The UK Labour Party is fundamentally racist, impotent and sinister

Hello! Been a while, hasn't it? I've really had my hands full the last few months with professional commitments, despair over the ever-more-volatile state of the world and personal decisions for my future.

One of the things I've been doing recently is considering carefully the state of the UK opposition. I feel like I've been doing that pretty much every day for around ten years now (I kind of miss the days before I knew what the opposition was). One of the things primarily on my mind when I set up this blog as a lowly 17-year-old angry about tuition fees was that 'I hate the Government. EVERY Government.' What I meant by that was that I believed even then the old aphorism that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that anyone who comes to power is likely to experience the same effect. Do I still believe that? 'Yes, but...' is the answer. I think that in most cases that will be true, however I also believe that there are enough people in the world who wouldn't be corrupted by being in a leadership position. Jeremy Corbyn is one of them - I believe that had he become Prime Minister in 2017 or 2019, his general code of ethics would not have changed very much by being in that position. That is just my personal opinion; I could of course be wrong.

However, for better or worse he did not become Prime Minister. I still feel quite sad about that sometimes, but I also think it's better to move on and look to the future (something that us Corbyn-supporters are often accused - unfairly in my view - of being unable to do). However, I do need to say that if Jeremy Corbyn had been elected, irrespective of my personal views on him, things would still not have been brilliant. Far from it. Why? For the simple fact that Labour is a TERRIBLE party.

I've seen enough of the world of politics by now that I'm quite desensitised these days. Not that much shocks me. However, I admit to being very shocked by Al-Jazeera's three-part documentary on the UK Labour Party, The Labour Files. You can watch Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 on these links, and I strongly recommend doing so. It largely deals with the party's reaction to Corbyn's election as leader - but it's about so much more than that. It details how the opinions of people were deliberately misrepresented for cynical purposes; how personal details of campaigners, including things as sensitive as where their children went to school, were leaked to people with no right to that information; how incidents of racism amongst the staff were deliberately covered up; and so much more besides. Have a watch if you haven't already, but I warn you, it makes for grim viewing. It's immensely disturbing the levels of harassment that the Labour Party put sometimes quite vulnerable individuals through (and sometimes entire constituencies in a 'guilt by association' kind of way).

The message that I took from this is that the Labour Party is incredibly racist. The rules regarding leadership candidacy have changed recently (presumably to prevent any socialist ever getting in again); the current rules would have precluded every person of colour who has ever stood for Labour leadership from standing, as well as four of the six women who have ever stood (including Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy, the two women who stood last time). To put this into perspective, the current Conservative Prime Minister is a person of colour, as were quite a few of the people who stood in July's Tory leadership race. Far be it from me to point at the Conservative Party as a beacon of progressive politics, but it's arguable that we have actually reached a point where it's easier to be a woman or a person of colour in the Conservative Party than it is in Labour!

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party was absolutely dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism. Another thing that us Corbyn supporters are often accused of is turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism, so I want to make something else extremely clear. Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party exists. It existed prior to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, it existed during it and it continues to exist now that he's gone. I was a bit too naive during the 2015 election period to recognise the anti-Semitic characterisation of Ed Miliband; but on reflection, I do not believe there would have been anything to say about the way a non-Jewish leader had eaten a bacon sandwich. Under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, the complaints procedure was deliberately sabotaged by Labour's senior staff, making it harder for Jewish people within the party. Under the current administration, huge numbers of Jews have been suspended/expelled from the party allegedly for anti-Semitic behaviour. Although I do believe it to be possible to discriminate against one's own oppressed group (women can be misogynistic, black people can be racist, gay people can be homophobic) I have never before heard of people persecuted ON THIS SCALE supposedly for oppressing people who share their own protected characteristic. This seems to me that the definition of 'anti-Semitism' has been redefined by the Labour Party for a political purpose (largely by people who aren't even Jewish) and that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' sort of Jew depending on a political belief. If that's the case, it is one of the most disgracefully racist things I have ever heard of.

This is not even taking into account the other various forms of racism present in the Labour Party. Diane Abbott (who received almost half of all abusive tweets to female MPs during the 2017 election campaign) highlighted in this article that she received no apology nor any reassurance of any action being taken after the Forde Report revealed much racism and misogyny aimed at her by party staff. Apsana Begum, the first hijab-wearing MP, has experienced such extreme levels of systematic misogyny and racism from Labour Party staff that she had to be signed off sick for her mental health - and even then, Labour initiated a trigger ballot process during her time off to potentially cause her to lose her seat. There has been no apology from Labour for this behaviour, nor any recognition that it has even done anything wrong.

