area, or at least our perception of it, has changed. There was a time when walking near the estates of far East London would be described as the opposite of a fun, family day out. The place was thought of as more La Haine and less like the Cotswolds.

The area is dominated by the notorious Thamesmead estate. When people think of this vast area, which was mainly social housing when it was constructed, they’re probably thinking of the Thamesmead South terraces that formed the original development and consist mainly of Brutalist concrete buildings. These were constructed as part of the post-war social housing boom.

Fun, stimulating and culturally enriching

Thamesmead became a byword for all the problems associated with both Brutalism as an architectural style and post-war social housing development as a political project. The name is a synecdoche for alienation, deprivation, crime, bad design and remote overbearing local authorities filled with middle class do-gooders deciding what sort of dysfunctional but artistically innovative housing it’s best that poor people have, before retiring to their tasteful Georgian or Victorian townhouses.

Stanley Kubrick filmed A Clockwork Orange there, which encapsulates both how it was thought of in the 1970s and how it has been thought of ever since. When we say Brutalism, Thamesmead is often what we are thinking about.

Today, however, our perception of this much maligned architectural style is changing. Even to the point where middle-class people are being encouraged to take their family for a lovely walk down to one of the most famous - or infamous - Brutalist sites as part of a fun, stimulating and culturally enriching day out. Way better than plonking the kids in front of Amazon Prime all day.

A crime against art and heritage

The changing perception of this area of London is not the only example of how Brutalism’s status is changing. Balfron Tower in Poplar - that’s East London for those of you not fortunate enough to live in the world’s greatest city - is being redeveloped as luxury flats after the social housing tenants were moved out. This building, and its associated other buildings in London, was once so hated that Iain Fleming named the villain in his novel Goldfinger after its designer, Ernő Goldfinger.

It’s worthy of note that Goldfinger's house in Hampstead is now a museum containing his art collection and his other buildings, such as Trellick Tower North Kensington and Metro Central Heights (aka Alexander Fleming House) in Elephant and Castle, are now desirable places for the artistically enlightened and tasteful set to live in. Y’know, the set that has poured scorn on Brutalism as an architectural style for decades.

This is not the first time our perception of an architectural style has changed over time. Victorian Gothic Revival buildings such as The Palace of Westminster and St Pancras Hotel were disliked when they were built, but are now beloved national treasures and icons of London. The fact that many iconic Victorian Gothic buildings were pulled down is now seen as a crime against art and heritage.

From Ronan Point to Byker Grove

The mythical person in the street’s dislike of the aesthetics of Brutalism is difficult to disentangle from the public perception of the failures of the post-war social housing projects. A dislike of the avant-garde use of concrete is often combined with a negative perception of local authority housing, but this lazy stereotype overlooks the fact that many of the worst or most infamous failures of post-war social housing weren't Brutalist buildings.

Brutalism, where concrete is typically poured on site for a more sculptural effect, is often confused with system built buildings, where prefab panels are made in factories to be assembled on site. The two styles of construction are similar, but crucially different. Brutalist buildings are much rarer, but why should facts prevent the development of a popular prejudice?

Ronan Point wasn’t a Brutalist building, whereas the desirable and thoroughly middle-class Barbican is a Brutalist building(s) and doesn’t generate the same ire. The popular dislike of social housing also overlooks the fact that a lot of the surviving post-war social housing estates, most of them privatised in the 1980s, are now desirable places to live, like Byker Wall in Newcastle (yes, site of the infamous grove) or the Alexandra Road Estate in London.

An age of rising homelessness and increasing insecurity

We can also question the degree to which the post-war housing project was a failure. Everyone hates tower blocks, the symbols of deprivation and neglect, where councils moved all their problem tenants to be forgotten, but this was a side effect of an ambition to house everyone. There were notable failures, such as Thamesmead, but this ambition to provide everyone a home is better than the free market, let everyone fend for themselves, devil take the hindmost, attitude of the 1980s onwards.

In an age of rising homelessness and increasing insecurity for private renters, we are rethinking this noble project to make sure that everyone has a secure home if they can’t afford to buy a property. In this light, how we think about post-war social housing is changing, from thinking of it as authoritarian, disconnected from the needs of everyday people and poorly executed, to thinking of it as compassionate, paternalistic, grand in scale and optimistic in outlook.

Centre Point reborn

Thamesmead is becoming an increasingly desirable place to live, which might have astonished Stanley Kubrick, if he was alive today. The Peabody housing association is expanding the range of homes that are available there and the buildings added to the estate have been well received.

This is also true of another of London’s Brutalist icons, Centre Point. This huge sculpted concrete tower sits on top of Tottenham Court Road tube station and is a symbolic (although certainly not geographical) centrepiece for London. This former social housing tower block has been refurbished and turned into new luxury flats, which are being sold to overseas property investors for huge sums of money. As we rethink the merits of Brutalist architecture and social housing, housing for the poor is becoming an investment for the rich.

Although, it turns out these luxury flats aren’t selling well. They might be overpriced or the turmoil in the global financial market following the pandemic might be making the buyers, who have these vast sums of money, nervous. The poor selling hasn’t stopped the flats being marketed as a cool, modern, urban, desirable place to live, which is not something we typically associate with Brutalism.

From Victorian Gothic to Brutalism

A pattern has been established: a formerly hated Brutalist building has become an iconic part of London, which means it's being sold to foreign billionaires to bring in money. This has happened to Centre Point, Balfron Tower and is probably the future for Metro Central Heights at some point, as it’s in zone one. Ugly concrete is now trendy urban living.

This happened to the Victorian Gothic buildings before. Buildings like St Pancras Station or the revamped Palace of Westminster were hated when they were built and described as “Gothic monstrosities” but are now icons of London. The hotel on top of St Pancras Station, once slated for demolition, most likely to be replaced by something similar to the current Euston Station, is now a luxury hotel for the well to do. The building has gone from hated to loved; from eyesore to serious money maker.

Revaluating Brutalism

We are reevaluating how we see the political and architectural projects of the past, such as Brutalist post-war social housing. This reflects a broader psychological change in society. After years of austerity and now a cost-of-living crisis, the idea that the state should provide things like safe and affordable housing for all its citizens has new credence. What is needed is for politicians on the left to pick up the desire and turn it into action.

It’s good that we are re-considering these often maligned buildings, but it does mean that they have become desirable places for billionaires to park their wealth. Changes in opinion can drive a revaluation, which in turn can change tastes more widely, but this has so far only resulted in the architecture now being cool and thus increasing the value of the properties within these buildings.

We are living through an age where huge numbers of people are homeless, and many more are living in insecure substandard housing. If we are going to change how we think about architectural projects that were previously thought of as failures, then maybe we should look at the philosophy behind them and what their creators were hoping to achieve, i.e. a secure and affordable home for all. Better housing is needed by lots of people and if these people’s housing situation can be improved, then this is the best outcome of the ongoing shift in architectural taste.

