On Sunday, my local MP Thangam Debbonaire (whom I have previously criticised on this blog for taking part in the coup against Jeremy Corbyn) released a statement via her Facebook page where she details her experiences of working as Shadow Arts and Culture Minister under Jeremy Corbyn (the statement in full can be found here). Over the past few days, this has become viral, and I haven't seen any left-wing blogger respond to it yet. For a Corbyn supporter, it is of course extremely tempting to ignore it and hope that people forget about it, but I don't find that to be a particularly honest way of handling things, so I will give my take on it as best I can.
I will not deny that I was shocked by the experiences that Debbonaire describes. To me, her explanations of specific incidents seem to be truthful and accurate, and I will give her the benefit of the doubt as far as that is concerned. I also want it on record that, provided that her experiences actually did happen as she describes them, I take back my criticism of her on a previous blog concerning her decision to step down as Minister. Whilst I remain extremely disgruntled by the Labour MPs seeking to undemocratically discredit their leader, I can also see that on occasion specific incidents make it impossible for an individual to continue holding a certain position, regardless of the impact this may have on any larger movements or counter-movements connected with it.
Having said that, I am not prepared to end my support for Corbyn purely on the basis of this revelation. Much as I will take on board Debbonaire's words when considering how I will react to matters concerning Corbyn in the future, a single person's negative experience is not sufficient to reverse the respect that I have built up for a person over a sustained period of time, as I have with Jeremy Corbyn (in the same way that much as I commended David Cameron for championing equal marriage, this was not enough for me to forgive all of the damage he inflicted with all his other policy decisions). Debbonaire claims that other MPs have had similar experiences, but without those experiences being discussed individually they cannot be counted to support her assertion of him being a bad leader generally. There are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth. Although Debbonaire's point of view should be believed and respected, without having heard Jeremy Corbyn's interpretation of what went on we cannot hope to understand the circumstances behind these errors, therefore it is not practical to completely shift focus based on a single dissenting voice (albeit the only dissenting voice out of the many in the Labour Party who has actually said anything that comes across as remotely honest).
But there is something even more important that needs to taken into account when we're analysing people's experiences of Jeremy Corbyn and using that to make a decision about whether and how to vote. Which is that Corbyn has faults. That is to be expected, as all human beings do, and some of those faults may be a quite significant hindrance to him continuing to be an icon of the left in the future (not that they necessarily will, but we must accept that they might do). But right at this moment, those faults don't matter to me very much. What matters is that Corbyn has consistently voted against draconian bills put forward in Parliament, argued against nuclear war, championed funding of public services, generally is more of an opposition to the Tories than any of the past Labour leaders in recent years, and fundamentally, Corbyn has swathes of public support. And right now, he is the only decent politician in Westminster who has that level of support. There are other politicians who represent my understanding of what politics should be about more than Corbyn does - I think Caroline Lucas is awesome, I have a lot of time for Nicola Sturgeon's SNP representatives and whilst I don't personally know a great deal about Tim Farron, I have heard good things about him from contacts of mine who are more invested in Liberal Democrat policies than I am. None of these people though have the opportunity right now that Jeremy Corbyn has. Though I usually vote for them and their support is growing all the time, the Green Party is not currently big enough to pose enough of a threat to take on the Tories. The SNP has done very commendable work in Scotland, but we need some more socialist values across the rest of the UK as well. The Liberal Democrats, perhaps unfairly, are still suffering from the mess-up over tuition fees in 2010. I have a great deal of respect for all of them, and I hope that at some point in the near future these parties can unite to offer a beacon of hope to every UK citizen and the world in general. But before that happens, we need to make sure that the opposition, which is still the Labour Party, actually is an opposition, and that rests with electing Jeremy Corbyn. Were Angela Eagle and Owen Smith saying anything that I found remotely inspiring, Thangam Debbonaire's account may actually have convinced me to consider voting for one of them. But all they are doing is spouting the same empty rhetoric that we've all heard enough of, and I'm not convinced that anything would get better with either of them at the helm.
This is not about Jeremy Corbyn. This is about an opposition that actually listens to the concerns of the electorate and represents them. I'm not a fan of Margaret Thatcher at all, but I have some grudging respect for the fact that she managed to change the whole understanding of politics in this country. Of course, she changed it the wrong way, and we have never quite come out of the cold hard capitalist way of thinking since 1979. I'm hoping that Corbyn can achieve something similar for the left to what Thatcher did for the right, in terms of making politics generally more compassionate, and more about ordinary people than super-rich corporations. Doing that is about more than one man. If in time a less desirable side of him starts to come out, perhaps someone else will take over as an icon for those on the left. From a completely practical viewpoint, if we are to assume our next general election will be in 2020, he will be in his early seventies and for all we know be starting to think about retiring. But hopefully by that point he will have served his purpose, things will generally be better for the people in this country, and having a Government that works for the other 98% won't seem like a pipe dream. For that reason, save for major scandals there are very, very few things that would convince me to stop supporting Jeremy Corbyn, regardless of any negative sides of him that may come out. There is too much at stake to let accounts like that of Thangam Debbonaire dissuade us from supporting the most forward-thinking opposition leader that I have seen in my lifetime.
Earlier today, I paid £25 to register as a Labour Party supporter, granting me a vote in the election. You can do so here up until 5pm on Wednesday 20 July (tomorrow as of the time of writing this). We shouldn't have to pay that much, there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to challenge this rule, but for now I think we have to be content with what we have, as there just isn't time to waste challenging this decision when we need to put everything we have into having our say. If you are struggling financially and can't pay that amount, there are ways to get help from other people. The JustGiving page has been closed down by the party, but the Facebook page Nye Bevan News, whilst it appears to be having some trouble, is still doing the best it can to help anyone vote who is struggling to find the funds, so please visit if you need any help or if you'd like to donate to anyone who does.
EDIT: Since writing this blog, I have come across this Facebook page which may be also very helpful to anyone struggling to cough up.
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
Sunday, 3 July 2016
Open letter to Thangam Debbonaire MP
I wrote the following to my MP, Thangam Debbonaire, asking her to vote against Brexit. You can also do the same at https://www.writetothem.com.
Dear Thangam Debbonaire MP,
My name is George Harold Millman, and I have recently returned to Bristol West after having spent the past three years living in Essex. I am writing to you to express my serious concerns about the results of the EU vote, and to ask that you vote it down when it comes to Parliament, and encourage your colleagues to do the same.
There have been many reasons why I voted to remain - the economy, our standing relationships with other states - but most importantly, because regardless of my own opinions of the EU generally, I have been increasingly concerned about the straw man arguments perpetuated by the Leave campaigners. It was evident to me that the Leave campaign was fuelled predominantly by xenophobia, and I have felt incredibly disturbed by the amount of racism that has been seen on our streets since the result was announced. I'm sure I do not need to explain this to you in detail, for I know that you were a passionate campaigner for the Remain side and no doubt have felt exactly as I have over the past week. I do not for one moment believe that racism and hatred has been the catalyst for the majority vote - I agree with Caroline Lucas about how it was ultimately a vote against David Cameron's establishment, but this has vindicated the small numbers of individuals who speak from a place of bitterness and hatred, people are suffering for that and I feel very strongly that this has got to stop.
The referendum was pitched to the electorate as being very clear-cut, but as you are no doubt aware, the actual technicalities relating to our impending exit (or lack thereof, in fact) are a lot more complex and will require many precedents to be observed and proposals to be voted for or against. The referendum was only advisory; I am not sure how much this is common knowledge, but it was never intended to be legally binding at any point. It does not give a reflective picture of the common opinion of the electorate, because the vote was so incredibly close that even if it had been legally binding, the result was not distinct enough to warrant a radical change. 51% of a vote is not enough to justify a decision as huge as departing the EU; most countries require a vote by two thirds in order to create that sort of change. In any case, in the UK democracy is based around the decisions of those people we have elected to represent us.
As you will know, if we are to leave the EU it will require an Act of Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. As far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong), Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty cannot be enacted without this. I feel very strongly that the Remain campaign does not end here; even if we ultimately do decide to leave the EU, every single issue must be campaigned on, but in the meantime we should continue to focus on trying to remain. With every day that passes, I notice something else which has come about as a result of this referendum which reinforces this opinion - Scotland would like to remain in the EU, which could cause a breakup of the UK; the fall of the pound has caused serious problems economically over the past week, and media sources suggest that many Leave voters are regretting their decision; and particularly importantly, if Donald Trump is elected the president of the United States come November, a strong and cohesive European Union will be crucial, as I feel that much of Trump's campaign is built on the same harmful fear-mongering around different cultures that much of the Leave campaign's approach has been based on.