It's also worth noting the reticence from the Labour Party to support strike action. UK workers are facing increasing demands on their time for very little pay, and have been for some time. Rail workers are striking, as are nurses. Quite rightly so. Does the Labour Party (a party largely founded on union action) support these strikes in the slightest? No, it doesn't. It even went as far as to deselect MP Sam Tarry (the then Shadow Minister for Buses and Local Transport, as well as the partner of Deputy Leader Angela Rayner) after appearing on picket lines. If the Labour Party cannot even back workers standing up for their rights and fairer pay, something so crucial to its identity that it's referred to in its name, it's very hard to see what it actually stands for.

The fact that the UK Labour Party is in such an awful state is particularly bitter right now, for two reasons: 1) Because in such awful times we desperately need it to be better; and 2) Because actually, the Government is falling apart at the seams. We currently have the third Prime Minister we've had THIS YEAR. We've gone in less than sixty days from massive tax breaks to incredibly high tax hikes. The Government has run out of ideas. It has no objective other than keeping itself in power until the next election. It should be a foregone conclusion that it will suffer a thumping defeat at the next election whenever it comes...

Except it isn't. Because with Labour in such a dire state, the only way it can win an election is if people think, 'Well, they can't be worse than the Tories!' And, to be fair, it's entirely possible that Labour will win like that, with the Tories being as dire as they are. But what happens after that? Do we trust a party with such an economical relationship with the truth, with a history of such racism and misogyny and a profound unwillingness to stand up for working to really do anything to deal with the huge challenges the UK and the world faces today? Particularly with climate catastrophe on the horizon?

If Labour wins the next election, all that will happen is mild amelioration for a couple of years. During which time the Tories will rebrand, eventually get back in and the whole process will start over again... except even worse than that, because I believe (although this is just personal opinion) that Labour is now even worse than it was during the Tony Blair years. Anyone relying on the Labour Party to sort out their problems is in for a very bitter disappointment. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but this is the truth.

So, what can we do? Here are some ideas if you're feeling depressed (it's a depressing subject):

1) Think very hard about who you're voting for. Remember it's not just about the party or the leader, it's about your local candidate and whether you have faith in them to represent you in Parliament. I will not vote Labour next time because I do not have faith in my local candidate - however, there are still some Labour candidates for whom it's worth voting. The website They Work For You is a brilliant tool to determine whether a certain candidate is or isn't worth supporting - loads of information about their votes, speeches and general Parliamentary behaviour to determine if they represent what you want. If you don't have a decent Labour candidate, research your other candidates... we have an awful electoral system where most votes don't count, but if you have to vote for someone who won't win it's still worth it in some respects. If it's a closer call than expected, your local candidate may feel that they have to take on some of the characteristics of their opponent in order to win again next time.

2) Find a way of protesting. Protesting doesn't mean you have to sit in the middle of the M25 (although I admire people who do that, and they'll most likely be the subject of a future blog). Even if it's just trying to keep a day centre open in your community, that's still activism. Help with someone's rent, sign petitions, find something you can do to make someone's life a bit easier... we have to look after each other because we simply cannot rely on the state (ANY of the state) to do it for us. Even if you know an activist who's experiencing a bit of burn-out, a cup of tea and a chat can work wonders for someone's ability to carry on when the going is tough. (And just a note - a year ago, nine activists were jailed for telling the Government to insulate Britain. Now, the Government has pledged £6 billion to help do just that. Direct action does work.)

3) Don't despair. It's really hard not to sometimes, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone. But it isn't productive. So many times in the past people have felt similar to this, and so many times we've come through it. Someone once told me that the reason human beings have survived so long is that we're really quick to adapt to new circumstances - but we cannot ever imagine ourselves out of our present ones. If things are going badly, we cannot ever imagine them going well again. If things are going well, it feels like all the bad stuff is in the past and we've won. The truth is, we never win and we never lose, because things fluctuate, always have and always will. Just because things are bad at the moment, doesn't mean it's impossible to come through it and change things. It being impossible is what they want us to think. Don't fall for it.

Open letter to Thangam Debbonaire MP, regarding recent Government legislation and the UK Labour Party's current role within politics

 Dear Thangam,

My name is George Harold Millman. I'm an actor, scriptwriter and political activist, and I write about politics under the blog name The Rebel Without A Clause. I am writing to you concerning the most recent harmful legislation pushed through under the current Conservative Government, and the opposition's role in opposing such legislation.