"Balfron Tower" by LoopZilla is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

If Starmer is the new Blair, then here are some things he can learn from Blair

Roy Jenkins said that Tony Blair was “a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor” when describing Labour’s approach to the 1997 general election. That may have been the case, but Blair was shouting the whole time about his plans for the vase and why everything would be better when he finished his journey. Also, he only had the vase in the first place because he had said what he would do with it and people thought his plan was the best option.

This anecdote about election strategy is just one of the ways that Keir Starmer is compared to Blair. I’m not sure I agree with the metaphor, because Blair at least laid out his vision for a New Labour government; i.e. it would be a slightly kinder Thatcherism, have a bit more welfare and be a bit nicer to the minorities the Tories generally dislike. Starmer is keeping schtum about his plans with his priceless Ming vase.

That said, his strategy of saying and promising as little as possible is paying off. Labour are high in the polls and recent byelection victories (especially in Mid Bedfordshire, a seat Labour wouldn’t normally be expected to win) show that Labour *could* be on course for a huge election victory. On top of this, the recent Labour conference passed with almost no infighting and everyone staying on message. So, things are looking good for Labour.

Having a vision

Starmer’s caution is paying off for now, but there are challenges ahead that might require a bolder approach. Winning an election will require Starmer to set out how the country will be different under Labour. Keeping the fragile Labour electoral coalition together is a challenge akin to carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor, but Blair achieved this by having a vision of what the country under New Labour will look like.

Like I said, Blair got the vase (being Labour leader) by having a vision for the party and the country. It was a daunting task to win power after four election defeats (although, he was helped by Black Wednesday and general Tory sleaze and incompetence) and to achieve this Blair presented New Labour to the country as a fully formed and articulated political project. It was a brand. You knew what you were getting.

Starmer, by contrast, got the vase by saying he would do something different with it than what he has done with it, and he’s trying to get it across the highly polished floor (getting Labour into government) whilst saying as little as possible about what he will do on the far side.

The economic status quo

This baffles me (perhaps even more than it disappoints me). There’s a lot that could be announced that would be popular. People are crying out for change after 13 years of incompetent Tory rule, but all that I can tell about a future Labour government is that things will be pretty much the same, only with more competent management.

Here’s something regular readers won’t expect from me: Why aren’t Labour being more pro-business? Jeremy Hunt has raised taxes on businesses, whilst high inflation and high interest rates are hitting their bottom lines. Surely more pro-business policies would be popular. Yet we get none.

Blair openly courted business by saying that New Labour would maintain the economic status quo, i.e. accepting the Thatcherite revolution. I have my criticism of this, previously expressed, but Blair was bold enough to say what he would do with power. Today, the economic status quo won’t help anyone. Change is needed and Starmer needs to be bolder, like Blair was.

An alternative vision of what Britain can be like

Starmer is often compared to Blair, but Blair had a vision that was clearly emblazoned across everything New Labour. Starmer just withdraws things he announced a few months ago. There’s no strategy to this. No vision. We don’t know what Starmer will do with power.

All that defines Starmer’s Labour is “we are not the Tories''. Labour will need more than that to win an election. The Tories are unpopular, and have done a lot of damage to the country, but an alternative vision of what Britain can be like is needed. The platform of “things will be more or less the same as they are, but with better management” does not rise to our current challenging economic and political times.

There are some glimmers of this. The housing announcements made at Labour Conference were very welcome, and the housing crisis is one of the big things Labour needs to tackle, as it affects people across the country of all ages and backgrounds. Cancelling the Rwanda plan is perhaps an attempt to push back at the climate of hostility towards migrants that blights this land. It could be a start, but it is a small start.

Something more radical

It’s funny how Starmer’s boosters have become quieter and quieter during the last three and a bit years. They’re either lying to themselves that he will be more radical in power than he claims (pull the other one, it plays Things Can Only Get Better) or they have totally given up on fixing the problems of the nation. They’re certainly not pushing for him to move to the left and they remain silent as Starmer moves further to the right.

There are many people to the left of Starmer who disagree with his views - such as tepid resistance to right-wing hysteria over immigration and his watering down of Labour’s environment policy - and would be happy with something more radical. I’m not talking about Jeremy Corbyn fans (although the above also applies to them), I’m talking about the many nurses and teachers struggling with low pay or young people locked out of the housing market.

People who don’t like how Starmer folds to any criticism from the Daily Mail and is determined to keep wealthy, Brexit voting, Boomers on side at all costs. And he means at all costs.

The Starmer they were sold

Many people want the Starmer they were sold, not the one they got. That’s why they voted for him. However, these people have gone completely silent. Through the Corbyn years there were repeated calls for Starmer to head up a soft left, Neil Kinnock style, moderate social democratic Labour Party, which would be anti-Brexit and reforming. Now Starmer is in charge and the difference between him and the Tories seems to be found in academic minutia.

The rage that animated anti-Corbynism has not translated into a desire to push Starmer back to the (soft) left or even hold him to account. No one wants to hold him to account for the things he promised in January and abandoned in June, yet alone things he promised in 2020 and has gone back on.

More than this is needed to win an election. The Tories have the incumbent factor and they are likely to play very dirty if they look like they are going to lose heavily. When the campaigning starts and Labour is accused of being a communist, woke and wanting to ban the flag or fish and chips, what will Starmer say? Will he have a vision to counter the negative campaigning? Something that will win people over?

Blair got people excited

I am concerned that there seems to be little enthusiasm for Starmer. His boosters have gone silent and can’t manage much excitement about him rolling over to socially conservative swing voters, giving them everything they want, whilst everything from the climate to the treatment of refugees gets worse. No one is excited about things staying pretty much as they are, but with a more competent set of suits with red ties in charge. Although, a lot of people are very keen to see the back of the Tories.

Again, Blair, for all his faults, did get people excited. Excited about him and the prospect of the new era he would usher in. This is the most striking difference between Starmer and Blair. Starmer is about as exciting as Gordon Brown, but with Blair’s substance. If we can’t have Corbyn’s integrity with Blair’s competence, can we at least have Brown’s substance with Blair’s excitement, and not the current inversion? (Although, I’m worried that we’ll end up with Corbyn’s competence and Blair’s integrity.)

The need for a vision

Starmer needs a vision of what the country will be like under him. Something that will get people excited. A vision for how the country would be different has never been more needed. This vision needs to be more than carrying on as things are, giving the angry conservative voters whatever they want and hoping that they don’t go and elect a literal fascist.

Surely Labour can do better than this? Starmer should take a leaf from Blair’s book, if he really is the new Blair, and have a vision for the country that gets people excited. There’s the chance to win people over to be genuinely enthusiastic about Starmer, with a tired and unpopular incumbent government and a bad economy.

This will win Labour real supporters, not just the tacit support of people who don’t want the Tories in power. However, Labour needs some sort of vision that can get people excited.

What does Tony! [The Tony Blair Rock Opera] tell us about how the Blair era is remembered?

