The overwhelming negativity of politics

 'You're joking! Not another one?' exclaimed Brenda from Bristol in 2017 upon learning that Theresa May had called a snap General Election after repeatedly assuring the public that she wouldn't. 'I can't stand this - there's too much politics going on at the moment.' The 2017 General Election took place a year after both a referendum on our EU membership and a coup by the Labour Party against its elected leader, two years after another General Election and three years after a referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent state, so Brenda had a point. There had indeed been an unusually high number of elections and miscellaneous political exercises in recent times.

Brenda's words became one of the most widely-shared election-related videos in UK history. Even now in 2024, she is so well-remembered that tonight when I was tasked with asking the questions in a quiz league game, there was a question about what her name was and it was answered correctly - and then one of the participants said, 'She spoke for the nation!' But what exactly did Brenda mean by 'there's too much politics going on at the moment'? After all, politics is ongoing so that's not exactly a clear statement. Did she mean she wants fewer opportunities to participate in democracy? She's never given any clarifications so one can only speculate on what she meant - but I think that at the very least, we can conclude that Brenda finds election campaigns to be a deeply, deeply unpleasant experience.

It is this that I think is what caused the entirety of the UK to unite with Brenda, because we all find elections to be horrible. Particularly as Brits, we're often told to steer clear of religion and politics in polite company, and during election time we can't do that. We're repeatedly told who we should and shouldn't vote for, we struggle to understand much of it and we have to pretend that we're more informed than we actually probably are. I'm as bad with this as anyone else is - I find I spend most of my time wanting an election, and then when one is actually called I suffer from severe anxiety and find myself thinking, 'This is absolutely awful - why on earth did I ever want this?' But the 2017 election in particular is very memorable for me, in terms of both how low I was when it was called and how excited I became by the result.

In early 2017, I was at a particularly low point in my life, and when the General Election was called I was absolutely certain that Theresa May would achieve the super-majority she was expected to get, we'd lose all hope of ever improving anything and basically shit would only get worse. But obviously that didn't happen - the Labour Party did a really great campaign, and the Tories actually lost seats. I remember watching the election coverage and all the pundits were absolutely stunned. Apparently Rupert Murdoch stormed out of the room when he saw the exit poll!

Seven years on, I have noticed quite a lot of revisionism in people's recollections of that moment. Nowadays, you're more likely to hear how badly Labour performed that they couldn't even beat a Prime Minister as awful as Theresa May. My question that I always ask in response is, 'So when the exit poll results came in and all the pundits were sitting there in shock, you're saying they were in shock because they were expecting Labour to win an outright majority rather than just a hung Parliament, are you?' Because I really do not believe this was the expectation. It was not expected that by appealing to hope rather than to fear, a political party would be able to come back in a General Election when they were that far behind in the polls to begin with. Essentially, the idea was that it's negative ideas, not positive ones, that win seats.

This is generally the driving force behind nearly every political campaign I've ever seen, both in the UK and abroad. I remember in the 2016 US Presidential Election, a meme was being shared around that said: 'Donald Trump Pros: Not Hillary Clinton. Cons: Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton Pros: Not Donald Trump. Cons: Hillary Clinton.' Both of these Presidential candidates predominantly relied on people disliking their main opponent even more than they disliked them. The same thing happened at the following US election, and will most likely happen in the next one. Here in the UK, the leaders of both the Labour and Conservative Parties are relying on this for the next election. Neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer is doing anything at all to make people think, 'Yes, I trust that person. They're the person I want to be my Prime Minister.' Their entire appeal is that they are not their opponent. I have very rarely heard anyone of any political persuasion express the fact that they actually like either of them.

I find this exceptionally harmful, and I think that this association of politics with negativity has a significant impact on social discourse. Because truthfully, I don't think politics should be negative. I think it should be an opportunity to express our ideas, listen to others and find a way forward that benefits everyone. I've written a lot on this blog in the past about my partner Owen and the campaign group for the disabled he's set up in Abergavenny. All of that is political, but in an overwhelmingly positive and beneficial way. Sure, there'll be times when we disagree with each other; if we're adults, we should have the maturity to be able to handle those disagreements and talk them out in a way that is actually valuable. There'll also be times when we feel like we don't really know enough about the subject; well, the best way to learn is to chat about these things. Some of the most intelligent and well-considered opinions I've ever heard have come from people who have told me that they don't really understand what's going on. I find that they tend to understand it more than they think they do - there's a concerted effort from the media class to suggest that politics is the domain of the privately-educated rich, and that is not true. If anything, I find those people tend to be the ones who are the most sheltered.