I think political speaking, the last week (w/c 25/04/2022) was the most harmful week in politics in the almost three decades that I've been resident on this planet. Within seven days, Parliament passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, effectively outlawing peaceful protest and significantly curbing the legality of the traditional ways of life of travelling communities; the Nationality and Borders Bill, allowing the Home Secretary to deprive British people of their citizenship; the Elections Bill, meaning that people will only be able to vote if they produce voter ID, supposedly in the interests of preventing voter fraud - even though instances of voter fraud are incredibly low (this Act also gives Governments powers over the Electoral Commission, something far more likely to actually increase voter fraud); and to top it all the Health and Care Bill, making it easier for the Government to sell off parts of our NHS for corporate profit. (This is without even mentioning Nadine Dorries' plans to sell off Channel 4, which is pretty much the only major broadcaster to consistently question the role of the state).

In writing to you, I wanted to talk in particular about the Labour Party's position on these things. I am aware that particularly in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Lords were quite particular in passing it back to the House of Commons twice. However, on the third occasion, the Lords representing Labour chose to abstain. I am aware that thrice-blocking a Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons is a difficult position to put the Lords into - however, with the harm that this Bill causes, I find it very concerning that it was not opposed for all it was worth. Likewise with the other Bills - I am aware that the Lords worked on certain amendments to them, but the outcomes still seem incredibly harmful and divisive. Even if the Lords were defeated on things, I would hope that they would fight tooth and nail to keep our NHS public, keep citizenship sacrosanct and keep protest rights essential.

More broadly, I haven't been hugely impressed with Labour's position on very much of Conservative policy over the last few years. In 2019, I voted Labour for the first time, having previously always voted for the Green Party; I was so utterly inspired by the 2019 manifesto. I was terribly upset to lose the election so badly, but worse than that, I haven't felt Labour's response to the worst Government in history since the 2019 election, particularly given that we've had the most major public health crisis in a century since, to be particularly inspiring. There have been a lot of abstentions to harmful pieces of legislation, suspension of left-wing members (particularly left-wing Jewish members actually, in spite of the leader's claim to be trying to make a clean break with anti-Semitism); and even when opposition has been given, it hasn't felt particularly strong (an instance of that is Keir Starmer's recent interview regarding the suggestion of sending refugees to Rwanda; although he quite rightly opposed this idea, he focussed more on practical issues of it being uneconomical and so on. Although that is a concern, the primary concern here is surely that it's a really grotesque abuse of human rights, and I would have hoped the Leader of the UK Labour Party, the party of Clement Attlee, Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn, would attack it from that angle.)

I sometimes question whether I was right to vote Labour last time, but for better or worse, I did and we are where we are. What I am essentially writing to you to ask is, will Labour commit to reversing the harmful pieces of legislation that have gone through in the past week if the party wins the next election? And, if the answer to that is yes, to what degree should I trust the accuracy of that statement given that nearly all of the ten pledges that the current Leader of the Labour Party was elected on have been broken?

Thank you for your attention, and I hope to hear back from you soon.

Best wishes,

George Harold Millman

This letter was sent to my local MP, Labour's Thangam Debbonaire, through the website WriteToThem, through which you can write to any of your local representatives. The links sourcing my points were not sent, they were added to this blog post. If and when I receive any response, I will post it on this blog.

My Facebook My Twitter

Call me crazy, but I kind of thought not having permission was the whole point of protesting?

 This week, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill finally reached Royal Assent, after bouncing back and forth between the Commons and the Lords for quite a while. This Bill is quite possibly the most dangerous Bill that has passed in the UK in my life time, as it effectively criminalises protest - or at any rate, any form of protest that is likely to be at all effective, at the cost of up to ten years in jail. Marches that have been pre-arranged with the police at certain times and don't make too much noise are still allowed, but I think we're deluding ourselves quite a lot if we think that kind of action would ever be remotely effective in achieving a goal. (Just as a side-note, another thing that happened this week was Nadine Dorries reaffirming her intention to sell Channel 4. That followed a massive consultation in which 98% of respondents said that they didn't think Channel 4's management needed any shake-up, and Nadine Dorries has effectively said that these responses do not matter. I just thought I would bring that up, if we think the Government ever listens to concerned citizens just telling them what they think, rather than taking any kind of action to make it so.)

The Bill also contains quite a lot of other concerning things, such as 'increased powers for police to respond to unauthorised encampments', which essentially turns trespass from a civil into a criminal matter, and disproportionately targets Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (already some of the most vulnerable communities to invisible racism in the world). When I was at sixth form, I worked on a play about the evictions of the travelling communities residing at Dale Farm in Essex, an extremely hot topic back in 2011 - as a performer, I often feel quite emotionally close to the issues that I'm tackling in my theatre work, and ever since I've felt quite angry on behalf of traveller communities and held a deep-ridden desire to change things.