With talk of a huge Labour victory in the next general election, I’ve been thinking about the previous Labour Prime Minister to win a general election. Tony Blair won three elections for Labour, including a huge landslide, but left office with an overall satisfaction rate of below 30% according to Ipsos Mori.

Years later, views on Blair’s ten years as Prime Minister are nearly as diverse as there are people. Some argue everything he did was good for the country. Others argue that everything he did was good except for one huge mistake: the invasion of Iraq. Some claim there was some good, such as introducing the minimum wage and House of Lords reform, and some bad, such as PFI and getting close to President George Bush. Finally, there are those who claim that everything he did was bad.

Which do you agree with?

Which one of these you agree with pretty much depends on what period of Blair’s time as Labour leader you focus on. People who view Blair more positively tend to focus on the sense of rebellious cool he exhibited in the mid-90s, such as getting a shout out from Oasis at the Brit Awards and then winning that historic election victory.

Those who view Blair less favourably focus on the later period, the war in Iraq and cash for honours scandal, when Blair was synonymous with the establishment and only supported by relentless squares like Mark in Peep Show.

Into this debate I would like to inject a piece of culture that will inform our understanding of how the public views the Blair era: Tony! [The Tony Blair Rock Opera] at The Park Theatre in Finsbury Park, London.

The stuff of blockbuster rock operas

Blair’s life and his time as Prime Minister was very dramatic. He presided over huge election wins, the Foot and Mouth crisis, Princess Diana’s Death, 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as debates over Europe, public service reform and an epic rivalry with his Chancellor, Gordon Brown. This is the stuff of blockbuster rock operas.

What Tony! shows is how the person in the street remembers Blair and thinks of him now. It was written by Harry Hill, a veteran comedic writer and performer with his finger on the pulse of what the “average” Briton thinks, or at least finds funny.

Covering his ten years as Prime Minister, the show focuses on Blair’s 1997 landslide election victory, the death of Princess Diana and how he led the nation in mourning, his relationship with President Bush, 9/11 and the War in Iraq.

Illuminating what most people remember about the Blair years

What is left out is as interesting as what is included. There is little mention of Blair’s protracted fight with Gordon Brown over the former’s departure and nothing on House of Lords Reform, the minimum wage, PFI or Sure Start. Key debates on immigration and the Euro are glossed over. This is not a criticism of a play that is primarily a work of comedy not history, but it serves to illuminate what most people remember about the Blair years.

Tony! is structured around a rise and fall. It charts Blair’s rise to PM and his huge electoral success, followed by his fall through Bush dragging him into the invasion of Iraq, with an intermission between the two.

The overall tone of the play is cynical and biting, which is set by the opening number, “The Whole Wide World is Run by Assholes” and firmly points to Blair as one of these “assholes”. Blair is presented as a successful politician who is ensnared by Bush, leading to his downfall. However, he is also presented as greedy and self-enriching. When he retires as PM, it is with the line: “To spend more time with my property portfolio.”

Genuine seriousness

Although the show’s tone is mocking and cynical, genuine seriousness is deployed for sections towards the end covering those who died in the Iraq War, the disillusionment with politicians that followed and the rise of populism.

The comedic light-heartedness is offset with a serious message that the optimism for change that swept Blair into power led first to disillusionment with the debacle over Iraq, then cynicism with mainstream politicians and finally people turning to populist alternatives. The play implies that a line can be drawn from Blair to Nigel Farage and the Brexit vote. This message is crucial for the post-Blair world we live in.

We will probably be discussing Blair forever and arriving at a consensus may only happen long after we’re all dead and the historians can do their work uninhibited by hot takes. However, this play is important in focusing our assessment on Blair on what is widely remembered by the public, not ardent politicos.

Blair stands by his decision

In a 2020 interview with David Dimbleby, for The Fault Line podcast, Blair was directly asked if his actions in Iraq (an invasion on the pretense that there were WMDs that turned out to be false) led to the rise of populism. Blair said that if people are cynical about mainstream politicians because of Iraq, then they shouldn’t be because he made a difficult call based on the evidence he had at the time (which turned out to be greatly exaggerated, at least).

His argument is that it was a difficult decision to make and that we want politicians to be able to make difficult decisions. If people are angry or cynical about politics because he made the wrong decisions in challenging circumstances, then they shouldn’t be, because most of being a leader is difficult decisions in challenging circumstances and we need our leaders to be able to do the job of leading without being hated for doing it.

Blair’s legacy

Firstly, this pretty much accuses the great British public of being wrong for what they feel, which is not a good look for a politician. Secondly, there is a nuanced argument here about politicians making difficult decisions. Early 20th Century German philosopher Max Weber could have written a lecture on Blair’s answer, but this isn’t an essay on what Weber would have thought about modern politicians (although I’m working on one). 

There is also a debate to be had about whether the WMD intelligence was reviewed with due diligence by both the American and British governments. However, what is most important about this response is that Blair spectacularly ducks the issue of whether his actions created this age of political cynicism and populism.

Iraq is Blair’s legacy, at least for most people - Tony! shows this - whether Blair likes it or not and he needs to own the line drawn from the invasion to Brexit. Blair’s not wholly responsible for Brexit, but he is partly.

What most people remember of Blair

What Blair’s current supporters forget is the very ‘Mark from Peep Show’ place that he ended up. From being a rockstar, he became someone liked by those who prefer the status quo and are frightened by change or anything that isn’t boring or conformist. Blair’s supporters remember the cool, not the by-word for boring quasi-authoritarianism that he became.

Tony! captures what most people remember of Blair, i.e. mainly Diana and palling around with Bush. People remember the big election wins, but also how Blair got richer whilst he was PM. Most people don’t remember House of Lords reform, the minimum wage or the Millenium Dome.

Above all, what people remember is that Blair said we need to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs, which turned out to be wrong, and lots of people died. This marked the start of a long slide into cynicism and populism that gave us Brexit and Donald Trump. This is also Blair’s legacy.

"Tony Blair" by StefdeVries is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0 

The cost of living crisis isn’t recent and has deep roots in the economy

If you’re anything like me then you will have seen your electricity, gas and food bills skyrocket over the last year or so, along with your rent or mortgage. There are many easy explanations offered for the economic mess we are in: it was caused by gas and grain shortages due to the war in Ukraine is the most commonly given; at least in my brief survey of people trying to explain the economic goings on. However, we were warned about inflation and the rising cost of living before 2022. Hell, Ed Miliband was talking about it in 2014. 

The cost of living is high because inflation is high, it is also said. This is so obvious that it is practically a tautology. High inflation raises the cost of living and cost of living rises are inflationary. However, staples like food are increasing in price faster than other goods and faster than inflation. This is especially true for cheaper food items and is part of the well documented problem that it costs more to be poor than to be rich.