I am very much aware of your record in arguing for the benefits of us remaining and I am on your mailing list so I read the email that you sent out the day following the referendum, so I am really hopeful that you will agree with what I have said here and seriously consider voting against any attempt to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. I think that there has been quite a sense of depression across the whole country following the referendum result, and as time goes by, the potential consequences of leaving the EU are becoming increasingly evident to many people who may not have objectively thought about it before. I'm sure you are receiving many similar messages from other constituents, so please take note of what I have said here and vote against these concerning proposals.
Yours sincerely,
George Harold Millman
P.S. In addition to being your constituent, I am a political activist, campaigner and performance artist. I have been involved in this sort of work for nearly six years, have been involved in numerous topical campaigns over this time, and as a result I have become quite well-respected within certain political circles. Because of this, I have decided to make my letter to you open, as a form of encouragement for others to follow my example and write to their MPs. I shall publish this letter (and potentially any responses from you) on my blog: actorandpoliticalactivist.blogspot.co.uk
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
The Corbyn coup
Yesterday I made a 20-minute video outlining my opinions on the fallout as a result of last week's EU vote. Towards the end, I touched on how Labour are blaming Jeremy Corbyn for this, but this row has dominated so much of the news for the past 24 hours that I felt I should devote a full blog to discussing this subject.
Today there has been a non-binding vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn by his Labour MPs, which came out 172-40. This follows a string of resignations from around two thirds of the shadow cabinet, who have concluded that he is not the right person to lead the part to victory. (Exactly why they think this is a bit of a mystery to me, but I will come to that.) One of the shadow cabinet who has resigned is shadow culture secretary Thangam Debbonaire, MP for Bristol West and my local MP. In her resignation letter, Thangam wrote that she and Corbyn 'agree on so many things', that she 'genuinely admire[s] [his] honesty and strength of conviction' but that 'much more could have been done by [Corbyn] in order to argue for Remain.'
Many words have been thrown about with relation to Corbyn. The first and most notable is 'unelectable'. This word seems to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn is not capable of taking the Labour Party to the place it needs to be in order to gain the votes needed to defeat the Conservative Party. Given that he has been re-elected as the MP for Islington North for more than thirty successive years and was last elected by the general public as Leader of the Opposition by a vote of 59.5% despite huge opposition from leading members of his party, I cannot agree with this 'unelectable' assertion at any point. It would seem to come less from the belief that it is impossible for Labour to be elected under his leadership, and more the assertion that MPs have no wish for Labour to be elected this way. I need to stress that this is just my personal opinion, but I cannot understand how he is considered 'unelectable' in the circumstances.
I need to come on to the 'Brexit' (I still hate that word) discussion, even though I clarified most of my thoughts on this in yesterday's video, because it is hugely relevant to this coup. The idea being spread seems to be that Jeremy Corbyn was not passionate enough about the Remain vote, and I have even heard it said by personal contacts that they believe he was actually more in favour of the Leave side, and was covering it up by being as dispassionate as he could be. If by 'being more passionate', they mean that Jeremy Corbyn should have engaged in the political game-playing reminiscent of the likes of Farage and Cameron, I cannot help but feel quite personally insulted by that. I'm 22 years of age, I am by my own admission pretty independent-minded and I made my decision to vote Remain based on my own personal opinions of the EU and my fears that the Leave campaign was turning into a movement fuelled by racism and xenophobia (a suspicion which from people's reactions has proven to be pretty based in reality). I am able to acknowledge and accept any flaws that the EU might have, and I cannot guarantee that I would always advocate remaining, but on this occasion I feel that we benefit from it a lot more than we suffer. This is the approach that Jeremy Corbyn took - he wasn't overly dramatic, he didn't predict the end of the world and the rise of Armageddon, he spoke eloquently and calmly about the potential dangers of leaving without suggesting that the EU is a magical fairy palace. The media did not report his campaign well, but when have they ever painted Jeremy Corbyn in a good light? From my own personal experience campaigning and flyering, I came across a lot of Labour members who were very much in on the campaign, and that is Corbyn's doing.
Frankly, I think that Jeremy Corbyn spoke to people as rational adults rather than as gullible fools believing every half truth and misplaced statistic. The fact that this did not work with regards to actually keeping us in the EU is heartbreaking and perhaps goes to emphasise the mentality of your average Brit, but I do not that this is something that he can be condemned for. Where have we come in our society when the person who is talking the most intelligently is the person who has handled things badly? This is not just an issue with Corbyn; it is also something that I have come across. When I was at University, I was told by my tutors that I explain things too formally, using too many long words without an understanding of who my audience is. I'm not willing to speak to people as though they're stupid; I feel that doing that encourages disengagement, which is quite possibly an element of why the public did not listen to Corbyn on this occasion (though I do not think this is the main reason - I believe it to be far more down to the media under-reporting what was actually being said, whilst continually giving a platform to right-wing politicians spreading discord and fear of our neighbours). I read an article in the Guardian today saying that 'the young voted Corbyn in, and now they should push him out because he has betrayed them'. I can truthfully say as a young person who did vote him in, I do not feel betrayed. I feel far more betrayed by the BBC, which allows the likes of Laura Kuenssberg to pursue a witch-hunt against the leader of the opposition, by the advertising standards authorities which allowed a blatantly racist poster to be produced to rally up the sort of hate which caused the death of Jo Cox, and by my local MP Thangam Debbonaire, who is participating along with many of her colleagues in a disgraceful and undemocratic coup against Jeremy Corbyn.
I admire the way that Jeremy has responded to this. He has made it plain that he has no intention of stepping down. Actually if he did I would feel betrayed by him, because I paid to vote him in in the hopes that he would stand by his convictions and he ought to respect that. Not that I would be able to completely condemn him with the amount of hostility that he has faced. I feel strongly that this coup has been orchestrated by people who have been against him from the moment he was elected as leader - they were the very people who this time last year were assuring the public that Jeremy Corbyn had no chance of being elected as leader. These people have found a point to scapegoat him on and are doing their hardest to do just that. From personal experience I know how hard it is to have to steer a ship from beneath a tide of opposition, and I think Corbyn is doing it well. What I do worry about is what will happen if another leadership election is forced. I think that if something is said enough times people start to believe it - I know anecdotally of people who are dissatisfied with Jeremy Corbyn whilst unable to explain exactly why beyond saying 'he can't command the respect of his party'. My response to that is that if the individuals involved refuse to have their respect commanded, it is their doing, and not Jeremy Corbyn's, that the Labour Party is at war with itself. The MPs should not get to decide what qualities they wish their leader to have - this is down to the party members. I have no intention of joining the Labour Party because my independent political stance precludes me from joining any political party, but if there is another leadership election and it is opened to the general public outside of the party again (which I very much doubt) I will vote for Jeremy Corbyn again, and in any case will encourage others to do so. Fortunately, Corbyn has the backing of certain high-profile Labour individuals, including Diane Abbott (who I have always had a great deal of respect for) and Andy Burnham (who I haven't, and whose support has caused me to be pleasantly surprised).
Thank you for reading, I will continue to update with more current affairs.
Today there has been a non-binding vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn by his Labour MPs, which came out 172-40. This follows a string of resignations from around two thirds of the shadow cabinet, who have concluded that he is not the right person to lead the part to victory. (Exactly why they think this is a bit of a mystery to me, but I will come to that.) One of the shadow cabinet who has resigned is shadow culture secretary Thangam Debbonaire, MP for Bristol West and my local MP. In her resignation letter, Thangam wrote that she and Corbyn 'agree on so many things', that she 'genuinely admire[s] [his] honesty and strength of conviction' but that 'much more could have been done by [Corbyn] in order to argue for Remain.'
Many words have been thrown about with relation to Corbyn. The first and most notable is 'unelectable'. This word seems to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn is not capable of taking the Labour Party to the place it needs to be in order to gain the votes needed to defeat the Conservative Party. Given that he has been re-elected as the MP for Islington North for more than thirty successive years and was last elected by the general public as Leader of the Opposition by a vote of 59.5% despite huge opposition from leading members of his party, I cannot agree with this 'unelectable' assertion at any point. It would seem to come less from the belief that it is impossible for Labour to be elected under his leadership, and more the assertion that MPs have no wish for Labour to be elected this way. I need to stress that this is just my personal opinion, but I cannot understand how he is considered 'unelectable' in the circumstances.