You'd think that I'd be quite demotivated by this Bill having gone through (there was admittedly a small part of me that thought it may not, although I think that was always the idealistic side of me). But I am not demotivated, I am inspired. I think the thing inspiring me is that the more draconian legislation goes through (I haven't even started on accelerating the privatisation of the NHS or being able to strip British-born people of their citizenship), the more determined I am to fight. And I think this could be true of all of us. In addition to just being greedy and cruel, I think there is method in the Government's madness; a determination not just to remove all of our rights, but also to make us feel depressed and disincentivised, to make us feel that we've lost.

We have not lost. We've never truly lost until after we've gone extinct. These pieces of legislation are disturbing and frightening, but they aren't the only ones, particularly if you extend your outlook beyond just the UK and into other parts of the world. Throughout history, and even today, people have risked their lives and their freedoms to fight for things that we now take for granted and couldn't imagine living without (things that even now, world powers would take away in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it). Why do you think they want to stop people protesting? They want to stop it because they know that we actually have more power than we think we do, and particularly recently with environmental groups such as Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, more people are starting to talk about the causes. The Government would quite like to stamp this out, and it will not work. Banning protest just makes people more angry, and more inclined to go even further in trying to achieve their goals.

It is my view that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is unenforceable, for a few reasons:

1) Because the number of people at a protest generally tends exceed the number who can be realistically arrested or charged;

2) Because defence in criminal cases regarding protest is slightly different to defence in criminal cases generally - the burden of proof on the defendant is not so much that their criminal acts did not happen or that it was not they who committed them, but that they were committed in order to prevent a much greater wrong being committed;

3) Because as citizens, we are becoming more concerned, and juries are starting to reflect this - this is demonstrated in outcomes in cases such as that of the Colston Four, which I wrote about at the time.

It's all very well to impose Government restrictions on protests, but that is not how protesting works, and never has been. Protesting is something that is done when Government or corporate policies specifically infringe on someone's rights, safety or livelihood, and more importantly is a human right. It's ineffective for it to be condoned by the Government every time, because the whole purpose of it is specifically to defy world powers. For this reason, this Bill will be ineffective, as the decision to take to the streets is not something that happens when we feel like a fun afternoon. It's something we do when we're unhappy about something, and it is an intelligent person who is unhappy in today's circumstances.

I've not been an especially good activist in the last couple of years. I haven't updated this blog as often as I probably should have, and I've been to very few marches and rallies. I can't really say why that is other than that I've allowed life to get in the way too much (which is actually healthy if it's in moderation - no one can be an activist 100% of the time). But currently I'm re-evaluating my place on this earth and my reason for being here, and quite a lot of this has spurred me on, made me think that actually we can make a success of this. No mountain is insurmountable; throughout history grassroots activists have made huge social and political differences to their way of life, and we will continue to do so for as long as the human race exists. And there isn't just one way of doing it either - some people chain themselves to railings, some people become lawyers and try to achieve progress through the legal channels, some people go on hunger strikes... there isn't a right or a wrong way a lot of the time, it's just what works for you and what you feel most comfortable with. But whatever way it is, we should be going out there and claiming that better world that could exist for us as long as we demand it hard enough.

Let's do it.

My Facebook My Twitter

Will a party bring about the end of Boris Johnson's rule?

This blog will be one of my shorter ones. I haven't really written anything about this bring-your-own-booze garden party that Boris Johnson is supposed to have hosted in the middle of lockdown. I haven't done a great deal of research into it either, although I have seen this rather wonderful video by Peter Stefanovic explaining why Sue Gray isn't as independent as people think she is.

Truthfully, the reason for this is that I don't really care very much if Government ministers had a party during lockdown. Doing such a thing was wrong, yes - but no more wrong than the constant breaches of human rights, the staggering numbers of excess deaths due to mishandling COVID, the moves to destroy peaceful protest, the deliberate weakening of the NHS just when we need it most or many of the other things this Government has presided over. It shows that they think it's one rule for them and another for us - well, I'd say that we already knew that, and have done for some time. They're extremely wealthy human beings, mostly born into grotesque levels of privilege and recipients of a form of education that reinforces that notion that 'we are born to rule, they are born to serve'. This notion is a vital part of British society; in most echelons of it, it's seen as fairly outdated now, but it's still nearly as prevalent as ever in our Governments, our media and our legal services.

Nevertheless, it has to be said that this revelation has caused a great deal of anger amongst the population, and thus I'm drawn to acknowledging it on this blog. I think the reason is basically just the unfairness of it all - that people missed birthdays, funerals, anniversaries and did everything they could to take one for the team, and the Government couldn't even be bothered to do that much. Unfairness is a social motivator much of the time. There's been a lot of talk in the media about whether this could be the straw that breaks our Prime Minister's back. It could be, but I'm sceptical. It seems that since Boris Johnson came to power, he's presided over scandal after scandal, and it never seems to come to anything (remember Dominic Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle? You probably do now I mention it, but I haven't heard anything about that, or him, for a long time, and that had pretty much the same as this).