One thing that most people in the UK can agree on whatever their political persuasion is that they don't like the first-past-the-post system - and yet it stays despite being deeply flawed, because the only people with the power to change it are the ones who benefit from it being there. I could probably write a whole other blog on what form of democracy I'd prefer instead. However, with the way that political campaigns tend to conduct themselves, it would actually make the most sense to have an inverse voting system - vote for the person you least want, and then the person with the fewest votes gets in. This isn't a system I would personally advocate, but politicians do conduct their campaigns as though it is.

The writer Owen Jones said in a recent article for The Guardian that 'there are now three certainties in life: death, taxes, and Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister within a year'. If I was being very facetious, I'd suggest that maybe if Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister within a year is a certainty, that by itself demonstrates that taxes are not. In all seriousness, I don't agree that Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister is a certainty, both because of Andrew Feinstein's campaign against him in Holborn St Pancras and because I don't believe Labour is doing anything at all to inspire people to vote for them. Jones' rationale is that the Tories are doing particularly badly at the moment - and indeed they are, and maybe that will result in a Labour victory, but I don't believe that's guaranteed. The reason I don't believe it's guaranteed is that I remember the same thing being said about Ed Miliband in 2015. After the disastrous experiment with a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, that should have been the easiest election in the world for Labour to walk - but it made itself so unappealing that the left-wing vote was split, and the Tories managed to get an outright majority. And now under Keir Starmer, I think Labour is even less appealing than it was in 2015 under Ed Miliband, so I don't understand why relying on the governing party being awful is suddenly more likely to work now. Essentially, I don't think there has ever been an election in UK history (certainly not since I've been alive) that someone has won purely because of the flaws of their opponents. Every single election winner has, I feel, offered something that people wanted. Even if I haven't personally cared for what that is, I can see how certain things seemed appealing to certain sections of the demographic at the time. Right now, I don't see anyone in any major party trying to be appealing in any way at all, so this is uncharted territory. Who knows what will happen?

What I can say for certain is that politics does not need to be this negative. Have conversations with people, read about things from all different sources, don't be afraid to talk about your own feelings and don't be afraid to be disagreed with. Politics in the UK, and probably in most countries, is absolutely toxic. For this reason, I think Brenda from Bristol had a point. But I also think it's shameful that she had a point. We shouldn't live in a world where people dread the occasions where they get to participate in democracy. We don't have to have that world.

My Facebook My Twitter My YouTube

How it came about that my partner is planning to stand as an independent MP

Quite a short blog today, but a personal one.

My partner is Owen B Lewis, and truthfully he's one of the most amazing people I've ever had the good fortune to know. He's the writer of two fantastic novels, The Waterfall Warrior and Vulnerable Voices. He's exceptionally good at anything practical, and has the ability to cut through the drivel and just crack on with achieving an objective. In the time I've known him, I've witnessed how Owen is always able to recognise when someone is struggling or vulnerable in any way, and has the intelligence and drive to fight for them to be able to get the support they need.

If you follow this blog, you'll probably have seen my posts regarding our work in South Wales (and if you haven't, please do check them out). As a general summary, in late 2022 we learned that Owen's former place of work, Tudor Street Day Centre in Abergavenny (formerly known as My Day My Life) had not been re-opened since lockdown, leaving many local disabled people with very little day-to-day support. Owen took this argument to Monmouthshire County Council, and it's still ongoing - but rather than spending all this time arguing with people, he decided to set up a community group called The Gathering. The Gathering has proven extremely popular with disabled people, their families and their carers, and we've had interest from quite a wide geographical range - reinforcing the fact that these services have been cut to the bone all over the place. The battle isn't over yet as we're still in need of a better location than the one we have, but there's a lot of talk behind the scenes about how to improve things.

Both our local Tory MP David TC Davies and the Labour parliamentary candidate Catherine Fookes have been openly supportive of the scheme. It's been lovely to have such public support from them; however, we have talked a lot about what it could mean for the next election. As I've written in many previous blogs, I'm extremely sceptical about both the Labour and Conservative Parties, and truthfully I don't believe either of them deserve to form a Government (irrespective of my opinion on the local candidates). Owen shares my views on this. It has occurred to us that with The Gathering proving so popular, people in the new constituency of Monmouthshire may take this into account in the way they vote - and if so, it may be beneficial to give them the chance to vote for the independent person who actually set up the whole thing, rather than the Labour or Conservative candidate who's been supportive but might not have been that actively involved.