There is also a strong argument that high inflation has been driven by all the money that was created through furlough schemes during the pandemic. We are now living with the consequences of that decision. Not that there were any alternatives at the time. We needed to lockdown to stop the NHS collapsing and people needed money to do that. This does imply that the inflationary wave will pass, which if it will, it’s not passing quickly.

High energy costs

Another explanation that is offered is that the cost of living is high because energy prices are high. Almost everything requires petrol or electricity to be made or delivered to consumers, so if the cost of energy rises then this is passed on to the consumer via higher prices for food or other essential goods. High energy costs are also directly driving up electricity bills.

One cause of high energy prices is the huge profits of energy companies. This is known as, greedflation, i.e. when the greed of companies leads to them putting up prices. Albert Edwards, an analyst at Société Générale, one of Europe’s oldest and biggest banks, has put forward evidence that this is a leading cause of inflation.

No simple explanation

The truth is that there are no simple explanations for what’s happening. The cost of living crisis has been caused by long term problems with our economic system, yes, exacerbated by recent events such as the pandemic and the war in the Ukraine, but the problems are deep and structural.

The Western world hasn’t seen real wage growth since the 2008 financial crash, which is a long term cause of current economic problems. Wages have not kept pace with prices for more than a decade and a half. Many people are poorer now in real terms than they were in 2007.

The 2008 crash is crucial. This was the point that capitalism stopped benefiting most people in the West and almost everyone got poorer as a few rich people got richer. Certainly, life wasn’t great for everyone before that. Lots of people had low wages, insecure housing or no prospects in a small, post-industrial town. However, since 2008 wages have not grown for the majority of people and the benefits of most economic activity has increasingly gone to a few wealthy people.

Bigger than problems in the past?

This prolonged lack of wage growth is behind many problems, from the cost of living crisis to the rise of Donald Trump and Brexit. People feel much poorer regardless of whether the economy is growing or not.

The problem is big, structural and long term, but it’s no bigger - although it is different - from the problems faced by the post-war Labour government or Franklin Roosevelt’s Democratic government after the Great Depression. So, what solutions are today’s politicians offering to fix this mess?

Labour wants growth

Labour’s offer is economic growth, like we had in the 90s and 00s. Yes, in the past we had economic growth AND wages rose, making people better off. Most people, that is. Again, there was still a lot of poverty, mainly in specific regions of the country and in communities that used to be based around employment in heavy industry.

Bringing back economic growth, even strong economic growth, without real wage growth won’t help. We had growth for periods under David Cameron and George Osborne’s administration, but wages didn’t rise and people felt worse off. Hence the Brexit vote, in part. Most of the benefit from the Cameron era growth went to a few wealthy people, because of how unequal this country is. Economic growth isn’t a panacea to deal with the problems of poverty and low wages.

Labour are also vague about how they will achieve this economic growth. How will the investment the economy needs be paid for without increases in taxes or borrowing (both ruled out by Labour)? How do they plan to address the low productivity of the British economy? How will we bring in people with the skills there’s a shortage of in the UK, whilst reducing immigration? These are questions Labour is keen to not answer.

The Tories offer no more details

The Tories also want to grow the economy, but offer even less insight than Labour into how they plan to do this and how this will lead to wage growth. They would prefer we talked about small boats instead.

No one is addressing the complex root problems of the cost of living crisis or offering anything that even smells like a real solution. Every political party claims to have a solution that will make everyone better off and no-one will lose out (apart from migrants) but no clue on how this will actually work.

The same old orthodoxies

An end to the war in Ukraine, no more pandemics and lower energy prices would certainly help with the cost of living crisis. Having less greedflation would definitely help, although that is a systemic issue, and I wouldn’t hold my breath for Labour or the Tories to tackle private companies’ greed.

Fixing the problem of high cost of living requires addressing the deep structural problems in our economy, which the 2008 crash laid bare and have plagued us ever since. We have been a low wage growth economy for too long and (nearly) everyone is feeling the pinch.

Bringing back economic growth won’t help if there isn’t wage growth and a redistribution of wealth. Systemic change is needed to create an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few. Unfortunately, neither Labour or the Tories will tackle the underlying issues in the economy or make the bold reforms that are needed. They just offer the same panacea of economic growth and the same old orthodoxies that got us into this mess.

GBP image created by Joegoauk Goa and is used under creative commons.

A hipster’s take on crime straight from the murder capital

Good, honest, salt of the earth, working class, socially conservative people are being menaced by quad bikes and weed smoke, if you believe the champions of the soft-left, Paul Mason and Keir Starmer. If you think this sentence is ridiculous then you're a hipster metropolitan liberal, who lives in a cosy bubble of craft beer and Korean barbeque and has no connection to the plight of the honest man.

Being taken seriously on the issue of crime (which apparently involves saying silly things) is part of Labour leader Starmer’s march on the middle-aged homeowners in small towns. These are the people who voted for Brexit and the Tories in 2019. Doubling down on crime makes sense as a political strategy, as voters who want a tough stance on crime tend to vote Tory and flipping the perception in (some) voter's minds that Labour would be better at reducing crime could help the party win some marginal constituencies.

I’m not a fan of this tactic. But there is truth in the fact that the Tories’ austerity program has reduced police numbers and made it harder for them to manage their workload. Also, it’s worth noting that increasing the number of police was a policy in Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 and 2019 Labour manifestos. The perception that crime has increased plays into the narrative outlined by both Corbyn and Starmer, that many years of Tory rule has led the nation into a state of decline and left the public realm devastated.

The tough decisions to tackle the problems with the police

Labour parking their tanks on the Torys’ lawn on the issue of crime makes me uneasy for several reasons. The first is that there are a lot of problems with our current police services, which go beyond their lack of funding. The Metropolitan Police have been found to be rampant with misogyny, homophobia and racism. Remember that a Met police officer was convicted of raping and murdering a woman recently, and his pattern of concerning behaviour prior to the murder was overlooked.

There are clearly institutional problems with the police in this country - not just the Met - and I want the largest party of the left to be getting stuck into tackling these problems; from sexual harassment, to the overuse of stop and search in ethnic minority communities, to spying on legitimate political organisations. Labour should be proposing that when in government they will make the tough political decisions to fix the problems with the police. I don’t want the party to be uncritically holding up the police as a solution to a range of social problems, when the police are the cause of some social problems.

The second area of concern is that more funding for the police will make existing problems larger. If new police officers are joining sexist and racist police forces then they’ll just be more people in a bad system, which means more people will be harassed or unfairly arrested or unfairly spied on. This means that reform of the police, not more money for the police, should be the priority of the Labour Party.

Yet again it’s socially conservative Boomers

The other thing that concerns me about this focus on crime is it once again shows whose opinion Labour is interested in; i.e., socially conservative Boomers, who voted for Brexit and feel threatened by kids hanging out in their local park. Great, let’s hire more police and sort that out. That is definitely the most important issue affecting communities across the country.

Do you live in a city and are concerned about police targeting racial minorities? Well then, get back to your craft beer you hipster. Can’t you see you live in a bubble and are completely disconnected from the views of ordinary, good, honest people?