But perhaps I'm wrong. Sometimes you can't predict in advance exactly which scandal will be the one to take out a Prime Minister - in fact, in most cases you probably can't. A more important question is, why should we care? If Boris Johnson goes, it will be for one reason and one reason only - that the party has finally decided that his liability level outweighs his usefulness (a Prime Minister who can withstand scandal after scandal is INCREDIBLY useful for a Government, which is why this decision hasn't already been made).

And if he goes, who will replace him? Most likely, someone who was at this party. Someone who will continue with all the policies people object to about Boris Johnson. The removal of a leader and the process of bringing in of a new one is very rarely anything in the way of an attempt to resolve the problems caused by the previous leader, and to prove that one needs to look no further than the Labour Party. In the 2017 General Election, Labour's manifesto caused it to receive its highest share of the vote since 2001 and receive a net gain of seats for the first time since 1997. Only two years later, on an extremely similar manifesto, Labour had the most polar opposite result you could imagine, losing sixty seats. At the time I wrote about the various things that caused such a different result - but the only major difference between the manifestos was Labour's position on Brexit. In 2017, Labour pledged to respect the result of the referendum. In 2019, the then Shadow Brexit Secretary, backed by other political forces, championed another sore loser referendum, and then this was voted on at conference, forcing Labour to officially adopt this policy or else face quite reasonable accusations of being undemocratic. Who was this Shadow Brexit Secretary? Keir Starmer. Who succeeded Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader? Keir Starmer, and he immediately put the party into debt by agreeing financial settlements on cases the party had been advised it would win, conducted a purge of left-wing members and is so dull to listen to that under him the party struggles to stay afloat against the worst Government in history. Yes, things went wrong for Labour in 2019 - but if the party was even slightly interested in objectively analysing what went wrong and rectifying it, this man would not have come even close to the leadership.

In my humble opinion, Boris Johnson leaving over this is highly unlikely to happen. But if it does, it won't cause life to improve for anyone really. Nothing will change until we fundamentally alter the make-up of our society and our leadership, and that can only be achieved through campaigns and protest.

My Facebook My Twitter

Review of ITV's Anne

'They’re going to try and wear me down. But... I’ll wear them down before they wear me out.'

Anne Williams, 1951-2013

 Over the last week or so, my partner and I have watched the drama Anne (it's only four episodes, so catch it here if you haven't seen it already). It's about the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 and the aftermath, which spanned more than thirty years. Maxine Peake plays a fictitious version of the real-life campaigner Anne Williams, whose 15-year-old son Kevin died at Hillsborough and who fought for the remainder of her own life to uncover the truth about what happened.

I'm not really a football person, however I think every socially-minded person should take something of an interest. I've always been fascinated by the impact sport can have on social campaigns - particularly in the last couple of years, with the work provided by political activist and footballer Marcus Rashford. When I was a child, I remember first learning about Hillsborough (the disaster itself happened four years before I was born) and as I grew older I learned a bit more about how much the blame was shifted away from the police and onto fans who the press derided as being drunk hooligans. However, it's only been within the last week or so that I've realised that sheer scale of this, and how long the families fought to get justice. (The legal campaign itself actually only finished last year, and there's still one further aspect to it, which I'll outline below.)

Truthfully, I have rarely come across a drama which moved me so much. My partner and I write a political TV drama series, so we are extremely difficult viewers to impress! Nearly everything we've watched over the past few years, we've criticised quite significantly even if we've generally enjoyed it. With this, I have very little to criticise. Maxine Peake's performance was absolutely spot on, the best role I've ever seen her in by miles (she's an incredible human being even aside from her acting; she's done some extremely good work for socialist campaigns in the past). I think especially given that we follow her character in this for 24 years, she portrays the way in which her character ages over time exceptionally well (if I could level one small criticism at the programme it's that this can't always be said for the other actors, but I'm really nitpicking there). I really felt a sense of injustice at the way the families of the 96 (now 97, as the latest victim only died last year) were constantly finding themselves jumping through hoops and getting nowhere, as the system was determined to protect the powerful. I think that's a societal phenomenon that we've all tasted something of at some point in our lives, but rarely as consistently and to the extent of the Hillsborough families.