When Owen told me he was planning to stand as a Parliamentary candidate, I was asleep. We'd been talking about it for a few weeks, Owen had previously ruled out the idea, but then he came back from the gym and woke me up by saying, 'George, I've decided - I'm going to do it.' I'm incredibly excited about this. We are aware that it's exceptionally difficult for independent candidates to win elections - but then, these are exceptional times. Public trust in politicians is at an all-time low. It often feels like there is no one to vote for who actually represents our views. This is especially true with recent events in the Gaza Strip; there is unequivocal support amongst the public for an unconditional ceasefire, and both major parties have dragged their feet over it. My opinion is that they drag their feet over everything, locally and nationally. They dragged their feet over support for the disabled until Owen got his act together and started sorting everything out.

From having observed the Westminster political system for several years, it largely seems impossible to reform - but I've also spent seven years, both before he became my partner and since, watching Owen consistently achieve the impossible. When we met, he proved to me that he was more capable than me of producing theatre, in spite of the fact that he had no experience at the time and I'd spent three years at University learning to do exactly that. Since then, he's never stopped doing that. This time last year, people thought that Owen made a lot of noise but no one had faith in him to set up a scheme like The Gathering - and yet here we are, and it's going from strength to strength. There is no one I trust more to shake things up, in a way that benefits ordinary people rather than the rich. He's not an establishment politician, and he's not like George Galloway in the sense that he doesn't seek fame or personal glory. Owen is someone who is humble enough to listen to regular folk, and assertive enough to stand up to anyone who gets in the way of accomplishing something special.

Two weeks ago, we met Andrew Feinstein, who is hopefully going to stand against Keir Starmer in Holborn St Pancras. Andrew was very encouraging of Owen, and it was a really inspiring evening. I'm really excited to see what other independent candidates might stand against establishment politicians, and I'm looking forward to being part of this kind of campaign in Monmouthshire.

But we need your help as well! At the moment, we're still fundraising for the £500 deposit that Owen needs to be able to get on the ballot paper. Here is a link to Owen's crowdfunding campaign, where you can read more about him in his own words. At the time of writing, we've raised £125 of the £500 needed (which is positive, because the crowdfunder has only just gone up). Deposits are refundable if the candidate receives more than 5% of the vote, so if you declare your name on it you could potentially get your money back later as well.

Thanks for your help if you can. Let's do this!

My Facebook My Twitter

Why elections might be different post-COVID

As usual for an election year, the media pundits are out in full force, predicting the outcome of this election.

I've truthfully decided that pundits tend not to know what they're talking about, and with good reason. In 2015, they predicted a Labour majority - we got a Tory majority. In 2016, they predicted that Remain would win the EU referendum - we got Brexit. In 2017, they predicted a super-majority for Theresa May - we got a hung parliament. And they all seemed very unsure what would happen in 2019!

This to me says that it's very difficult, no matter how much understanding you have about political trends, to predict an election outcome. I don't know what's going to happen at this year's election. I could hazard a guess, but I'm not going to because it would most likely turn out to be wrong. The one thing I can accurately predict is that I'll spend most of the general election campaign in a state of heightened anxiety - let's hope my lovely therapist can help with that. Generally, I'm content with the fact that I don't know.

But more importantly, I think that this year will be even harder to predict the outcome of than elections normally are. The reason for this is due to COVID, and the lockdown events we experienced in 2020. At the time of lockdown, I had only recently entered a new relationship; my relationship was largely on the rocks, and truthfully I think we'd have split up if we hadn't gone into lockdown together. But going into lockdown together largely made us grow closer again, and we certainly did a lot of really productive things, such as my partner finishing his first novel. We're still together, and stronger than ever!

I myself had a particularly positive experience with COVID. I recognise that I'm very fortunate in that, and that many other people had a far harder time than I did. However, I think it's important to note that all of us, whether we had a nice time in 2020 or whether we didn't, fundamentally changed as people during that time. And I think in most cases, there's an argument that we changed for the better.

Here are the three things that I think are most different about the average person since COVID to how they were before:

1. They are more creative

Creativity is humanity's greatest strength. It's the one thing that makes us unique as a species - I've never seen any evidence that other species have learned to make up stories, play music, paint pictures or any of the other forms of creativity that exists within human culture (although please send me any studies if there are any!)