Are you concerned that the reason why kids are hanging out in the park is because austerity has meant all the youth programmes have closed? Sorry, there’ll be no money for youth programs as Labour has to maintain a balanced budget because Steve in Nuneaton is worried about Labour turning on the spending taps and he really really really doesn’t want to pay more taxes (although he is very into more money for police and the army).

Tainted by association

Socialists, or anyone  concerned about uncritically expanding the reach of the police, are dismissed as being wishy-washy, bleeding heart, hipsters. We’re told that we’re out of touch because we live in a bubble called “London” or “Bristol” where people think and act differently to good, honest, salt of the earth types. The people who Labour want to win the votes of. The people Labour will listen to.

If Labour were to consider our views, then they would be tainted by association with such out of touch weirdos and the proper, decent, hard-working, everyday British families with their  semi-detached house in a small town and two cars would all vote Tory just so that London can get a kicking, even if the Tories’ main policy was to sacrifice all first born children in a ritual to resurrect Margaret Thatcher.

I admit that London is a bubble where people act in a certain way, but so is everywhere. Remember, there is a town where they roll cheese down a hill. Having a liking for pulled pork, craft beer, independent cinemas and restaurants you have to queue to get into isn’t that strange.

The dual nature of London

There is a strange dual nature to London. London is apparently insulated from all the harshness in the world that makes Boomers in small towns hate the young, immigrants, trans people and anyone without a double fronted house. The harsh realities of life outside the prosperous cities is always held up as an excuse for the reactionary views of people in towns, and city dwellers are told it’s wrong to lecture these people on not being bigots because they don’t have it as easy as people from places where there are more than two jobs in the museum sector.

We are told that the views of people in towns on crime, immigration or trans-rights cannot be challenged and are so deeply ingrained that Labour must pander to them to be elected. London is a strange place where people do odd things like not being racist or transphobic. We have that luxury because we live in a lovely comfortable bubble. However, London is also where a lot of the crime takes place.

I have lived in East London for nearly 15 years, and more than half a dozen murders have taken place on the streets I have lived on. Despite living in what could be considered a crime hot spot - a 15-year-old was stabbed to death outside my local gym the other month - I don’t want to see loads more funding for the police. I want to see Labour tackling the problems of misogyny and racism in the police force.

The people whose opinions matter

Apparently, that’s a hipster opinion and not to be considered by politicians. Also, before you ask, yes, I have been a victim of crime and, yes, I called the police when I was (not that it made any difference). I’m not saying no police at all. I’m saying tackle the problems of institutional racism and misogyny in the police. That should be clear from the above.

It’s strange that Londoners, Bristolians, Brummies, Mancunians, Nottinghamites, etc are considered too soft to have a valid opinion on crime (especially if you’re young) because, generally, we don’t want loads more police. What we need to do is listen to someone who doesn’t live in a hipster bubble. Someone from a small town where kids smoking weed and riding on quad bikes is a serious problem. These people really know what it’s like to live surrounded by crime. No, we don't want the opinion of people who live in the murder capital and/or are fans of The Murder Capital.

I would like someone to explain to me how I can both be living in a softy bubble and in a gritty urban area? Or is it that my opinion on crime, or any other issue, isn’t going to be taken seriously by Labour unless it chimes with what Daily Mail reading Boomers think? After all, they’re the people whose opinions matter.

What do people mean when they say they’re “culturally Christian”?

Predictably we’re having another culture war, this time over the census. Specifically, over the fact that now less than 50% of the country identify as Christian. This is most likely the census catching up with reality. Church attendance has been falling for years and parish churches are closing at record rates. Now the census is reflecting that, as people who don’t attend church stop ticking the Christian box. 

People declaring that they are Christian on the census despite not attending church or fasting during lent has several causes. One is that faith is a private matter, and many people might say that they have accepted Jesus Christ in their heart and feel no need to attend church. Fair enough. Although the point of a religion is the rules that govern life, such as keeping the Sabbath day holy, and ticking the Christian box on the census implies acceptance of the whole Christian package, not just the personal Jesus accepting bit.

It’s also likely to have been caused by a lot of people considering Christianity to be their cultural identity. This might involve attending carol services at Christmas, making December more meaningful than it only being the shopping and overeating month. It also involves people feeling a cultural connection to their parents and grandparents, who were more ostentatiously religious, or at least put more stock in sticking to the rules of Christianity even if it did mean losing your Sunday lie in.

“Culturally Christian”

Whatever the reason for the disconnect between church attendance and census data, the latest figures now reflect what everyone already knew was going on. That is apart from conservative loud mouths.

This change in the numbers has led right-wing political provocateur Tom Harwood to say that there should be an option on the census for “culturally Christian” which I guess is for people who like carols and Easter chocolates, but don’t believe in God or attend church.

The way that many people experience Christmas and Easter - including Christians, atheists and people of other faiths - has more to do with capitalism than religion. It’s more about shopping and time off work than a religious festival.

Still a Christian country

To what end would it be worth recording people who are “culturally Christian”? It appears to be a way to indicate that people aren’t either Muslims or liberal secular atheists, which is why it appeals to right-wing agitators.

What they want is a way to claim this is still a Christian country and not a secular multi-faith society, even though most people aren’t Christian or churchgoers. They’re trying to loop everyone who likes chocolate and days off work into a specific identity to make it look like the majority.

That is moving the goalposts to benefit the people who want to hold onto a 1950s vision of Britain as a Christian country and label all the changes that came after as unnatural and against our character.

The cloak of culture

Trying to create a cultural identity, let’s call it Culturally Christian, as a rallying point for political beliefs makes sense. Identity is bound up with politics in a way that goes beyond what’s labelled as “identity politics” such as Black Lives Matter or LGBTQ+ activism.

Everything from where you live to what you eat or what entertainment you enjoy is bound up in political beliefs. Witness the difference between the Workington estate pub, covered in flags and proudly advertising Sky Sports, to the East London craft beer co-op that only serves beer from independent breweries. Neither are overtly political, the way Liberal or Conservative Clubs are, but if you survey the politics of each’s customers the stark political divide in this country would emerge from behind the cloak of culture.

Culture makes politics more than abstract thought. It makes it tangible through the rituals of everyday life. What people like Harwood want is a way to claim that the rituals and values of small villages in Oxfordshire are that of a significant part of the country, to make a political argument about how this country should be run. Even though this is clearly not the values that most British people have. The future is urban, multicultural, young, and not Culturally Christian.

The will of the masses

That is the root of this argument over the census and what people put down as their religion. It is an attempt to argue that there are many millions of conservatives in the country because most people like presents at Christmas and chocolate at Easter, whatever their religion.

It is also an attempt to assert that Britain is still a Christian country, despite fewer and fewer people attending Church or identifying as Christian. A few conservative Christians want to claim that their agenda against multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance is the will of the masses.