The drama has inspired me to find out a lot more about Hillsborough, which I think is probably the point of it. On my previous blog about the Colston Four, I talked about how successful activism is often retrospectively changed to become less grassroots, more of an establishment success. In the Hillsborough case, we have another aspect to this, which is our tendency to focus more on the horrors of the tragedies themselves than the failure on the part of authorities to prevent it. This happens in many situations, and is most noticeable during conversations about the Holocaust; we talk about the situations at the concentration camps, we talk about people being gassed to death in what they'd been told were the showers, but it's not often that we hear about the increased levels of public apathy towards Jews and other minority groups over the previous decade that precipitated these attacks. I've even heard people argue that likening it to forms of racism we see in modern times is insulting to anyone who died in the Holocaust - which is a complete own goal, because making that public knowledge is vital if we want to prevent it happening. The same is true of Hillsborough. I didn't know a great deal about it before I watched Anne - I probably knew a bit more than the general population because I'm someone who actively takes an interest in social campaigns, so I knew that the police were largely at fault and that the newspapers smeared the people of Liverpool, to the point where you can now no longer buy the Sun in Liverpool because it's boycotted. Watching Anne really inspired me to increase my knowledge - but I think most people probably don't even know that much.

When we talk about Hillsborough, we talk about the horrors of the crush itself - and whilst that is important to reflect on, it's not the only important thing, or even the most important. I think what is of more importance here is that this case really shines a light on the extent to which the powerful will go to protect themselves from accountability. In cases like former Special Constable Debra Martin's (who was with Kevin Williams when he died, and was one of the only police officers to be honest from the start), the establishment will even ruin the lives of people who were formerly part of it, if these people refuse to toe the line and stick to the approved story. We continue to see this all the time. Our present Government was only elected two years ago, and so far has presided over scandal after scandal. Almost no one is ever brought to account for any of it. In some ways, I think it's even worse now than it was in the 1980s and '90s - at least then, there were attempts to appear to be doing one's job properly. Now, it sometimes seems that the general public has become so disheartened by public bodies that public bodies can't even be bothered to put on a façade. That results in less scrutiny and more miscarriages of justice, and will until we as human beings demand a better quality of service from the people who are meant to serve us.

That's all quite depressing. But I think there's also something quite inspiring about this story. It's a story of survival, of victims pulling together and supporting one another through terrible things. This is something that we've seen a real resurgence of over the last few years or so, with movements such as #metoo, Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion. I'm quite excited by the fightback that seems to have arisen in people. Sometimes it feels like it's not achieving enough, and I get frustrated by that myself - but I really hope that the Hillsborough story can give us some perspective on this. The knowledge that people in the past have felt exactly the same way we do is often a comforting one (I think a big part of why so many of us turn to religious texts), especially if their situations eventually improved. In the Hillsborough case, it's especially powerful because most of the victims were working-class - the very people who, in establishment eyes, are meant to just exist and provide capital, not to fight back.

The activist Anne Williams died in 2013, and is survived by two of her three children and a number of grandchildren. She'd played an instrumental part in the decision to order the second Hillsborough inquests,  but did not live to see the outcome - which ruled that supporters were unlawfully killed due to grossly negligent failures by police and ambulance services. Despite this ruling, all of the police officers standing trial were acquitted last year on a legal technicality. The Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, has written this very persuasive article arguing for a change in our legal system to prevent this kind of thing from happening again (this is the one further aspect which I mentioned above). It's appalling that the families had spend so much money and fight for this long (in some cases, like that of Anne Williams, for the entirety of the rest of their lives) simply to be told what they already knew - that their relatives had done nothing wrong. Even now, the fact that no one has ever actually faced any kind of sentence for it is something that I think we should all be quite disturbed by. Where is the reassurance that if any of us are victims of a major scandal in the future, that the legal system will be there for us? I don't see that anywhere.

Nevertheless, I think there is a lot to celebrate about the outcome of Hillsborough. The city of Liverpool really proved itself as a passionate and strong community, one that is willing to stand up to the system against all odds. I'm from Bristol and I think similar things about us, but honestly I think Liverpool probably outshines us! The thing I find most inspiring is Liverpool's ongoing campaign against Rupert Murdoch. You cannot buy the Sun in Liverpool even from Tesco, as there's no demand for it. I truly think this is the most effective boycott of the press in the world, and as a result Liverpool tends to be less susceptible to political game playing. You can see in Liverpool's election results that they don't tend to reflect that of the rest of the country - through boycotting the press, the people of Liverpool are able to see more clearly than most of us what is really going on, and they vote accordingly. This extraordinary city proves what can be achieved if ordinary people come together and fight the system - which is something most of us are far more capable of than we believe we are.

I'd like to take this moment to commend the communities in Liverpool for the incredible work they've done battling the powerful in this country, and particularly the activist Anne Williams, played by Maxine Peake in the drama Anne, who fought for 24 years to achieve justice and was largely successful. May she rest in power. I'd also like to thank the writer Kevin Sampson and ITV, for creating such a compelling drama that speaks truth to power, as drama should do and so often doesn't. It's rare to come across a television series so refreshingly honest about establishment bureaucracy and the poison within. May we see more of this kind of thing on television in the future.