I need to come on to the 'Brexit' (I still hate that word) discussion, even though I clarified most of my thoughts on this in yesterday's video, because it is hugely relevant to this coup. The idea being spread seems to be that Jeremy Corbyn was not passionate enough about the Remain vote, and I have even heard it said by personal contacts that they believe he was actually more in favour of the Leave side, and was covering it up by being as dispassionate as he could be. If by 'being more passionate', they mean that Jeremy Corbyn should have engaged in the political game-playing reminiscent of the likes of Farage and Cameron, I cannot help but feel quite personally insulted by that. I'm 22 years of age, I am by my own admission pretty independent-minded and I made my decision to vote Remain based on my own personal opinions of the EU and my fears that the Leave campaign was turning into a movement fuelled by racism and xenophobia (a suspicion which from people's reactions has proven to be pretty based in reality). I am able to acknowledge and accept any flaws that the EU might have, and I cannot guarantee that I would always advocate remaining, but on this occasion I feel that we benefit from it a lot more than we suffer. This is the approach that Jeremy Corbyn took - he wasn't overly dramatic, he didn't predict the end of the world and the rise of Armageddon, he spoke eloquently and calmly about the potential dangers of leaving without suggesting that the EU is a magical fairy palace. The media did not report his campaign well, but when have they ever painted Jeremy Corbyn in a good light? From my own personal experience campaigning and flyering, I came across a lot of Labour members who were very much in on the campaign, and that is Corbyn's doing.
Frankly, I think that Jeremy Corbyn spoke to people as rational adults rather than as gullible fools believing every half truth and misplaced statistic. The fact that this did not work with regards to actually keeping us in the EU is heartbreaking and perhaps goes to emphasise the mentality of your average Brit, but I do not that this is something that he can be condemned for. Where have we come in our society when the person who is talking the most intelligently is the person who has handled things badly? This is not just an issue with Corbyn; it is also something that I have come across. When I was at University, I was told by my tutors that I explain things too formally, using too many long words without an understanding of who my audience is. I'm not willing to speak to people as though they're stupid; I feel that doing that encourages disengagement, which is quite possibly an element of why the public did not listen to Corbyn on this occasion (though I do not think this is the main reason - I believe it to be far more down to the media under-reporting what was actually being said, whilst continually giving a platform to right-wing politicians spreading discord and fear of our neighbours). I read an article in the Guardian today saying that 'the young voted Corbyn in, and now they should push him out because he has betrayed them'. I can truthfully say as a young person who did vote him in, I do not feel betrayed. I feel far more betrayed by the BBC, which allows the likes of Laura Kuenssberg to pursue a witch-hunt against the leader of the opposition, by the advertising standards authorities which allowed a blatantly racist poster to be produced to rally up the sort of hate which caused the death of Jo Cox, and by my local MP Thangam Debbonaire, who is participating along with many of her colleagues in a disgraceful and undemocratic coup against Jeremy Corbyn.
I admire the way that Jeremy has responded to this. He has made it plain that he has no intention of stepping down. Actually if he did I would feel betrayed by him, because I paid to vote him in in the hopes that he would stand by his convictions and he ought to respect that. Not that I would be able to completely condemn him with the amount of hostility that he has faced. I feel strongly that this coup has been orchestrated by people who have been against him from the moment he was elected as leader - they were the very people who this time last year were assuring the public that Jeremy Corbyn had no chance of being elected as leader. These people have found a point to scapegoat him on and are doing their hardest to do just that. From personal experience I know how hard it is to have to steer a ship from beneath a tide of opposition, and I think Corbyn is doing it well. What I do worry about is what will happen if another leadership election is forced. I think that if something is said enough times people start to believe it - I know anecdotally of people who are dissatisfied with Jeremy Corbyn whilst unable to explain exactly why beyond saying 'he can't command the respect of his party'. My response to that is that if the individuals involved refuse to have their respect commanded, it is their doing, and not Jeremy Corbyn's, that the Labour Party is at war with itself. The MPs should not get to decide what qualities they wish their leader to have - this is down to the party members. I have no intention of joining the Labour Party because my independent political stance precludes me from joining any political party, but if there is another leadership election and it is opened to the general public outside of the party again (which I very much doubt) I will vote for Jeremy Corbyn again, and in any case will encourage others to do so. Fortunately, Corbyn has the backing of certain high-profile Labour individuals, including Diane Abbott (who I have always had a great deal of respect for) and Andy Burnham (who I haven't, and whose support has caused me to be pleasantly surprised).
Thank you for reading, I will continue to update with more current affairs.
Monday, 27 June 2016
Monday, 18 April 2016
The revolution must continue...
On Saturday, as with the previous week, many people marched through the streets of London again in an attempt to get David Cameron to resign. Once again, I intended to join them and didn't; I had an emergency at work (I run my own theatre company) which needed my immediate attention and unfortunately that had to take priority. So far, Cameron has obviously not resigned, but the pressure is on, and will continue to be on.
The thing that really concerns me is how little I have seen this demonstration reported in the media. Whilst last week received pretty lukewarm coverage within the mainstream media, the social media aspect was shared around quite a bit (including one rather iconic image of a pig piñata intended to represent our lovely PM). This week, however, I have seen virtually nothing, and this includes from my activism colleagues. The reasons for so little coverage on social media I cannot quite put my finger on - I'm still quite in the dark as to exactly how many people attended the protest compared to the previous week, though if anyone knows please do inform me and my readers.
As for the response from the mainstream media, that was sadly predictable. There was the odd report, but it was never front-page headlines, first item (or even third or fourth) on Radio 4. This is, quite clearly, the oldest trick in the book; when the media reports on something, it becomes a Thing with a capital T. This is fine when you're trying to frame someone like Cliff Richard, but when political activists are claiming the streets back, the state-controlled media wants it to be as low-key as possible. If it was out there, more people would become aware, more people would be inspired to keep it going - and when it's not reported on, it fizzles out.
This is why at this moment, it is as important as ever to keep this pressure on. Not only does the pressure force a reaction from the grand dignitaries, but it proves to the media that the people are passionate enough and committed enough to keep this going regardless of how much we are hindered. And it is working. Iain Duncan Smith is already out - admittedly more as a political move concerning the EU referendum than for the noble reasons he claims, but regardless it is a sign of things changing, of political structures giving way in the face of public pressure. We have continued strikes from junior doctors as a response to the frankly absurd contracts foisted upon them by Jeremy Hunt. The Government has been forced into U-turns on certain legislation, an example being the so-called 'granny flat' tax. The pressure is on, and it is working - not swiftly or securely (yet), but people are reacting to it.
I'm not sure what's happening this Saturday. I think there really needs to be another demonstration. According to social media, people are unsure because this Saturday is the London Marathon, but in my opinion this is precisely why the protest should happen. Much as I have the utmost respect for marathon-runners and would not like any sort of clash to happen between them and the protesters, I think here we have an opportunity to make a point about how important this cause is. When a valued event such as the London Marathon is disrupted because of people's anger about the general state of things, it sends a message stronger than any other that brutal and unfair regimes will not be tolerated. If the demonstration causes issues to something we all love, than that's just tough shit, because the wellbeing of each and every citizen of this country is a priority that outranks sporting events and other traditions, regardless of how many people appreciate them. No doubt the London Marathon will figure heavily in Sunday's newspapers; if its progress is hindered or halted by the demonstrations, this will also force the media to report on the demonstrations. (Admittedly, it will not report on them very favourably, but in this situation negative publicity is better than no publicity at all. It still gets the word out passionately.)
And whilst we're on the subject, I had an interesting conversation on social media today with someone who told me that I'd be better off focussing on the more troublesome options being lined up to replace Cameron. Let me be very clear, I have not forgotten the threats posed by George Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson or any of David Cameron's other lackeys. I am not so naive as to think that just to get rid of David Cameron, things will magically be all right again. They won't, it will take years of hard work - it is now 26 years since Thatcher was deposed, and her legacy has still not been undone. However, I think it is fair to say that the resignation of David Cameron would very much harm the credibility of his cabinet and party generally. Just as Thatcher's successor John Major never did as much damage as her despite belonging to the same party, so too I feel that getting Cameron out would be a step in the right direction. Losing him would motivate people, just as losing Iain Duncan Smith did, despite having his own reasons for leaving. I'm also concerned about the impact for the EU referendum if we lost Cameron - much as I dislike him, he is a supporter of staying, and I worry that the campaign to Remain could be harmed without him. Regardless, the EU campaign is a completely separate issue, and one that people should judge on its merits and not on the personalities of the politicians involved. Perhaps I might do better politically to avoid attempting to depose Cameron until after the referendum, but then I am not a politician and I refuse to think tactically. Right now, I think that Cameron is the biggest and most concerning obstacle, and we may have an opportunity to force his resignation which might not come again until 2020. Whether that happens or whether it doesn't, we will deal with other problems when they come, but here, in this moment, in April 2016, I personally consider that to be the greater good.