Well, it isn’t. Most British people are happy that this is a diverse country with people practising many religions and many people without a faith. Yeah, there are a lot of people with strong views on immigration, but that’s not the same as being a conservative Christian of the flavour who reads the Spectator, joins the Tory Party and wants to hold onto a fading vision of 1950s Britain. The culture and values of conservative people in rural Oxfordshire are not the values of most people in modern Britain and I don’t need census data to know that.

As the Tories and Labour become increasingly similar, many left-wing voters find themselves politically homeless

Pro- law and order, pro-landlord, anti-immigration, angling for the support of middle-aged homeowners. No, I’m not describing the Tory Party, this is Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. 

An illustrative case is the recent government announcement that it will be housing migrants in ex-military bases and is "exploring the possibility" of using ferries as floating detention centres. This comes after a furore in the right-wing press about how much it’s costing to house these vulnerable people in hotels.

Now people who are fleeing wars and oppression, and come to Britain in search of something better, will be housed out of sight as much as possible, less the sight of the needy upset some angry Boomers. This is the sort of outrage that the opposition should be opposing on moral grounds.

The Labour response, or lack of

Where is the Labour opposition to this? Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the plan was "an admission of failure" on asylum policy, which is hardly a plea for better conditions for her fellow human beings. Kier “human rights lawyer” Starmer has not gone out of his way to make housing vulnerable migrants a Labour priority. He’s more interested in winning over the people who think shoving migrants out of sight and into poor quality accommodation is the best way to treat the needy.

Labour under Starmer has no interest in standing up to the ever-increasing anti-migrant sentiment in Britain. In fact, they pander to it as much as they can. What will happen when angry voters demand something even more dehumanising in the future (the likely outcome of the constantly rising hatred of migrants)? How far is too far for Labour?

Labour giving the government’s authoritarianism a free pass

The same can be said on crime, where Starmer has recently claimed that the smell of cannabis wafting through windows is “ruining lives”. This statement is daft because Starmer (who is many things, but not an idiot) must know that the war on drugs has failed and that an, at least, tacit acceptance of weed has worked well in countries like the US and Italy. It’s just further proof that Starmer doesn’t want to change anyone’s mind on these issues, only pander to their existing beliefs.

Meanwhile, Cooper isn’t causing much of a fuss outside parliament about the government’s increasingly authoritarian anti-crime policies, such as their new clamp down on anti-social behaviour. Kids who have had all their social clubs and after school activities cut now can’t hang out in parks without being hassled by the police. Where is Labour on this? On the side of the Boomers who want kids to get off the grass.

This is happening alongside new powers for landlords to evict tenants, at a time when renting for millions of people is already dangerously insecure and homelessness has risen dramatically since the Tories came to power. Again, where is Labour on this? On the side of landlords and not tenants, less they upset some middle-aged homeowners.

We don’t need two Tory parties

The thing is, we already have one party that is pro-law and order, pro-landlord, anti-immigration, angling for support of middle-aged homeowners and it’s the Tories.

We have a party that wants to turn every angry prejudice about the youth expressed in the Daily Mail into a brutally enforced ban on something. We have a party that wants to keep migrants out, landlords safe in their ability to exploit tenants, young people in their place and supports harsh policing of anyone who doesn't own a double fronted semi-detached house in a leafy suburb. Why do we need two?

Yeah, I get it

Yeah, I get that Labour is going after the voters it needs to flip to get into power and, y’know, do something to help the homeless and people on huge NHS waiting lists. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) recently warned of a ‘lost decade’ on working to avoid the worst aspects of climate change. We can’t afford to lose another and to do this we need Labour in power.

I get it that the first past the post voting system, tribal voting habits and low youth voting turnout means that some people’s votes are just more important than others. You must play the game as it is, not the one you want to play. You don’t win the FA Cup by turning up with a tennis racket.

I also get that Jeremy Corbyn, and socialists like myself, aren’t everyone’s cup of tea and Labour wants to do some things differently after losing four general elections. But there’s a huge gap between Corbyn and being so close to the Tories that it’s hard to tell the difference on many issues - other than climate change, I’ll give Labour that one.

People to the left of Starmer

It’s easy to dismiss everyone to the left of Starmer as blue-haired, craft beer drinking, very online, Novara Media subscribing, hardcore activists who only read tomes of Marxist theory or histories of how terrible the British Empire was, who attend meetings with bearded real ale drinkers still wearing the same Clash t-shirt from the late 70s who are still fighting the Miners’ Strike.

Most of that describes me (apart from the blue hair, my hair has thinned too much to dye), but that’s not everyone to the left of Starmer. There are many people I have spoken to, from teachers to millennial parents, from young professionals trapped in precarious rental accommodation to gay boomers worried about growing intolerance in public life, who are alienated by how little Labour cares about them and how much they care about the opinions of Tory voters.

These people disagree on many things, from tax to trans-rights, but they all want something a little more left-wing than what Starmer is offering. They all think it isn’t necessary to chase the socially conservative Daily Mail vote to the exclusion of all else. Who will speak for these people? The people who don’t want to build a wall around the country. The people who aren’t horrified by the smell of weed.

Politically homeless

Of course these people don’t matter to Labour, Starmer and his cheerleaders in the press, although even they can only manage tepid optimism. To them the only people that matter, the only real people, are socially conservative, middle-aged, home owning swing voters in marginal seats. Workington Man and Stevenage Woman. The sort of people who think Gary Lineker is a dangerous left-wing radical.

We now have two main parties representing these voters and if you want anything to the left of this then mainstream “sensible” politics doesn’t want to hear from you. The sad thing is that there are many people on the left who are completely unrepresented by the two parties that are likely to form the next government.

I’m further left than the average person looking at Starmer in dismay about how eager he is to pander to every right-wing prejudice, from immigration to benefits. However, there is a big audience to the right of me and to the left of Starmer who now find themselves politically homeless as the Tories and Labour become increasingly similar.

Labour Party picture taken by Andrew Skudder and used under creative commons.

The 2024 election will be bitter and nasty

Now that 2023 is fully underway and turning out to be quite grim, let’s spend some time worrying about 2024? 

There will most likely be a general election next year. There must be one by January 2025 and the Tories will not want to have an election in January, when everyone is feeling cold, depressed and low on money, or an election at the last possible minute, when a surprise scandal can derail everything at the worst possible moment.

That means spring or summer next year is a good bet for the next election. Rishi Sunak must be hoping that inflation will subside, the strikers will either give up or he will find some legal way to force them back to work, and some form of economic growth will return. If he can sort these things out, he might think he has a shot at winning an election and call one.

A shield against being called woke

There’s a lot of ifs in the above, but quicker reversal of fortunes have happened in recent years. If Sunak can’t deliver at least a few modest accomplishments, then the only option will be to go full culture war and spend all day accusing Labour of being so woke they want to ban curtains or some bullshit.