Anne was broadcast from 2 to 5 January 2022, and can be viewed here.

My Facebook My Twitter

The trial of the Colston Four

This week, the Colston Four - Jake Skuse, Rhian Graham, Milo Ponsford and Sage Willoughby, the four people who pulled down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston from Bristol City Centre in June 2020 - were found not guilty of criminal damage at Bristol Crown Court. The defence successfully argued that the presence of the statue was in itself a greater crime than the action of pulling it down.

There have been some quite angry reactions from media executives such as Kelvin Mackenzie and some MPs (mostly Tories) such as Robert Jenrick, who argue that the decision undermines the rule of law. In this excellent article, Graeme Hayes, Brian Doherty and Steven Cammmiss explain using legal terms why this ruling does not in fact undermine the rule of law - they explain it better than I can so I highly recommend reading it to anyone unsure, but essentially it explains why there were many legal reasons to acquit the defendants, particularly because the trials of protesters work a little differently from ordinary criminal trials, as the burden on the defendant is generally not to prove that what they are accused of did not happen, but that under the circumstances it was intended to prevent a far greater crime. There's more detail in the article, but ultimately this was demonstrated successfully in court.

The greater crime the defendants argued they were preventing was the continuing presence of a monument that was greatly offensive to the citizens of Bristol, that had been petitioned several times to the council to remove legally, to no effect. I've never written about the removal of that statue before, but I can say firmly that I am fundamentally in favour of its removal. I grew up very close to where that statue was, and I still live nearby today. I've walked past it hundreds of times, and I now regularly walk past the plinth where it was. It is not missed at all, either by myself or by others.

Since this statue came down, the subject has been discussed in the media frequently, and I actually think has been a great opportunity for education. It's only been in the last couple of years that I've realised that most people outside of Bristol hadn't heard of Edward Colston prior to the removal of his statue - because if you grow up in Bristol, his name is unavoidable. Pretty much everything in Bristol is named after Colston (or at least, was until a couple of years ago) - I can think of three different schools, a major music venue, student accommodation and many more, that bore his name. This is because the trade that Colston brought Bristol made this city rich.

I really love being from Bristol - it's an incredible vibrant city, with a real can-do attitude and a creative buzz to it, and most importantly it's very multi-ethnic. As a white male Bristolian, I've always been aware that not only am I a person of considerable privilege, but also that I'm a beneficiary of a city that got rich off the back of the slave trade. I don't think there's much point feeling guilty for that, but I like to think that as a city we've moved on from that and are now welcoming to people descended from nations that England has previously invaded and colonised. There's probably a lot further we could go with regards to that, but I feel that the removal of this statue is very much a step in the right direction. I've heard it stated quite a lot that the removal of the statue erases history - a statement that I'm tempted to respond to with a sarcastic 'That's why nobody knows who Hitler was' (a retort I borrowed from Philomena Cunk). But in all seriousness, how does it erase history? Nobody is pretending that history didn't happen. If anything, the opposite is happening - it's to create more awareness of exactly how we got rich, and saying that even though we might benefit from the wealth that history brought us, we are now making the decision to distance ourselves from the means. Making that decision actually makes it more possible for Bristol's economic value to be shared equally - until 2015, taxpayers were still reimbursing former slave-owning families for their loss of slaves. And with Edward Colston's name more widely known now than it was before, it is more possible to have a national conversation and a more broad understanding of history.

In relation to the frequently raised (and quite tedious) question of 'Does this mean we can remove any statue that people don't like then?', the answer from me is actually yes. If a statue is generally disapproved of by the ordinary people living nearby, I feel that they have every right to remove it. Ordinary people make up communities, and they should decide whether or not a statue represents the values of their community. For me personally, I don't like statues at all. I don't believe that any human being, whether living now, in the past or yet to be born, deserves that almost God-like level of accolade, and I'd theoretically be in favour of the removal of every statue in the world. But in reality, it shouldn't be my decision each time - it should be the decision of the people who live wherever it is. I was fortunate enough to get to see the statue of activist Jen Reid for the single day it replaced the Colston statue, but although I thought it was an insult for the council to take it down so quickly when they dragged their heels over Colston for more than three decades, I prefer the plinth with nothing. An empty plinth is a reminder of what happened there - how a statue was erected that was utterly hated by the city, how the authorities refused to remove it despite widespread pressure to, and how an act of civil disobedience ended it and made a strong statement about what our city stands for. To me, what is important now is the remembrance of that, particularly at a time when the Government is trying to make it harder to protest. Protest is a human right, and when successful is very often sanitised by history, the grassroots element watered down and forgotten over time, to morally separate it from any subsequent issues that may be campaigned about in the future. We cannot allow this to happen - this was an act of civil disobedience, and must be remembered as such.