It's commonly complained that the arts is the domain of the rich, and as someone who works in the arts myself I can confirm that there's a lot of truth in that - the rich and famous dominate, and ordinary people struggle to get a look in. But I like to look at it the opposite way as well. Doesn't it say something about the human condition that so many people, if they do happen to have a lot of wealth and not have to worry about getting by, find themselves naturally turning to art?

Lockdown was a time when so many people realised skills that they never knew before that they possessed. Whether it's baking, sewing, learning how to play a musical instrument, writing stories (which is what happened to my partner), it was a rare moment where we had a bit of time for ourselves, to find things that we enjoyed to get us through each day. And many of us have managed to keep that up.

I think this is a positive because it means that we can demand a better quality of life. Going back to menial jobs after lockdown was far more of a chore than it had been before, because we'd had more time to think about what we'd rather have been doing instead. I think that knowing that, and having realised our creativity in a way that we previously might not have done, is a very beneficial thing for humanity.

2. They are kinder

So many people had an utterly horrible time during lockdown, either because they were disabled, lonely, mentally ill or just otherwise unable to look after themselves. And naturally, our leaders did the bare minimum they could get away with.

I need to make clear, so as not to look like I"m excusing it, that the attitude of our politicians during this time period was absolutely scandalous. But sometimes it's in dark times that we really see the light, and I was so heartened to see how much care and compassion for one another lockdown brought out, whether it was doing the shopping for an elderly neighbour, or giving a phone call to check in with someone who was stuck living with an abusive partner, to even taking someone into your home (the latter happened to me - my partner's parents were kind enough to allow me to stay with them for the entire lockdown period, even though they didn't know me that well at that point. I'll never forget that.)

I really hope that this kindness has stuck since lockdown. The biggest barrier to kindness is personal stress and anxiety, so naturally with the increasing numbers of problems within society there have been some instances where that compassion has diminished... but I also see so many people standing up for those less fortunate in ways that a few years ago I just didn't. I personally am seeing this most strongly in the ongoing campaign for the rights of vulnerable adults in Monmouthshire and Abergavenny, which I'm involved with and which I have written about on previous blogs.

3. They are more angry

Last week, I went to see a poet perform. During the performance, the poet said that the enduring memory of the last few years that has really stuck with him is Queen Elizabeth II, sitting alone at her husband's funeral, knowing that her Government had been partying the night before. I'm not normally very interested in the Royal Family, particularly when there are so many people who are suffering a lot more than them - but the poet did make the interesting point that this is the ultimate reflection of the amount of contempt that politicians have for people. If they can treat our monarch with that little respect, what on earth does that say about their feelings for regular folk? I thought this was very well-expressed.

At the start of lockdown, I remember there was a real spirit of 'taking one for the team'. It's in some of the worst times that communities do pull together. I'm always inspired by stories of life during World War II for those who were not actively fighting, the people who continued to keep their communities alive when so many had had to leave their normal jobs and go to war - indeed, I'm the grandson of a Land Girl, and my grandmother's commitment to the Women's Land Army is one of the things that most inspires me to continue to try to make a difference in this troubling world.

But then Dominic Cummings drove to Barnard Castle, and the glue snapped. It was absolutely inconceivable to people, including myself, that the rich and powerful just weren't taking this seriously, especially when politicians started falling over themselves to defend him. People had had to miss their loved ones' funerals, keep their children out of education, put themselves to extraordinary levels of inconvenience in the interests of us all being together, and then it was demonstrated beyond all doubt that those with the most power had been laughing at them for doing that.

This created an almost universal sense of anger with politicians that I don't think has ever been forgotten about. And it's something that I don't think has disappeared. There was a time when politicians were given the benefit of the doubt, and that has just gone.

--

As I said at the start, I don't want to speculate about what impact these changes to our values in life will have on the upcoming election. Ideally, I would love them to manifest themselves in things like support for independent local candidates like Andrew Feinstein at the expense of career politicians like Keir Starmer. I don't believe that either the Labour or Conservative Parties deserve to win this election, and I think we're in quite an interesting position to really make quite a radical change to politics. Or maybe the opposite will happen - maybe the collective anger will result in fewer people even bothering to turn out to vote, on the idea that 'What's even the point? They're all the same anyway.' I wouldn't like that to happen, but it could happen. There's also the fact that it's also an election year in the USA - I haven't written about that at all because I don't have enough of a detailed understanding of the American political system or COVID's effect on US culture generally (although of course, they already have had one election since lockdown and we haven't. Still interesting though.)