If this cultural war tsunami bounces off Labour then maybe all of Keir Starmer’s pandering to the prejudices of angry, socially conservative Boomers will have achieved something. Maybe Starmer has come up with a winning strategy, that by saying that there’s little difference between Labour and the Tories on immigration he is building a shield against the electorally toxic accusation of wokeness.

Possibly. However, this shield will have to stand up to the strongest battering that the right-wing press can throw at it. When everyone from the Prime Minister to GB News is screaming that Labour is the vanguard of the woke Stasi, and that they will critical race theory your grandma, then whatever Starmer has done to purge left-wing people from Labour will make no difference. People will still think he is woke.

Keep the focus on the economy

There is another way that this can backfire, which is that the electorate may be unmoved by a culture war. Yes, Sunak might be gaining on Starmer in turns of personal popularity by making a strong stance against small boats, but most voters are still more concerned about their energy bills and mortgage payments.

All the time Starmer spends parking his tanks on the Tory’s lawn on issues such as immigration is time he’s not spending talking about the issues he’s most likely to win on: cost of living, inflation and the economy. If I were advising Starmer, I would recommend he keep the focus on the economy, instead of deliberately pissing off the people drinking artisan coffee at places overlooking the Regent's Canal because he thinks this will win some voters in a former mill town.

The rumble in Islington

Then there’s the situation in Islington. A large proportion of the election coverage will focus on Jeremy Corbyn’s run as an independent. Aside from formally testing the idea of whether people vote for parties or candidates, this race will profit no-one on the left.

It will be a huge distraction for Labour while they try to sell their program of government to the country. It’s a big tactical blunder on Starmer’s part to create the circumstances where a huge distraction will arise at the most crucial moment.

Corbyn should be pissed off at how he has been treated. He’s represented Islington for Labour for decades and having that taken away is nothing short of an outrageous slap in the face. Labour Party members should also be angry that the chance to choose their local MP has again been taken away from them.

Keep the focus on the Labour left

For socialists, this will once again mean spending huge amounts of energy defending Corbyn instead of building up a socialist movement that goes beyond the fanbase of one man. It also means that other decent left-wing Labour MPs, such as Clive Lewis or Zarah Sultana, could get chucked out of Labour for supporting Corbyn, which will only hurt the socialist movement more.

I find myself agreeing with veteran Labour left-winger Jon Lansman that Corbyn’s energy would be better spent leaving parliament to spend more time on politics, as Tony Benn said. Corbyn would be a great figurehead for a socialist movement outside parliament, which is where the momentum is at its strongest and is likely to make the biggest difference.

The socialist movement in parliament and communities

The socialist movement in parliament has faltered since Corbyn lost the 2019 election. This is largely because we thought that we were electing a left-wing leader in Starmer. We weren’t. He has used the power of party leader to push the left of the Labour Party as far out of view as possible. After setting the agenda for two general elections, socialists find ourselves marginalised again.

This is mainly because of Starmer’s lies, but it is partly because as socialists we made little effort to expand our movement beyond support for one man. As soon as a socialist stopped being leader of the Labour Party, socialist politics disappeared from the national stage.

There are movements in communities across the country, from Extinction Rebellion to ACORN via many local campaigns, which are making a difference and need a parliamentary voice. When the next election comes, we should spend our time getting sympathetic socialist Labour MPs elected to support the wider socialist movement in the country.

Past leaders stayed on

I also agree with Lansman that Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband were not forced out of the party after losing a bigger share of the electorate, and Corbyn’s loss is the reason the NEC is citing for not letting him stand again. It’s very unfair to push Corbyn out of the party for this reason when there is no precedent for this.

Labour should let Corbyn stand as an MP for the party, mainly so that this race doesn’t dominate the news during the election. It would be the sensible thing to do. Socialists should also not let our strong feelings about Corbyn give Starmer the excuse he’s looking for to get rid of other left-wing Labour MPs.

If you want to piss off Starmer, help get more left-wing Labour MPs elected. That will cause trouble for him and could be very effective for the left in the event of a hung parliament.

An ugly campaign

There are known unknowns in the next election as well. The SNP’s recent implosion could put Scotland back in play for Labour, but not if Starmer leans into the SNP’s narrative that the three UK wide parties are all regressive English social conservatives at odds with Scotland’s long history of progressive radicalism.

Tactical voting is likely to be bigger in this election than any previous one. This could lead to a coordinated exchanging of Labour and Lib Dem votes in an informal anti-Tory alliance to swing marginal seats. However, socially liberal Lib Dem voters might be put off by Starmer’s lines on drugs or anti-social behaviour. This is especially true of young voters, who find themselves politically homeless following Starmer’s lurch to the right.

An election is coming and it will be bitter and nasty. The Tories won’t give up power easily. They’re wounded, which is when they’re at their most dangerous. There’s no-one they won’t demonise or stir up hatred against to win this election. As socialists, we need to be ready to fight this ugly campaign when it comes.

Polling station image taken by Rachel H and used under creative commons.

Ten Days at the Space attempts to be as radical as the Russian Revolution

We may be living in revolutionary times. Extinction Rebellion are taking to the streets to prevent a climate catastrophe and the amount of workers on strike has not been this great in 50 years. It’s only natural that this potentially revolutionary moment is reflected in art.

This is why I was excited to see Ten Days, which recently finished its run at The Space theatre in the Isle of Dogs, a play that shows the revolutionary possibilities of the present by connecting now with the most famous revolution of all: the Russian Revolution.

The play charts the ten days that led to the Bolshevik’s revolution in Russia in October 1917 (by the Julian Calendar used in Russia at the time). It’s based on the account written by American journalist John Reed, who had an astonishing level of access to the senior people behind the revolution at that crucial time. His account is the most compelling and comprehensive of those fateful days that shook the world.

A radical approach to theatre

This new stage adaption of Reed’s book was written and directed by Matthew Jameson and performed by BolshEpic Theatre. It attempts to be as radical in its approach to theatre as its subjects were in their approach to politics. This included pay-what-you-are-able pricing and means to draw the audience into the radical events of the play (more on that later).

At nearly three hours Ten Days is a long production, but it’s still a condensed version of the events leading up to the revolution. Jameson himself plays John Reed and moves through the action to narrate events. Jameson made the sensible decision to cut many of the long speeches that Reed reproduced in great detail, which gives the play a fast pace that helps offset its long running time.

Many short scenes keep the drama focused on the narrative of a country hurtling toward revolution and the small cast cope well switching between different characters and locations with minimal set and costume.

The appeal of the Bolsheviks

The production’s great strength is how it captures the rising tension as the situation escalated in St Petersburg in 1917. You feel the growing frustration as the unpopular provisional government continued to prosecute a disastrous war whilst failing to deliver meaningful improvements in living conditions. This caused the Russian people to look to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov - aka Lenin - and the more radical Bolsheviks - who offered peace, land and bread - as the solution to their problems.