If we're talking about who will replace Cameron though, some people may find this link to a Canary article interesting. I found it quite insightful about the whole situation, and actually gave me some optimism. Let's keep the revolution coming. If a demonstration is planned for this weekend, I will write about it. Hope so!
The thing that really concerns me is how little I have seen this demonstration reported in the media. Whilst last week received pretty lukewarm coverage within the mainstream media, the social media aspect was shared around quite a bit (including one rather iconic image of a pig piñata intended to represent our lovely PM). This week, however, I have seen virtually nothing, and this includes from my activism colleagues. The reasons for so little coverage on social media I cannot quite put my finger on - I'm still quite in the dark as to exactly how many people attended the protest compared to the previous week, though if anyone knows please do inform me and my readers.
As for the response from the mainstream media, that was sadly predictable. There was the odd report, but it was never front-page headlines, first item (or even third or fourth) on Radio 4. This is, quite clearly, the oldest trick in the book; when the media reports on something, it becomes a Thing with a capital T. This is fine when you're trying to frame someone like Cliff Richard, but when political activists are claiming the streets back, the state-controlled media wants it to be as low-key as possible. If it was out there, more people would become aware, more people would be inspired to keep it going - and when it's not reported on, it fizzles out.
This is why at this moment, it is as important as ever to keep this pressure on. Not only does the pressure force a reaction from the grand dignitaries, but it proves to the media that the people are passionate enough and committed enough to keep this going regardless of how much we are hindered. And it is working. Iain Duncan Smith is already out - admittedly more as a political move concerning the EU referendum than for the noble reasons he claims, but regardless it is a sign of things changing, of political structures giving way in the face of public pressure. We have continued strikes from junior doctors as a response to the frankly absurd contracts foisted upon them by Jeremy Hunt. The Government has been forced into U-turns on certain legislation, an example being the so-called 'granny flat' tax. The pressure is on, and it is working - not swiftly or securely (yet), but people are reacting to it.
I'm not sure what's happening this Saturday. I think there really needs to be another demonstration. According to social media, people are unsure because this Saturday is the London Marathon, but in my opinion this is precisely why the protest should happen. Much as I have the utmost respect for marathon-runners and would not like any sort of clash to happen between them and the protesters, I think here we have an opportunity to make a point about how important this cause is. When a valued event such as the London Marathon is disrupted because of people's anger about the general state of things, it sends a message stronger than any other that brutal and unfair regimes will not be tolerated. If the demonstration causes issues to something we all love, than that's just tough shit, because the wellbeing of each and every citizen of this country is a priority that outranks sporting events and other traditions, regardless of how many people appreciate them. No doubt the London Marathon will figure heavily in Sunday's newspapers; if its progress is hindered or halted by the demonstrations, this will also force the media to report on the demonstrations. (Admittedly, it will not report on them very favourably, but in this situation negative publicity is better than no publicity at all. It still gets the word out passionately.)
And whilst we're on the subject, I had an interesting conversation on social media today with someone who told me that I'd be better off focussing on the more troublesome options being lined up to replace Cameron. Let me be very clear, I have not forgotten the threats posed by George Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson or any of David Cameron's other lackeys. I am not so naive as to think that just to get rid of David Cameron, things will magically be all right again. They won't, it will take years of hard work - it is now 26 years since Thatcher was deposed, and her legacy has still not been undone. However, I think it is fair to say that the resignation of David Cameron would very much harm the credibility of his cabinet and party generally. Just as Thatcher's successor John Major never did as much damage as her despite belonging to the same party, so too I feel that getting Cameron out would be a step in the right direction. Losing him would motivate people, just as losing Iain Duncan Smith did, despite having his own reasons for leaving. I'm also concerned about the impact for the EU referendum if we lost Cameron - much as I dislike him, he is a supporter of staying, and I worry that the campaign to Remain could be harmed without him. Regardless, the EU campaign is a completely separate issue, and one that people should judge on its merits and not on the personalities of the politicians involved. Perhaps I might do better politically to avoid attempting to depose Cameron until after the referendum, but then I am not a politician and I refuse to think tactically. Right now, I think that Cameron is the biggest and most concerning obstacle, and we may have an opportunity to force his resignation which might not come again until 2020. Whether that happens or whether it doesn't, we will deal with other problems when they come, but here, in this moment, in April 2016, I personally consider that to be the greater good.
If we're talking about who will replace Cameron though, some people may find this link to a Canary article interesting. I found it quite insightful about the whole situation, and actually gave me some optimism. Let's keep the revolution coming. If a demonstration is planned for this weekend, I will write about it. Hope so!
Thursday, 7 April 2016
Lack of student support on campus
I was going to write about the Panama papers today, but I've had to postpone that until my next blog in favour of an individual case that I came across on social media today. Whilst the Panama papers and David Cameron's association with offshore funds is of course of major importance, something lesser-known struck a personal chord with me and is relevant to a campaign I've been sitting on and quietly talking to a couple of people about for a while.
I was reading an article today concerning a student at London School of Economics who suffers from mental illness having been evicted from their lodgings. This was published on Beaver Online, the web edition of the college's newspaper, the Beaver (the full article is here, and I highly recommend it). Essentially, the unnamed student's studies were interrupted due to hospital admissions, and LSE has seen fit to evict them from Halls as a result. LSE apparently considered that for one reason or other its facilities would not cater to this individual, and it would not be able to give the support they required. This is despite the NHS recommending that the student stays in Halls, and the fact that having been evicted the student would be homeless, which needless to say would not be beneficial for their mental health.
I'm not going to re-write the article, but it is linked above for anyone who would like to read about the case in more detail. The reason I'm bringing it up is because it is sadly so consistent with things that I have both heard about and with my own personal experience. When it comes to pastoral care and social support on campus, many universities would appear to be strangely lacking. I cannot really give any clear examples of this other than the one linked as much of my evidence is anecdotal. From what I have heard though, it would seem that Universities put their own business needs ahead of everything else. Some do a better job than others of coming across as though student welfare is important to them, but for the most part it doesn't seem to be. For a few months now I have been talking to people I have worked with about launching some kind of campaign to tackle this problem. Uni life is such a fundamental part of making up who we are - I myself certainly never anticipated how much going into higher education would change me emotionally. It can be a time when one finds great strength in themselves, and it can also be where one's most concerning vulnerabilities come out more than ever before. In this instance, students need to have someone in authority with their best interests at heart, and I am very concerned that this is not happening. In this case, quite clearly, the extenuating circumstances for the student's absence was not considered to be important by the University. How many more students have suffered in a similar way?
I have my own experiences of feeling as though support for my mental and emotional wellbeing could be a lot better. I used to live in a flat of six, and in my first term at University, following arguments with a flatmate, I found myself in a state of almost total isolation from everyone I lived with. I would get home, go to my room and not come out again for six hours or so until everyone had gone to bed, before I would come out and heat myself some food, which I'd eat in my room. Occasionally those of my flatmates who I hadn't fallen out with would come to check that I was okay - I may not have seen them for several weeks, despite living together. The people involved were on my course, which meant that I felt unable to socialise with anyone and I became extremely depressed as a result. Looking back now, I cannot believe I ever let things get to such a ridiculous situation, but sometimes when living in a new environment it is possible to find yourself doing things you never thought you'd do. I never thought I'd be isolated for such a long time - at the beginning, I just tried to stay out of someone's way for a couple of days until things had calmed down, but frankly I had reckoned without how useless everyone in charge would turn out to be. I had been led to believe that what we called a 'Residents' Support Network' would help to arbitrate the situation, but save for talking to us and finding out what was going on, they did virtually nothing. Ultimately, the situation just burned itself out - the people involved moved out of my flat, and I was left to deal with things on my own. I'm proud of how I got through it, but having been locked in a room for two months impacted on my mental health for quite a long time, and I can't help feeling like if someone with some degree of authority had bothered to get properly involved, it would have saved everyone a lot of grief.
Obviously my own situation is entirely different from that faced by the student in this case - I was fortunately never at risk of being homeless, nor did I ever get to a point that I needed to be admitted to hospital. I feel that in the end though, it comes down to the same fact about Universities (save for a few individuals) being reluctant to get involved to help any student with any situation that might be slightly unusual. I don't know if this is because these days Universities are considered more as businesses than as educational establishments, but even if we are looking at it in that way it makes no difference. Customer satisfaction should be a key part of any business' list of priorities, and this should be especially the case if one's clientele consists mainly of young people starting to get a grasp on the real world. The one part of the article that really made me smile sympathetically was when the LSESU Welfare Officer said that all of the people she had communicated with had referred her to one another. This was exactly my experience as well - no one seemed to know whose responsibility it was to help me. My residents' assistant told me to speak to my course leaders, who in turn told me to go back to the people running Halls. I don't know why it is so disorganised, but I feel strongly that this has to stop.