One thing is for sure though. This is the first UK General Election post-lockdown, and that will have an effect. We may not be able to say what that effect will be, but I do believe there will be one that in the future we'll be able to look back on and attribute it to our experiences in lockdown. I also think this simple fact has been completely forgotten about by virtually all media sources, whatever their political persuasion. And it's for that reason that I'd caution everyone to be extremely sceptical of any election predictions, no matter who it's by. Election results are hard enough to call at the best of times, but when there's been a huge event since the last one that has fundamentally changed us as human beings, it's pretty near impossible. Anything could happen - and that's something I find frightening, but also inspiring and exciting.

My Facebook My Twitter

(By the way, I have a Substack now, but I haven't quite worked out how to use it! Watch this space.)

A response from David TC Davies regarding Gaza, and my response back

 This email from my MP, David TC Davies, was in response to my email to him on 6th February.

Dear Mr Millman,

Thank you for contacting me about the UK’s decision to pause future funding to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA.)

The Government wants to see an end to the fighting in Gaza as soon as possible and is calling for an immediate pause to get aid in and hostages out, then progress towards a sustainable, permanent ceasefire, without a return to destruction, fighting and loss of life.

I agree with the UK Government that South Africa’s case at the ICJ is not helping to achieve the goal of a sustainable ceasefire. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas in line with international humanitarian law (IHL) as the UK Government has made clear from the outset. I share the Government’s view that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide, and believed South Africa’s decision to bring the case was wrong and provocative.

Of course, I respect the role and independence of the ICJ. I welcome the court’s call for the immediate release of hostages and the need to get more aid into Gaza.

On UNRWA, I am appalled by allegations that any agency staff were involved in the 7 October attack against Israel, a heinous act of terrorism. I support the UK's decision to pause any future funding of UNRWA whilst these concerning allegations are reviewed. The United States, Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands have all temporarily paused funding too.

I want to make clear that the UK remains committed to getting humanitarian aid to the people in Gaza who desperately need it. The Government is getting on with aid delivery, funding multiple implementing partners including other UN agencies and international and UK NGOs. This support is helping people in Gaza get food, water, shelter and medicines.

The commitment to trebling aid to Gaza still stands and the UK is providing £60 million in humanitarian assistance to support partners including the British Red Cross, UNICEF, the UN World Food Programme and Egyptian Red Crescent Society to respond to critical food, fuel, water, health, shelter and security needs in Gaza.

Indeed, the UK will continue to support the United Nations World Food Programme to deliver a new humanitarian land corridor from Jordan into Gaza. 750 tonnes of life-saving food aid arrived in the first delivery and 315 tonnes in the second delivery.

Finally, the Government regularly reviews Israel’s capability and commitment to IHL and acts in accordance with that advice, for example when considering export licences.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Regards,

David TC Davies

-----

My response back:

Dear David,

Thank you for your reply. I am extremely saddened by your view, although given the track record of the party you represent it is not exactly a surprise to me.

I'm going to start with your point about UNRWA. There is as far as I can make out, no evidence whatsoever to support Israel's claim about agency staff being involved with the October 7th attacks. Especially given that this allegation was made the day after the ICJ's ruling, I think the suggestion that this was merely a piece of propaganda to distract the world is very plausible. But even if I'm wrong on this, and Israel's word turns out to be true, these allegations are against twelve members of staff. Twelve. Out of 30,000 staff members in total. To put those figures into perspective, the NHS employs around 1.7 million people. When last year Lucy Letby was charged with the murders of seven babies on the maternity ward in which she worked, would your proposed solution have been to withhold funding from the entirety of the NHS?

This is not a hyperbolic comparison. I learned today that three months ago, there were 36 hospitals in Gaza. Today there are none. Every single hospital in the region has been bombed by Israel. In January 2024, CNN reported that about one in 100 civilians in Gaza have been killed since October 7th. This was in January, so now we're almost at the end of February, it is almost certainly substantially more than that. These are war crimes, and cutting off aid from the organisation charged with providing it is fundamentally immoral.

Now let's move onto whether it's a genocide. The ICJ's ruling is that this is 'plausible'. Personally I'd have liked a more concrete conclusion, but I appreciate that within the legal world it's important that every officially recorded statement is explicit and provable. But I do have something to say regarding that. The Nakba occurred in 1948, and the living situation for Palestinians in the region has been becoming increasingly restrictive since 1967. Hamas was formed in 1987, and has only been held office since 2007. Israel, and much of the Western media, would claim that this is about stamping out Hamas - but this is not the truth. If it were the truth, it would make no sense, as this situation has existed for far longer than Hamas has.