I'm actually quite glad that the campaigns to legally remove Colston's statue were unsuccessful. If they'd worked, the local council would have been able to claim credit for it. In this case, there is no credit to be taken by anyone except the people who were actually there removing it. It's a classic case of ordinary people taking matters into their own hands, something that I think we could all do a bit more of. We all share this world and much of the time, delegating responsibility to politicians only results in half-baked platitudes and little else. As long as you aren't hurting anyone and you know there's good reason for what you're doing, there's often a lot of value to just cracking on with something. Here in my home city, where there used to be a statue emphasising our history of slavery and colonialism, there is now an empty plinth emphasising our collective desire to improve ourselves and right past wrongs - a desire that is organic and has not been fed to us by anyone at the top. I think that's something that we should all be bloody proud of.

My Facebook My Twitter

How to stay motivated when everything is against you

I'd like to start with an apology - to many, many people, whether they read my blog or not, but mostly to myself. Over this last year, I have not updated this blog even once. I have attended very few demonstrations. I've participated in political discussions on the Internet and increased my knowledge of things, but I think that's only the bare minimum we can do at the moment.

One of the hardest things about being a leftie activist is, as many of us will tell you, the constant draining of energy. Particularly in the current climate, it seems there is so much going on at any particular time that it's hard to know where to start in dealing with the problem. What should we deal with first - curbs on protest, the incompetent leader of the opposition or our own personal gripes? What if I don't have time to properly do my research? How will I have time with everything else going on in my life? And - the constant one - does it really make much difference what I write about?

These are the questions that are constantly swirling around in my brain. I've always been one to distract myself anyway, and particularly at the moment sometimes it's difficult to bring yourself to a point where you can focus on something tangible and positive. Then, if it goes a certain amount of time without doing anything, you feel guilty about that and that can cripple you from doing anything further.

It's super-important at the moment that we don't give in to these feelings, because I think since I started this blog in 2010 there has been more going on in the world that has needed my attention in 2021 than ever before. So, from a burnout veteran, here's a handy five-point guide to avoid it:

1. Force yourself to do something each day

It doesn't matter if it's not exactly what you wanted to do - talk to a stranger, write a blog even if it's not a very good one, write to your MP, read an informative piece of work or a political allegory... actually I think the most productive things that have happened to me over this last year have been Zoom chats with friends who have given me ideas and inspiration. Actually, as much as doing something productive can feel like a chore, once you're doing it it's actually quite cleansing to the soul and helps you feel in top of things, so it's worth finding something worthwhile with which to occupy your time.

2. Be kind to yourself

My problem is that I take some time out, feel guilty about it, don't deal with those guilty feelings, feel more guilty, time passes, things spiral and I still haven't achieved what I was going to. That's fine. If you don't feel up to being as active as normal, it's fine to allow yourself some chill-out time... as long as that chill-out time is used productively. There's a difference between chilling out in a way that's actually going to get your brain together, and chill-out time that's decadent and destructive. Different activities work for different people, so do what works for you. If you've messed up, don't waste valuable time blaming yourself, just crack on with whatever will help.

3. Remember that it doesn't matter whether people know you're doing something

This is an important one. I'm all for telling everyone what you're doing and bringing people on board -  but at the same time, it's not about showing off. If your time is spent helping one single person with something they're struggling with, you're contributing to society. You know what your limit is, no one else does. This is why in large part my apology is actually to myself, because my duty is to myself first. I can't help others unless I myself am able to mentally function, and mental function involves using the noggin.

4. Have go-to sources of information

Sometimes it can be really hard to do in-depth research on something important. But as long as you've got a couple of blogs that you regularly come back to (ones that are updated a bit more than mine, hehe) you'll at least be kept up-to-date about some things. If you're on social media, make sure you comment on things that interest you, and then the algorithms will keep showing you things from that same source. That said, try to make your sources of information a little varied so as not to be fed too much of an echo chamber, and always remember to fact-check.

5. Remember to accept what you cannot change, and change what you cannot accept

This is obviously not my own line, but I've never come across anything more accurate in the world of social change. You are ultimately only one person with a limited amount of power - but having said that, it's odds on that that power is limited at a much higher point than you give yourself credit for.

This is not the most complicated blog I've ever written, but it is an honest one. 2021 was quite a tough year for those of us who are trying to change the world positively, so let's make 2022 an improvement!

My Facebook My Twitter