The play captures the frantic feeling of those crucial days, as Reed does in his book. Ten Days is filled with the possibilities of radical change following the February Revolution that many felt had not changed Russian society enough. Frenetic uncertainty was seized by the Bolshevik’s to lead a second revolution in only a few months.

This is mainly achieved through a strong script and a series of great performances, notably Matthew John Wright as Lenin and Oyinka Yusuff as Leon Trotsky who form the core of the play. With many cast members assuming many different roles of both historic figures and representatives of broad social groups, it helps to have these two actors as anchor points portraying the two most important people in the story.

Bringing the history to life

As well as capturing the mood of the time in an entertaining way, there are lots of small details in the play that go beyond Reed’s book and show that Jameson knows his subject matter. All of the key factions and historical figures are included, which is a lot of people for a small cast to represent.

Many important historic details, which less well researched accounts overlook, are included; such as the February Revolution beginning with women marching on International Women’s Day, or the fact that the storming of the winter palace was more of a quite creeping in through a backdoor than the spectacle staged by Sergei Eisenstein in his film October: Ten Days That Shook the World.

The play also includes many of the comedic moments of the revolution; such as Lenin’s enthusiasm for disguises, the delay in beginning the October Revolution that was caused because a comrade at the Peter and Paul Fortress couldn’t find a red light to signal the Bolsheviks and Kitchkin declaring himself leader of all of Russia when he barely controlled the Winter Palace in St Petersburg.

Modern parallels and modern culture

The radical history is very entertaining, but to become a transcendent work of art this needs to connect with how the audience feels right now. Many modern parallels are drawn out; from strikes, a cold winter, inflation, a useless and unpopular government and above all a feeling that everything is getting worse, everyone has had enough and change is needed.

Modern language is used in the script to reinforce the point, such as references to “snowflakes” on the left or fighting in Ukraine. Recent dance music was played in the intermission, whilst a video was projected onto the stage approximating how cable news would cover the fateful ten days if they were happening right now. Following the climax, the cast exited to the sounds of Pig With The Face Of A Boy’s Complete History Of The Soviet Union, Arranged To The Melody Of Tetris, which ended proceedings on a humorous note.

Rising to the revolutionary moment

Not only did the play attempt to make its radical themes relevant to the modern day, it also attempted a radical use of the medium of theatre. Red flags were handed out to the audience, who were encouraged to wave them, participate in the chanting and to keep our phones on to take pictures during the performance.

The audience (at least at the performance I attended) didn’t rise to the revolutionary moment. We behaved like a traditional audience, watching events in silence and not participating. The fact that the people were hesitant to act when presented with something radical was itself a more powerful metaphor for the present political situation than the historic parallels that Ten Days drew out.

Are we ten days away from a revolution?

Despite the audience not embracing the more radical parts of the show, I was impressed by Jameson and BolshEpic Theatre wanting to create a piece of art that captured (the spirit at least) of the revolution in avant-garde art that was unleashed by the Russian Revolution. Their imagination and creative use of a small theatre, minimal set and props is inspiring. Revolutions, artistic and political, come about by radical ambition and it was great to see this alive in the 21st century.

Ten Days is a great dramatic play about a key moment in 20th century history. It is more than an entertaining retelling of historic events. This play is urgent, relevant and has something to say about contemporary politics: i.e. when people are suffering we may only be ten days away from a revolution.

Monument to Lenin image created by Watchsmart and used under creative commons.

Saying Gary Lineker should lose his job over a tweet is biased, after what Andrew Neil and Jeremy Clarkson got away with

Conservatives are defending free speech. Gone are concerns about insulting god or Jesus.  The right is defending the freedom to scream abuse into someone’s face. Don’t like it? Then you must be a snowflake.

Of course, the right’s support of free speech is not universal. Toby Young and his Free Speech Union hasn’t rushed to the defence of Gary Lineker after he was cancelled by the BBC for expressing his opinion of the government. The Tory politicians and culture warriors, keen to accuse the left of being against free speech, were very keen to suppress Lineker’s free speech when he said something they didn’t like. 

Similarly, the brigade who defended peoples’ right to offend others, when those being offended were Muslims and trans people, get pretty offended when you criticise the government or soldiers or patriots. They then seek to cancel the offender as much as possible.

Moonlighting for the right

There is a clear hypocrisy in how Lineker has been treated. He tweeted his opinion from his own Twitter account and has faced consequences for it. These are now rescinded because these consequences detonated the sport of football for a weekend and people noticed.

Meanwhile, Andrew Neil was able to be chairman of the Spectator (a publication that positions itself slightly to the right of Ivan the Terrible) whilst working in BBC news, and this was considered fine. Jeremy Clarkson was allowed to write a column in The Sun at the same time as hosting Top Gear, which no one minded. Not even when he claimed on The One Show that striking workers should be shot in front of their families.

My view is that, when not on the BBC’s time, people should be allowed to say, write or tweet whatever they want. If Neil wants to moonlight for the Spectator that’s fine, but Lineker can tweet whatever he likes about the government. The problem with this position - or whatever the actual BBC position on impartiality is - is that it isn’t being consistently enforced. This is bias.

Soapboxing on how nasty the Tories are

The Clarkson case is worse. Not only was Clarkson able to voice his views on the BBC’s One Show, he was able to use his supposedly impartial BBC general car themed entertainment show to slam London Mayor Ken Livingston over bendy buses and whatever else was grinding Clarkson’s gears that week.

If this is allowed, then surely Lineker can tweet about politics on this private Twitter account. It’s not like he’s soapboxing on how nasty the Tories are in between the highlights of the Leicester/Arsenal match before turning to Ian Wright (or someone else I vaguely remember from collecting football stickers in the 90s) for his opinion.

Don’t listen to Joe Rogan

We should allow for as much freedom as possible in our laws, whilst using the power of the state to constrain speech only in the case where it is causing harm. That’s the legal argument for free speech, which I laid out in a previous post. However, the issue of free speech extends beyond what’s allowed under law.

I previously wrote that Joe Rogan shouldn’t face legal consequences for allowing Dr Robert Malone on his podcast and spreading anti-vaccine nonsense, but I wouldn’t recommend listening to his podcast where the ill-informed are allowed to say whatever they like, confidently and without push back.

Similarly, if you don’t like what Lineker said then don’t watch Match of the Day or follow him on Twitter. I hear there are other football shows and Twitter feeds out there.

Muzzling people you disagree with

What Lineker faced was clearly disproportionate and unfair. It’s not fair that conservatives get away with a lot more, especially when what they’re saying isn’t going out via the BBC itself (as in the case of Lineker’s tweet).

Also, if you think that Ricky Gervais or Dave Chappelle should be able to say whatever they want about trans people and face no push back, but Lineker should lose his job for exercising his free speech, then it’s time to admit you just want to muzzle people you disagree with.

That is also not defending free speech. The left are supposedly snowflakes and against free speech, but the right is pretty keen on shutting up anyone they disagree with. What happened to Lineker shows that there are many on the right who want to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Defenders of free speech my arse, is all I say to that.