Hamas exists as a result of the living standards that the Israeli state is enforcing on the people of Palestine. I read a statistic that around 85% of Hamas' soldiers are orphans, having lost their parents to this war. It's natural that people are drawn to more extremist views the more miserable their own lives are, which is the reason for the rise of Hamas - but I don't really want to talk about Hamas. I don't think Hamas is especially important. It's all a smokescreen. If Israel was interested purely in stamping out Hamas, it wouldn't be targeting civilians in the way that it is. A good analogy I came across was that if a gunman was in a school and all the children and teachers were being held hostage, at what point would it become acceptable to bomb the school in order to neutralise the gunman? I don't think any reasonable human being would think that an acceptable thing to do, and surely you don't either. But this is the logic that Israel uses, and the reason for this is that the Israeli state believes itself to have the right to determine who is allowed to live and who is not. So sure, call it a more cuddly word than 'genocide' if you like. But things are not going to get any better by calling it something else.

As I said at the beginning, your response is not really a surprise given the party you represent. I have found the Conservative Party to have been a substantial threat to the values I hold and the hopes and dreams I have for life since they came to Government when I was 16. However, I also think it's really important to hold each individual politician accountable for their own views and their own actions, and I really hoped that irrespective of your political persuasion you would prove yourself to be one of the exceptions (thankfully, we seem to be seeing increasing numbers of exceptions at the moment - it's a shame you don't seem to be one of them). I've only just moved here, and given that it's an election year I'm putting a lot of thought into who I should vote for. But I cannot in good conscience lend you any support with the positions you've expressed to me in your email. I feel that it defends the indefensible, and frankly I find your complacency frightening.

Yours,

George Harold Millman

My Facebook My Twitter

Why standing against a toxic Labour MP will not let the Tories in

 Last weekend, it was announced that Andrew Feinstein will stand against Keir Starmer in his constituency of Holborn and St Pancras. Feinstein is a Jewish anti-apartheid activist, the son of a Holocaust survivor, who is currently based in London but is originally from South Africa and served in Nelson Mandela's Government in the 1990s. Although he is an independent candidate, his candidacy is being supported and funded by the socialist campaign group OCISA (Organise Corbyn Inspired Socialist Alliance), which I've been involved with over the last year. The group has inspired many other independents to stand against certain high-profile MPs.

I'm personally really excited to see Andrew Feinstein standing. Firstly, I think it's really appropriate that it's a Jewish candidate, given Keir Starmer's frequent misuse of the Jewish community to present himself (falsely) as an anti-racist, and I also think it's really appropriate that it's someone from South Africa, given South Africa's amazing role in leading the way in standing up to the genocidal behaviour of the Israeli state. I'm not normally in favour of identity politics, I find that it usually results in people with extremely harmful views coming across as being more forward-thinking and progressive than they actually are, but all principles have exceptions and this is one of them. But more importantly, I've been really excited to learn about Andrew Feinstein's history, his work with Nelson Mandela, his efforts to keep an awareness of the history of colonialism into politics, his calls to regulate the world's arms trade, and more besides. I'm really quite interested to see how this is going to go.

But, one thing I've come across on Twitter is quite a lot of people saying 'this will just split the left-wing vote and get the Tories in'. This is something we hear quite a lot in relation to any candidate besides Labour or Conservative, and like many oft-repeated political statements, it has an edge of truth to it but completely ignores any contextual circumstances, to the point of becoming completely inaccurate. And it's made me realise that we're so lacking in political education in the UK that many people do not fully appreciate how the system works. So here are some important things you need to remember:

1) Andrew Feinstein standing against Keir Starmer will not make any difference to which party is in Government in the next Parliament. The only way it will make a difference on the national scale is if Feinstein defeats Starmer, and Labour gets a majority nationwide. If this happens, Angela Rayner, the deputy leader of the party, will become Prime Minister by default (assuming that she keeps her seat in Ashton-under-Lyne). How long she stays in that position will depend on whether she's able to command a majority in the House of Commons. But either way, it won't make a difference to which actual party is in charge. That is a matter determined by the number of seats won nationwide, which is irrelevant to the outcome in one particular person's seat, even if that person is the leader.