When I finish University, I intend to run some sort of campaign to promote a better understanding of student security on campus. I haven't thought hugely far ahead with this yet, but I'm hoping that some of the people I have worked with on campaigns in the past will be willing to help me - some of them I've already spoken to, and anyone else who is willing and passionate about this cause, please feel free to contact me. In the meantime, if anyone else has had the experience of being overlooked unfairly at University, I strongly encourage them to come forward about it. This seems to be a consistent issue that not enough people talk about, and I hope to shine a light on it!
In other news, I just came across an interesting Facebook event. People are gathering outside Downing Street this weekend to demand David Cameron's resignation in light of recent revelations. I'm not sure whether or not I will be able to go, but I may do. If I do, I'll write about it. Hope to see you there!
I was reading an article today concerning a student at London School of Economics who suffers from mental illness having been evicted from their lodgings. This was published on Beaver Online, the web edition of the college's newspaper, the Beaver (the full article is here, and I highly recommend it). Essentially, the unnamed student's studies were interrupted due to hospital admissions, and LSE has seen fit to evict them from Halls as a result. LSE apparently considered that for one reason or other its facilities would not cater to this individual, and it would not be able to give the support they required. This is despite the NHS recommending that the student stays in Halls, and the fact that having been evicted the student would be homeless, which needless to say would not be beneficial for their mental health.
I'm not going to re-write the article, but it is linked above for anyone who would like to read about the case in more detail. The reason I'm bringing it up is because it is sadly so consistent with things that I have both heard about and with my own personal experience. When it comes to pastoral care and social support on campus, many universities would appear to be strangely lacking. I cannot really give any clear examples of this other than the one linked as much of my evidence is anecdotal. From what I have heard though, it would seem that Universities put their own business needs ahead of everything else. Some do a better job than others of coming across as though student welfare is important to them, but for the most part it doesn't seem to be. For a few months now I have been talking to people I have worked with about launching some kind of campaign to tackle this problem. Uni life is such a fundamental part of making up who we are - I myself certainly never anticipated how much going into higher education would change me emotionally. It can be a time when one finds great strength in themselves, and it can also be where one's most concerning vulnerabilities come out more than ever before. In this instance, students need to have someone in authority with their best interests at heart, and I am very concerned that this is not happening. In this case, quite clearly, the extenuating circumstances for the student's absence was not considered to be important by the University. How many more students have suffered in a similar way?
I have my own experiences of feeling as though support for my mental and emotional wellbeing could be a lot better. I used to live in a flat of six, and in my first term at University, following arguments with a flatmate, I found myself in a state of almost total isolation from everyone I lived with. I would get home, go to my room and not come out again for six hours or so until everyone had gone to bed, before I would come out and heat myself some food, which I'd eat in my room. Occasionally those of my flatmates who I hadn't fallen out with would come to check that I was okay - I may not have seen them for several weeks, despite living together. The people involved were on my course, which meant that I felt unable to socialise with anyone and I became extremely depressed as a result. Looking back now, I cannot believe I ever let things get to such a ridiculous situation, but sometimes when living in a new environment it is possible to find yourself doing things you never thought you'd do. I never thought I'd be isolated for such a long time - at the beginning, I just tried to stay out of someone's way for a couple of days until things had calmed down, but frankly I had reckoned without how useless everyone in charge would turn out to be. I had been led to believe that what we called a 'Residents' Support Network' would help to arbitrate the situation, but save for talking to us and finding out what was going on, they did virtually nothing. Ultimately, the situation just burned itself out - the people involved moved out of my flat, and I was left to deal with things on my own. I'm proud of how I got through it, but having been locked in a room for two months impacted on my mental health for quite a long time, and I can't help feeling like if someone with some degree of authority had bothered to get properly involved, it would have saved everyone a lot of grief.
Obviously my own situation is entirely different from that faced by the student in this case - I was fortunately never at risk of being homeless, nor did I ever get to a point that I needed to be admitted to hospital. I feel that in the end though, it comes down to the same fact about Universities (save for a few individuals) being reluctant to get involved to help any student with any situation that might be slightly unusual. I don't know if this is because these days Universities are considered more as businesses than as educational establishments, but even if we are looking at it in that way it makes no difference. Customer satisfaction should be a key part of any business' list of priorities, and this should be especially the case if one's clientele consists mainly of young people starting to get a grasp on the real world. The one part of the article that really made me smile sympathetically was when the LSESU Welfare Officer said that all of the people she had communicated with had referred her to one another. This was exactly my experience as well - no one seemed to know whose responsibility it was to help me. My residents' assistant told me to speak to my course leaders, who in turn told me to go back to the people running Halls. I don't know why it is so disorganised, but I feel strongly that this has to stop.
When I finish University, I intend to run some sort of campaign to promote a better understanding of student security on campus. I haven't thought hugely far ahead with this yet, but I'm hoping that some of the people I have worked with on campaigns in the past will be willing to help me - some of them I've already spoken to, and anyone else who is willing and passionate about this cause, please feel free to contact me. In the meantime, if anyone else has had the experience of being overlooked unfairly at University, I strongly encourage them to come forward about it. This seems to be a consistent issue that not enough people talk about, and I hope to shine a light on it!
In other news, I just came across an interesting Facebook event. People are gathering outside Downing Street this weekend to demand David Cameron's resignation in light of recent revelations. I'm not sure whether or not I will be able to go, but I may do. If I do, I'll write about it. Hope to see you there!
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Rest in peace
When I was 18, I decided to spend a full day not saying a word to anyone. It was the day after Troy Davis was killed, and somehow I felt bound to show my respects in some way. But somehow, just showing respect to one person was not enough. There were so many people killing and being killed that I felt completely bewildered, and those were just the ones the media found it necessary to report on. I spent a full day at sixth form reflecting on this, not saying a word to anyone. I think my teachers found it quite frustrating (sorry Danny if you're reading this!)
I'm not sure if I'd ever do that again. I feel that silences and reflections on death are only worthwhile if they are done for the right reasons - the sole intent being personal reflection. If they are done to show the world that you know how to care, or for political reasons, they are utterly worthless. It is for this reason that I normally refuse to wear poppies on Remembrance Day, take part in silences or adapt my profile picture on Facebook to display the colours of a certain country. It may make someone feel part of something in the moment, but it is generally disempowering and does nothing to change anything. The only part that may be productive is personal reflection, and this must be done when the mood takes you. This is generally not at the same time as anyone else.
I've felt like this again recently. It is in part because of what has happened in Brussels lately, but it is not limited to that. Gaza, Iraq, Syria, parts of the USA... the list goes on. This is not limited to terrorism within Western countries, or even to countries at war generally. This is my general bewilderment at world leaders not being able to sort things out in a way that does not result in people being frightened to leave their homes. I don't think I'm alone in sitting at home and feeling as though things are just hopeless sometimes, that maybe I just don't understand what society is all about.
This is not a particularly productive blog, I'll grant any reader that. It is not intended to make any political point at all, merely to express my own discomfort with the situation in which the nations of this world find themselves. It causes me a lot of anxiety. Perhaps this is the reason why there seems to be more depression and mental illness around these days than there once was - with the technology boom, news reaches people faster and the horrific state of the world is more evident to its citizens.
There is one point I'll make before I sign off though, which is that no matter how non-productive bewilderment can be, it is a thousand times more useful than the political point-scoring that is an inevitable consequence of tragedy. There is a reason that I've avoided blogging about Brussels up until now, and it is that it was obvious that Donald Trump was going to use it to continue his campaign of Islamophobia or that the reality TV contestant whose name I'm not even going to besmirch my blog with would hold anyone who said that Britain's borders should stay open as being personally responsible. A significant event can obviously be used as a benchmark for a policy change, but using one erroneously to promote one's own prejudice is something altogether different.
Depression and reflection can be used for productive purposes. One can take some time on that, remind oneself of one's own humanity and later use that to create a change. Sometimes there are no political points to make concerning multiple deaths, there are no policy changes to recommend or preachy claptrap to spout. Sometimes the only relevant words are 'rest in peace'.
And I shall try to write something a little more coherent next time.
I'm not sure if I'd ever do that again. I feel that silences and reflections on death are only worthwhile if they are done for the right reasons - the sole intent being personal reflection. If they are done to show the world that you know how to care, or for political reasons, they are utterly worthless. It is for this reason that I normally refuse to wear poppies on Remembrance Day, take part in silences or adapt my profile picture on Facebook to display the colours of a certain country. It may make someone feel part of something in the moment, but it is generally disempowering and does nothing to change anything. The only part that may be productive is personal reflection, and this must be done when the mood takes you. This is generally not at the same time as anyone else.