2) Barring unprecedented acts of God, the MP for Holborn and St Pancras after the next general election will be either Keir Starmer or Andrew Feinstein. There is no other alternative. The Conservative Party has never held that seat since it was established in 1983, and in the most recent general election only had 15.6% of the vote, compared to Labour's 64.5% (more on that in point 4). The assumption that voting for a candidate other than Labour or Conservative is a waste completely disregards the context of any one particular seat, which is something that has to be considered in one's voting choice because that's the only bit of politics we're actually allowed to vote for.

3) This should be obvious from what I said in point1, but I'll reiterate it: Andrew Feinstein is not trying to become UK Prime Minister. This will not happen even if he wins the seat. What he is trying to do is unseat Keir Starmer, and the reason he is trying to unseat Keir Starmer is that under his leadership the Labour Party has become increasingly confused, at war with itself and with its own members, anti-socialist, and, with recent events in Gaza, apologists for genocide.

4) One criticism I've heard is that with such a high majority (64.5%), Keir Starmer is seen as unlikely to lose his seat. Personally I have no idea of the likelihood at all - I don't live in the constituency of Holborn and St Pancras, and I'm not aware of even having visited there. That's a matter for the residents, which I am not. However, what I can say is that the concept of a Labour safe seat means safe from the Tories. It doesn't necessarily mean it's safe from a concerted campaign from the left. And besides, even if Starmer manages to hold onto it, Andrew Feinstein's candidacy by itself can change the conversation a bit. It will be far harder for Starmer to claim to be staunchly opposed to anti-Semitism, for example, when a highly experienced Jewish candidate in his own constituency is expressing the opposite position.

5) Another criticism I've heard is that even if this campaign does succeed, it won't solve the problems in the Labour Party - they'll just pick another toxic leader and carry on. This one I'll acknowledge is true. I don't think anyone on the campaign to get Andrew in will pause to celebrate too hard, even if it does work. This is merely the first challenge in what is going to be a long and drawn-out mission to return a bit of democracy to British politics and create more of a natural home for socialists in this country. I think it's important to remember this even if the campaign against Starmer is unsuccessful - if it doesn't work out, we'll think it a shame, but we won't waste time mourning. We'll regroup and work out what to do next.

My Facebook My Twitter

An open letter to David TC Davies, regarding Parliamentary debate on humanitarian aid in Gaza

I wrote this email to Conservative David TC Davies, who has recently become my local MP. Given the party he represents and his previous record I am somewhat sceptical about his likelihood of impressing me on this - but maybe he'll surprise me, stranger things have happened!

 Dear David TC Davies MP,

My name is George Harold Millman. I'm an actor, scriptwriter and political activist.

Firstly, I'd like to say hello to you. I've only recently moved into your constituency and I'm delighted to make your acquaintance - we haven't met, but I believe you know my partner Owen, who is a prominent disability rights campaigner in the Abergavenny area. I have no doubt I'll be writing to you often about various political matters that I'm concerned about (just to keep things transparent, I also generally publish letters to my MP and their responses on my blog, The Rebel Without A Clause).

This first letter I'm writing to you is in relation to the debate that the Labour MP Apsana Begum has secured for this coming Thursday, 8th February, concerning humanitarian aid and children in Gaza. I wanted to ask if you're planning to attend? I sincerely hope that you are.

This year marks ten years that I've been actively involved in the campaign for the freedom of Palestinians. It's a matter that is very close to my heart, and I've been dismayed to see how the situation seems to have become actively worse since 2014, which is when I first realised the extent of it. I am additionally horrified by how much Western powers have turned a blind eye to the scale of the situation for Palestinians since October, and how this has manifested itself in ways such as withholding funding for UNWRA, the UN agency charged with making life a bit more bearable for civilians in the region.

I'll be truthful in that I haven't been at all impressed with your party's actions in relation to this subject - however, I know from experience that my opinions of a party as a whole are not necessarily the same as my opinions of individual MPs (I have been just as disappointed by Labour on this as I have with the Conservatives, and yet this naturally doesn't extend to Apsana Begum, who seems to be really going above and beyond to help). I really hope that I'll be able to see the same from you.

Best wishes,

George Harold Millman

My Facebook My Twitter

An open letter to Angela Rayner MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, regarding the Palestine genocide (yes, genocide)

 Dear Angela Rayner MP,

My name is George Harold Millman. I'm an actor, scriptwriter and political activist.