I've felt like this again recently. It is in part because of what has happened in Brussels lately, but it is not limited to that. Gaza, Iraq, Syria, parts of the USA... the list goes on. This is not limited to terrorism within Western countries, or even to countries at war generally. This is my general bewilderment at world leaders not being able to sort things out in a way that does not result in people being frightened to leave their homes. I don't think I'm alone in sitting at home and feeling as though things are just hopeless sometimes, that maybe I just don't understand what society is all about.
This is not a particularly productive blog, I'll grant any reader that. It is not intended to make any political point at all, merely to express my own discomfort with the situation in which the nations of this world find themselves. It causes me a lot of anxiety. Perhaps this is the reason why there seems to be more depression and mental illness around these days than there once was - with the technology boom, news reaches people faster and the horrific state of the world is more evident to its citizens.
There is one point I'll make before I sign off though, which is that no matter how non-productive bewilderment can be, it is a thousand times more useful than the political point-scoring that is an inevitable consequence of tragedy. There is a reason that I've avoided blogging about Brussels up until now, and it is that it was obvious that Donald Trump was going to use it to continue his campaign of Islamophobia or that the reality TV contestant whose name I'm not even going to besmirch my blog with would hold anyone who said that Britain's borders should stay open as being personally responsible. A significant event can obviously be used as a benchmark for a policy change, but using one erroneously to promote one's own prejudice is something altogether different.
Depression and reflection can be used for productive purposes. One can take some time on that, remind oneself of one's own humanity and later use that to create a change. Sometimes there are no political points to make concerning multiple deaths, there are no policy changes to recommend or preachy claptrap to spout. Sometimes the only relevant words are 'rest in peace'.
And I shall try to write something a little more coherent next time.
Thursday, 31 March 2016
They can't seriously expect us to swallow that tripe?
And I'm back. I've been planning to write for a while, but I've just been too busy, being a third-year student and full-time theatre producer. I will mention nothing about Brussels (apart from that time) as I'm saving that for my next blog, and in the meantime, I want to focus on the other major piece of recent news, even though this would really have worked better had I had time to write it earlier.
Iain Duncan Smith has resigned as Work and Pensions Secretary. Ho hum.
Now the more television-cult friendly readers amongst you will have noticed the Simpsons reference in the title here. In context, it refers to Iain Duncan Smith's claims that his resignation is intended to stand up for disabled people in the face of brutal Personal Independence Payment cuts by George Osborne. Much of the media, left- and right-wing, has implied that this shows some sort of nobility on the part of IDS. I'd be among them, were it not for the very obvious fact that days after his resignation, the man himself voted in favour of them. Indeed, were he to have any conscience at all, he would have resigned years ago - or even better, stayed and changed things from within, standing with more progressive politicians. Iain Duncan Smith's former department has been directly responsible not only for these cuts, but also for putting out mishandled statistics and downright lies - anyone remember Sarah's Story, which turned out to be faked?
It is quite clear to me that the real reason for Duncan Smith's exit is to stick the nail in the coffin for David Cameron and George Osborne over the EU referendum. I have so far avoided blogging about 'BrExit' and I intend to write about it soon, but that will be quite an important article and I want to make sure my facts are straight before I do. I am very much in favour of our remaining firmly within Europe though, much as it pains me to back David Cameron. My major concern is that David Cameron's popularity has gone down, and there are calls for him to resign if Britain votes to stay. My readers know full well my opinion on Cameron, so of course this is great in and of itself, but what worries me is that people will vote to leave purely for the purpose of getting rid of David Cameron. He is without a doubt the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime, but he is not worth making such a crazy decision over. There are more important things to put pressure on him for than a referendum which has, let's face it, been called for because of the increasing amounts of xenophobia in the media across the last few years.
That said, the tide does seem to be turning against the current regime. We now have Stephen Crabb, who from early days doesn't seem to be quite as draconian as Osborne, though there is controversy surrounding him as well - he was part of the expenses scandal, and there are allegations of homophobia. I hope that we're in an era resembling the poll tax riots of the late 80s and early 90s. Thatcher thought she was invincible and in the end her own party turned against her. I feel that there are elements of that unrest starting to happen again, I just think that there are much more important things to fuel it than the EU referendum.
There are two major events coming up, one of which I will not be able to attend, the other of which I very much intend to. The first one is in London on Saturday 7 May (one year since the general election) to demand a fairer voting system. (This is the one I cannot attend myself because it clashes with a performance date for the play that I am producing, but I will certainly be writing about.) The other one is on 4 July, a general strike and mass protest concerning pretty much every part of the austerity drive, and this is taking place pretty much everywhere in the UK. I haven't quite decided how I'm going to take part yet, but I will do so in some capacity, and will be writing more about both events in the coming weeks.
So take care, and keep your eyes peeled for further blogs!
Iain Duncan Smith has resigned as Work and Pensions Secretary. Ho hum.
Now the more television-cult friendly readers amongst you will have noticed the Simpsons reference in the title here. In context, it refers to Iain Duncan Smith's claims that his resignation is intended to stand up for disabled people in the face of brutal Personal Independence Payment cuts by George Osborne. Much of the media, left- and right-wing, has implied that this shows some sort of nobility on the part of IDS. I'd be among them, were it not for the very obvious fact that days after his resignation, the man himself voted in favour of them. Indeed, were he to have any conscience at all, he would have resigned years ago - or even better, stayed and changed things from within, standing with more progressive politicians. Iain Duncan Smith's former department has been directly responsible not only for these cuts, but also for putting out mishandled statistics and downright lies - anyone remember Sarah's Story, which turned out to be faked?
It is quite clear to me that the real reason for Duncan Smith's exit is to stick the nail in the coffin for David Cameron and George Osborne over the EU referendum. I have so far avoided blogging about 'BrExit' and I intend to write about it soon, but that will be quite an important article and I want to make sure my facts are straight before I do. I am very much in favour of our remaining firmly within Europe though, much as it pains me to back David Cameron. My major concern is that David Cameron's popularity has gone down, and there are calls for him to resign if Britain votes to stay. My readers know full well my opinion on Cameron, so of course this is great in and of itself, but what worries me is that people will vote to leave purely for the purpose of getting rid of David Cameron. He is without a doubt the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime, but he is not worth making such a crazy decision over. There are more important things to put pressure on him for than a referendum which has, let's face it, been called for because of the increasing amounts of xenophobia in the media across the last few years.
That said, the tide does seem to be turning against the current regime. We now have Stephen Crabb, who from early days doesn't seem to be quite as draconian as Osborne, though there is controversy surrounding him as well - he was part of the expenses scandal, and there are allegations of homophobia. I hope that we're in an era resembling the poll tax riots of the late 80s and early 90s. Thatcher thought she was invincible and in the end her own party turned against her. I feel that there are elements of that unrest starting to happen again, I just think that there are much more important things to fuel it than the EU referendum.
There are two major events coming up, one of which I will not be able to attend, the other of which I very much intend to. The first one is in London on Saturday 7 May (one year since the general election) to demand a fairer voting system. (This is the one I cannot attend myself because it clashes with a performance date for the play that I am producing, but I will certainly be writing about.) The other one is on 4 July, a general strike and mass protest concerning pretty much every part of the austerity drive, and this is taking place pretty much everywhere in the UK. I haven't quite decided how I'm going to take part yet, but I will do so in some capacity, and will be writing more about both events in the coming weeks.
So take care, and keep your eyes peeled for further blogs!
Sunday, 13 March 2016
Casual racism
Casual racism is a form of racism where someone does not intend to be racist, but still conducts themselves in an offensive manner by reacting to situations in a way which reflects their inborn prejudices. In my opinion, casual racism is even worse than any other form of racism, because it's harder to confront. If someone is genuinely well-intentioned, it feels harder to address casual racism when one sees it, especially if the person in question is someone that one knows well and is not someone that one normally associates with bigotry.
Something like this happened to me recently. I was inspired to write about it, but on this one I have to be extremely careful to protect my sources, for exactly those reasons described above. A friend and I were requiring someone to undertake some sort of job or service for us (I shall be vague to protect the innocent) which caused us to be phoning around a number of local businesses. There was one person we spoke to in particular who sounded helpful on the phone and we arranged to go and meet, however when we arrived at the address it transpired that it was only someone's house and was possibly not a legitimate business. Being cautious, we opted not to go in, just because we weren't 100% sure it was safe.