I am writing to you concerning the current situation in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere in Palestine, and particularly in relation to two matters. Firstly, I was very disturbed by a recent video, filmed on 25 January, in which you were confronted by a number of protesters during a speech in your constituency. The protesters were ejected by security whilst you looked on and said 'thank you' repeatedly.

I'm always upset to see people treated in this way when trying to express dissatisfaction with their elected representatives, even if that dissatisfaction is being expressed in a confrontational way - I think that the public would generally be more satisfied with their politicians if they felt that said politicians were listening to them and respectful of them. However, there was one particular protester for whom I was particularly shocked and disturbed by your reaction. His name is Dalloul al-Neder, and recently his family in Palestine were killed in the ongoing Israeli campaign against the Palestinian people.

Dalloul was trying to show pictures of his family members who had been killed. You had the opportunity to demonstrate the Labour Party as a party of the people, and yourself as a politician of great empathy and compassion. But you did not do this. You stood there, emotionless and silent, and watched him being removed from the venue. I want to ask, in as polite a way as I can, how you were capable of showing this little feeling when faced with a fellow human being in pain? You are a mother and a grandmother; I'd like you to think about how you would feel if you had been killed, and one of your grieving relatives was treated like this when trying to talk about you. Even if as a senior Labour politician you weren't able to help him in that precise moment, you could have asked him to stay and talk to you afterwards so that you could listen to him talk and represent his feelings back to the heart of the Labour Party - or at the very least, asked security not to be so rough with him. Why did you not do that?

In your reaction to Dalloul, you demonstrated to me that you are not who I thought you were. When Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party, you were always my favourite member of the Shadow Cabinet. I thought you were a phenomenal Shadow Education Secretary at that time, and I even remember confessing to friends around that point that I respected you more even more than I respected Jeremy. When Keir Starmer took over as leader in 2020, I quickly came to realise that I couldn't support a lot of his actions as leader - but I took some solace in the fact that we still had you as Deputy Leader. As a working-class woman who left school with no qualifications, was a teenage mum and had a lot of experience working with the trade unions, I had no doubt that you'd be a wonderfully warm and tough Deputy Leader, keeping the party in shape and reminding those in the top positions that ultimately you're a party of the many, not the few. I have truly never been as ashamed of having faith in any politician - I think the only other time since I've been politically active was with Nick Clegg over university tuition fees in 2010, but I actually think the callousness of your reaction to Dalloul al-Neder is greater than anything I saw from Clegg. In Clegg, I just see a very poor strategist who perhaps didn't fully understand the harm that he was doing. In your case, I know that you do understand. Following this confrontation, it was revealed on social that you have actually met Dalloul in the past; in 2019, you visited his shop, posed for a picture with him and told him that you believed in the unequivocal freedom of Palestinians. Did you ever truly believe that, or did you just say in in 2019 because that was Labour's position at the time?

Talking of Labour's position at the time, I want to ask more generally what Labour's position over this genocide is (and I use the word genocide consciously, as I believe that what we're seeing is a genocide). On a recent talk show, you were asked if the Labour Party believes that what we're seeing is a genocide. You responded that you don't know, but that the ICJ made a good case for that fact. I would have preferred you to say publicly that it is a genocide; however, I do respect your diplomatic answer in this case, especially as we have an international court case to work alongside. I am at least glad that you acknowledged that it could be. However, your Labour colleague Kate Osamor, the MP for Edmonton, was recently suspended from the party after she included Gaza in a list of genocides in a letter for Holocaust Memorial Day (alongside Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia). If, as you inferred on that talk show, what we're seeing is perhaps a genocide and that we need to remain open to the possibility it might be, does this not mean that Labour MPs should be free to say that they believe it is if they so wish? Are Labour MPs free to say this? If not, why not, if this position is in line with the ICJ's findings?

Labour's position on what is happening in the Gaza Strip is something that I have found it very distressing to watch, as have many others that I've spoken to. Especially given that this is an election year, I think this is something that Labour should think about very carefully. Having said that, I think Labour should take policy positions more because they're morally right than because they're vote winners - but in any case, I don't believe that Labour's current position is a vote winner. The only way I could ever consider voting Labour at the next election would be if my own local candidate was prepared to publicly condemn Israel for what they're currently doing - I do not know at the time of writing if that is the case.

Best wishes,

George Harold Millman

I wrote this to Angela Rayner MP, the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and current Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, at the time of publication. I will update this blog with any reply I receive.