So far, this is all acceptable. The thing that made me feel really uncomfortable was that my friend was particularly concerned that the man had an Irish accent. When I questioned this, the friend responded to the effect of 'yes, but there are a lot of gypsies around, and they can be a bit dodgy'. This is someone who I have known for years and I normally very much respect; on this occasion I tried not to let my natural inclinations come out to the extent that we would fall out, but I was seething. I generally think it speaks volumes that even someone who normally comes across as being open-minded and progressive could react in such a prejudiced way. The fact that this person obviously didn't consider this to be racist in my mind makes it worse; if you think of yourself as being a good person (and most of us do) it's easy to justify something like that to oneself without considering how it would sound if you said that about other groups of people. 'There are a lot of black people around, you'd better watch yourself...' How does that sound to you?
I actually think that this experience has taught me how ingrained stereotypes are in our culture. I normally consider myself to be a pretty decent and forward-thinking person, but there have been times that I've had to catch myself thinking, doing or saying something which is discriminatory or unfair. Be honest with yourself, have you too done this on occasion? Did you realise you were doing it, or was it pointed out to you?
After reflecting on this a great deal, I have come to the conclusion that this is the biggest weapon used to provoke people into turning against each other. The way to spread hate is just to slowly spread a stereotype, like a poisonous fungus, and there will come a point where discussions about 'what is to be done about the problem' sound more like rational discussions than the hate-filled misinformation that they actually are. Here's an example: Jews and Muslims generally disliking each other. This is one of those so-called 'facts' that the majority of people in this would probably imagine to be true, even if they were on the fence politically. The truth is that Islam is largely based on Judaism, and the two faiths are incredibly similar, in terms of tradition, culture and philosophy. The aggravation between the two faiths in modern times is down to the war between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East. This dispute is entirely geographical and has very little to do with faith. The common misconception here is actually very harmful, because it puts the conflict down more to a culture clash, which suggests that both should just learn to get along with one another. In reality, it is much closer to apartheid than anything else, which is something I wish people would learn, but I cannot really blame them for not knowing given that there is so much misinformation.
I worry that I've gone slightly off the subject, but my overall point is that in a world containing so many set ideas and opinions disguised as facts, it is virtually impossible not to be racist or prejudiced in some other way at some point. It is only once this is accepted that it can be fought. This is why I absolutely preach that when you see someone acting on impulse in the way I did with my friend, you challenge it, no matter how hard this is to do. It took a couple of hours, but I did speak to my friend about how that conversation had made me feel - I tried to say it in a non-confrontational way and I'm not sure how much of my point was taken, but hopefully it will make that one individual think twice next time. But above all, this should not be done in a holier-than-thou way, because chances are you've done it as well, and the last thing we need is to wind people up. That has the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve.
Thanks for reading, more updates soon.
Something like this happened to me recently. I was inspired to write about it, but on this one I have to be extremely careful to protect my sources, for exactly those reasons described above. A friend and I were requiring someone to undertake some sort of job or service for us (I shall be vague to protect the innocent) which caused us to be phoning around a number of local businesses. There was one person we spoke to in particular who sounded helpful on the phone and we arranged to go and meet, however when we arrived at the address it transpired that it was only someone's house and was possibly not a legitimate business. Being cautious, we opted not to go in, just because we weren't 100% sure it was safe.
So far, this is all acceptable. The thing that made me feel really uncomfortable was that my friend was particularly concerned that the man had an Irish accent. When I questioned this, the friend responded to the effect of 'yes, but there are a lot of gypsies around, and they can be a bit dodgy'. This is someone who I have known for years and I normally very much respect; on this occasion I tried not to let my natural inclinations come out to the extent that we would fall out, but I was seething. I generally think it speaks volumes that even someone who normally comes across as being open-minded and progressive could react in such a prejudiced way. The fact that this person obviously didn't consider this to be racist in my mind makes it worse; if you think of yourself as being a good person (and most of us do) it's easy to justify something like that to oneself without considering how it would sound if you said that about other groups of people. 'There are a lot of black people around, you'd better watch yourself...' How does that sound to you?
I actually think that this experience has taught me how ingrained stereotypes are in our culture. I normally consider myself to be a pretty decent and forward-thinking person, but there have been times that I've had to catch myself thinking, doing or saying something which is discriminatory or unfair. Be honest with yourself, have you too done this on occasion? Did you realise you were doing it, or was it pointed out to you?
After reflecting on this a great deal, I have come to the conclusion that this is the biggest weapon used to provoke people into turning against each other. The way to spread hate is just to slowly spread a stereotype, like a poisonous fungus, and there will come a point where discussions about 'what is to be done about the problem' sound more like rational discussions than the hate-filled misinformation that they actually are. Here's an example: Jews and Muslims generally disliking each other. This is one of those so-called 'facts' that the majority of people in this would probably imagine to be true, even if they were on the fence politically. The truth is that Islam is largely based on Judaism, and the two faiths are incredibly similar, in terms of tradition, culture and philosophy. The aggravation between the two faiths in modern times is down to the war between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East. This dispute is entirely geographical and has very little to do with faith. The common misconception here is actually very harmful, because it puts the conflict down more to a culture clash, which suggests that both should just learn to get along with one another. In reality, it is much closer to apartheid than anything else, which is something I wish people would learn, but I cannot really blame them for not knowing given that there is so much misinformation.
I worry that I've gone slightly off the subject, but my overall point is that in a world containing so many set ideas and opinions disguised as facts, it is virtually impossible not to be racist or prejudiced in some other way at some point. It is only once this is accepted that it can be fought. This is why I absolutely preach that when you see someone acting on impulse in the way I did with my friend, you challenge it, no matter how hard this is to do. It took a couple of hours, but I did speak to my friend about how that conversation had made me feel - I tried to say it in a non-confrontational way and I'm not sure how much of my point was taken, but hopefully it will make that one individual think twice next time. But above all, this should not be done in a holier-than-thou way, because chances are you've done it as well, and the last thing we need is to wind people up. That has the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve.
Thanks for reading, more updates soon.
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
Clearing the Calais 'jungle'
It's been a while since I've posted, but I thought I ought to register my disgust at the news this week that in France, riot police are bulldozing part of the refugee camp referred to as the 'jungle'. I've read numerous reports on this occurrence, with varying impressions as to how things are going - some reports have suggested that this is being handled in a more humane manner than other similar affairs in the past, even mentioning means of housing those who are being evicted. Generally I doubt the accuracy of this - in my experience, reports of heavy-handedness amongst those in authority tend to be more accurate than reports claiming lack thereof with regards to the same incident. What it comes down to, however, is that these camps are holding more people than we currently have the resources to cope with.
I don't think there's any doubt about the fact that even notwithstanding the demolition (which ultimately is what it comes down to) the whole situation with this 'jungle' is far from ideal. It's not somewhere people can live indefinitely, not that anyone would even want to, of course, given the appalling conditions that refugees end up in whilst trying not to fall through the system even without being targeted in this way. It's quite obvious that there are far too many to house efficiently in one place, and that this is a situation that benefits no one. However, I fail to see how demolishing the non-ideal makeshift camp is going to help in the slightest. There have been reports of tear gas, batons used on pregnant women and children, water cannons and fire in regards to what French authorities are calling a 'humanitarian operation'. I would find that laughable were it not so serious.
Yet again, we seem to believe as a society that being heavy-handed with those in need is more productive that giving any understanding to how they ended up in this situation in the first place. This is an attitude that is quite common in Britain, and has become increasingly so over the last few years. In many ways I have believed that like a lot of European countries, France is more progressive than the UK - evidently, not in these circumstances. When you have at minimum 3,700 people (some reports estimate closer to 5,000) and nowhere to house them, this is an awkward situation, but I think that if everyone came together, attempted to look at why this problem has happened and showed a little compassion, far more long-term progress could be made than by demolishing a makeshift camp which ultimately is just going to lead to far more people having nowhere to go than there would be in any case.
I can't help but feel that the overall intention here is to show the public that 'something is being done. This is actually a typical reflection of the attitudes of governments, news media and the general public - we have a culture of promoting the taking of drastic action in undesirable situations, regardless of whether that action is progressive or will cause more problems down the line. I have been relieved to see that Médicin sans Frontiérs (the French equivalent of Doctors Without Borders) has set up a purpose-built camp in Dunkirk with the intention of providing proper humanitarian aid. I wish them well with this goal, and only hope that they are able to provide assistance to as many desperate people as possible. I can't help feeling though that it should not fall to a non-Governmental organisation to provide this. A more compassionate, humanitarian approach from the powers that be would go a lot further than being heavy-handed with no reason to be.
I genuinely wish the best of luck to any refugees in Calais or in any other part of the world, and if any of my readers would like to contact me with regards to any campaigns, they are entirely welcome to do so.
Sources: Fantastic Guardian article, another decent one, The BBC. As always, personal opinions are entirely my own.
I don't think there's any doubt about the fact that even notwithstanding the demolition (which ultimately is what it comes down to) the whole situation with this 'jungle' is far from ideal. It's not somewhere people can live indefinitely, not that anyone would even want to, of course, given the appalling conditions that refugees end up in whilst trying not to fall through the system even without being targeted in this way. It's quite obvious that there are far too many to house efficiently in one place, and that this is a situation that benefits no one. However, I fail to see how demolishing the non-ideal makeshift camp is going to help in the slightest. There have been reports of tear gas, batons used on pregnant women and children, water cannons and fire in regards to what French authorities are calling a 'humanitarian operation'. I would find that laughable were it not so serious.
Yet again, we seem to believe as a society that being heavy-handed with those in need is more productive that giving any understanding to how they ended up in this situation in the first place. This is an attitude that is quite common in Britain, and has become increasingly so over the last few years. In many ways I have believed that like a lot of European countries, France is more progressive than the UK - evidently, not in these circumstances. When you have at minimum 3,700 people (some reports estimate closer to 5,000) and nowhere to house them, this is an awkward situation, but I think that if everyone came together, attempted to look at why this problem has happened and showed a little compassion, far more long-term progress could be made than by demolishing a makeshift camp which ultimately is just going to lead to far more people having nowhere to go than there would be in any case.
I can't help but feel that the overall intention here is to show the public that 'something is being done. This is actually a typical reflection of the attitudes of governments, news media and the general public - we have a culture of promoting the taking of drastic action in undesirable situations, regardless of whether that action is progressive or will cause more problems down the line. I have been relieved to see that Médicin sans Frontiérs (the French equivalent of Doctors Without Borders) has set up a purpose-built camp in Dunkirk with the intention of providing proper humanitarian aid. I wish them well with this goal, and only hope that they are able to provide assistance to as many desperate people as possible. I can't help feeling though that it should not fall to a non-Governmental organisation to provide this. A more compassionate, humanitarian approach from the powers that be would go a lot further than being heavy-handed with no reason to be.
I genuinely wish the best of luck to any refugees in Calais or in any other part of the world, and if any of my readers would like to contact me with regards to any campaigns, they are entirely welcome to do so.
Sources: Fantastic Guardian article, another decent one, The BBC. As always, personal opinions are entirely my own.
Tuesday, 19 January 2016
We shut down Westminster Bridge
Today, I was a significant part of a protest group on Westminster Bridge outside Parliament, standing against the recent decision to replace student maintenance grants with loans, and in favour of Labour's debate against it, which was taking place simultaneously.
I will confess to the fact that I have been a little bit torn on the subject of the grants. I receive one myself, and it has been pretty invaluable throughout my University education, and I said as much in the interview I gave to London Student last week - in fact, I'm not sure if I would have become a student were it not available to me, but I prefer not to speculate on what might have been. However, I have been reading quite a lot of debate on the matter recently, and surprisingly I did find myself questioning my own viewpoints. I think that whilst I may not be entirely convinced, those against it actually have a reasonable point about how if you borrow money from the Government it is acceptable that you are expected to pay that back once you're earning enough. It is a more reasonable point than some of the frankly idiotic comments I have received on campaigns in the past.
But before you start thinking that I'm about to do a U-turn, read on! After a great deal of thought, I came to the conclusion that no matter how reasonable the rules may be in theory, we live in the real world and there it's a very different story. The gap between the rich and the other 98% is far too wide as it is. We already have unreasonably extortionate tuition fees not enough financial support alongside them and much debt after graduating, and that is just the inequality where education is concerned! The social divide has widened and is continuing to widen, and ultimately, this is about more than just one issue. This is not about the wholly undemocratic way that the decision was made (though that was bad enough in itself, and was one of the things we were protesting about) and contrary to what a good friend of mine suggested recently, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was the Conservatives who implemented it. This is about the ideology of inequality generally, and regardless of the technicalities around it, this will discourage working-class students from education, it will put those who do decide to complete degree courses into more debt which even if they never earn enough to repay it will affect them adversely in a psychological way, and in the long run the social divide will be widened even further. Perhaps if our society was more equal I might feel differently about it - but then again, perhaps not. I became an activist in 2010 when tuition fees were raised because I felt that enough was enough and that free education should be available for all. I still believe that. In that way, arguments about the grants are a mere technicality.
The demonstration today had a lower turn-out than expected, but I can honestly say that I have rarely seen such collective enthusiasm from those who have turned out. I'm sure those attending will agree with me that there was a really exciting and positive atmosphere today. There were possibly thirty seconds or so when I was concerned that things may get confrontational, but generally the police behaved very well. It is always the police who determine whether or not a demo will get violent, but today they let us chant, they allowed us to come and go, they grudgingly allowed us to remain on the bridge for quite a long time before we moved to Parliament Square and disbanded.
Unfortunately the debate today did not go the way we had hoped. Labour's challenge was voted down, albeit by the very narrow margin of 306 to 292. It's disappointing, but no more than I expected. As always, I do not expect this to be the end of the fight. The revolution continues, both for this issue specifically and against the general ideological inequality which is ever-present in this country and worldwide. I recommend this article by Emma Yeomans in London Student (the same reporter who interviewed me for a similar article last week) for other opinions on this campaign. It features an excellent interview with my friend and colleague Aaron Parr.
I'd like to thank everyone who was there today - we had a blast and hopefully our presence may have changed something. Definitely willing and passionate about sticking at it, continuing our campaign. After all, to take inspiration from a chant, the resolution is revolution, right?
I will confess to the fact that I have been a little bit torn on the subject of the grants. I receive one myself, and it has been pretty invaluable throughout my University education, and I said as much in the interview I gave to London Student last week - in fact, I'm not sure if I would have become a student were it not available to me, but I prefer not to speculate on what might have been. However, I have been reading quite a lot of debate on the matter recently, and surprisingly I did find myself questioning my own viewpoints. I think that whilst I may not be entirely convinced, those against it actually have a reasonable point about how if you borrow money from the Government it is acceptable that you are expected to pay that back once you're earning enough. It is a more reasonable point than some of the frankly idiotic comments I have received on campaigns in the past.
But before you start thinking that I'm about to do a U-turn, read on! After a great deal of thought, I came to the conclusion that no matter how reasonable the rules may be in theory, we live in the real world and there it's a very different story. The gap between the rich and the other 98% is far too wide as it is. We already have unreasonably extortionate tuition fees not enough financial support alongside them and much debt after graduating, and that is just the inequality where education is concerned! The social divide has widened and is continuing to widen, and ultimately, this is about more than just one issue. This is not about the wholly undemocratic way that the decision was made (though that was bad enough in itself, and was one of the things we were protesting about) and contrary to what a good friend of mine suggested recently, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was the Conservatives who implemented it. This is about the ideology of inequality generally, and regardless of the technicalities around it, this will discourage working-class students from education, it will put those who do decide to complete degree courses into more debt which even if they never earn enough to repay it will affect them adversely in a psychological way, and in the long run the social divide will be widened even further. Perhaps if our society was more equal I might feel differently about it - but then again, perhaps not. I became an activist in 2010 when tuition fees were raised because I felt that enough was enough and that free education should be available for all. I still believe that. In that way, arguments about the grants are a mere technicality.
The demonstration today had a lower turn-out than expected, but I can honestly say that I have rarely seen such collective enthusiasm from those who have turned out. I'm sure those attending will agree with me that there was a really exciting and positive atmosphere today. There were possibly thirty seconds or so when I was concerned that things may get confrontational, but generally the police behaved very well. It is always the police who determine whether or not a demo will get violent, but today they let us chant, they allowed us to come and go, they grudgingly allowed us to remain on the bridge for quite a long time before we moved to Parliament Square and disbanded.
Unfortunately the debate today did not go the way we had hoped. Labour's challenge was voted down, albeit by the very narrow margin of 306 to 292. It's disappointing, but no more than I expected. As always, I do not expect this to be the end of the fight. The revolution continues, both for this issue specifically and against the general ideological inequality which is ever-present in this country and worldwide. I recommend this article by Emma Yeomans in London Student (the same reporter who interviewed me for a similar article last week) for other opinions on this campaign. It features an excellent interview with my friend and colleague Aaron Parr.
I'd like to thank everyone who was there today - we had a blast and hopefully our presence may have changed something. Definitely willing and passionate about sticking at it, continuing our campaign. After all, to take inspiration from a chant, the resolution is revolution, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)