Kindest Interrogations

The problem with the internet is that it is infinite. I sometimes wonder if the internet would only allow for, say, 100MB worth of information, would it actually be more useful? A case of quality over quantity. Basically, we should go back to the days of Encarta. You knew where you stood with Encarta. Except I’m not saying that at all, I just suck at writing introductions. So yeah, this is about the internet but it’s also about opinions. And feminism.

So before we go any further you’re gonna need to read this article by a guy called Nate Jones. Nate Jones is a man. So am I. And we’re both going to talk about feminism. You’re right to feel some trepidation. Let’s see how we do.

If you can’t be bothered to read Nate’s article then allow me to summarise with unnecessary and possibly unhelpful cynicism and misleading brevity.

Did you see they digitally re-created Rachel in the new Blade Runner film? Cor wasn’t that a bit weird. Reminded me of the digital Carrie Fisher in Rogue One. Hey, how come men are allowed to get old in films but these women have to look exactly how they looked at a particular time just because it’s vital to the narrative that they look that way? I’m going to refer to this as a “disconcerting movement in modern Hollywood” and then two paragraphs later I will say “two examples do not entirely make a trend” at which point you’d have thought I’d have realised that my argument is, at best, based on very little evidence and, at worst, not even an argument. But I didn’t. I wrote a whole article about it. I then end the article with a wild speculation about film makers replacing roles for women over 50 with “digital dream babes” WITHOUT even making reference to the fact that there already aren’t enough roles for women over 50. Not a single mention. You’d have thought I’d have brought that up. But I didn’t.

Okay that wasn’t as brief as I thought it’d be. I enjoyed writing it though.

Before I continue I feel like I need to mention that I recognise there is a HUGE problem with female representation in film, whatever their age, and especially for women who are middle-aged or older. Of course there is. And the fact that this is a problem is what infuriates me most of all about Nate Jones’ article, I feel like he’s belittled and trivialised something important.

Why couldn’t he have written about the lack of roles for women over 50? Or about the unrealistic - and unequal - beauty standards put upon women in the public eye? Nate is absolutely right in his observation that male actors are allowed to age whilst female actors are not. Our male stars become grizzled, or they’re distinguished, or hardened, while female actors just get old.

But where Nate lets himself down is that instead of making a serious and valid point about gender equality, he goes on about two computer generated characters in science fiction films where the story dictates that the characters look exactly the same as they did the last time we saw them on screen, in films that were made decades ago. Perhaps Nate is just ignorant of the film making process. I mean, I am too, obviously, but at least I’ve actually thought about it. We live in the age of CGI, of course a film studio is going to re-create a character digitally rather than go through a lengthy and costly make up procedure. And of course a film studio is going to employ what Nate calls “younger stand-ins” instead of actually paying Carrie Fisher the salary she commands to sit through hours of make-up and probably a couple of days of shooting for what amounts to about ten seconds of screen time.

This is a piss-poor excuse for an article and I place the blame for it squarely at this need to fill the web with a constant stream of ‘content’, regardless of whether it’s of any value. It doesn’t have to be right, it doesn’t have to be good, it just has to exist. And this from a professional writer! This isn’t some looser ranting to an audience of no-one (hello!) this is a proper journalist who - I presume - got paid to write these words for a proper website. He’s got a blue tick on Twitter. I don’t have a blue tick, I’m not worth verifying. 

Here’s a fun word game for you. What’s the female equivalent of a ‘silver fox’? Or the feminine version of ‘distinguished’? Mature, perhaps? Sophisticated? Refined? I guarantee you’ll struggle to find an appropriate word that can’t also be used to describe cheese. Female beauty has been so heavily linked with youth that we don’t have the language to talk about older women in the same way we do men. We have slightly derogatory terms like milf or cougar, but nothing that shows reverence yet acknowledges their sexuality. Older women are expected to shackle their femininity and retreat into a world of comfortable shoes and dresses well past the knee for fear of being told to ‘act their age’. Being attractive is a young woman’s game.

EU Referendum

The EU referendum wasn’t just about whether we should continue being members of the European Union.  Whilst some of the Leave campaign had racism at its heart, for many Leave voters it was a protest against a political establishment who have repeatedly let them down.  Neither campaigns really bothered going into details of what a post-referendum Britain would look like (which ever way the vote went), we just had Cameron promising World War Three and Boris telling lies so huge they could only be written on the side of bus.  People felt threatened and cajoled and so lacking in any kind of democratic power that a Leave vote was an easy short cut to change. 

I don’t think anyone involved in the campaigns really imagined Britain would actually vote to leave the EU, which is maybe why no one bothered to come up with an actual plan.  As the polls closed a rather worse for wear Farage had clearly thought he’d lost and the famous petition calling for a second referendum - which has reached over four million signatures - was actually created, it turned out, by a Leave campaigner a month before the referendum who didn’t fancy his chances.  Since the petition got “hijacked” by Remainers he’s sheepishly tried to distance himself from it, now unconcerned with such slim margins of victory.

The result also caused Cameron to resign as PM, which personally I don’t feel like he needed to do, but my guess is it was less about honour and responsibility and more about not wanting to clear up the mess.  So a referendum which was, in part anyway, about democracy, power and accountability resulted in Britain having a Prime Minister who nobody voted for.  I mean no one at all, apart from a handful of Tory MPs, and I don’t count them as people. 

This article by George Monbiot in the Guardian tells us something very interesting about the money behind the Remain and Leave campaigns.

“In the European referendum, remain won 46% of the money given and lent to the two sides (£20.4m) and 48% of the vote; leave won 54% of the money and 52% of the vote. This fearful symmetry should worry anyone who values democracy.”

So, if big money was backing Leave, was it really a victory for the common man?  Or have we just swapped one elite for another?  Monbiot goes on to explain that during the five years before the last general election, 41% of private donations made to political parties came from just 76 people! And if you think that financial backers don’t have any say in policy then think again.

Before the last general election, 27 of the 59 richest hedge fund managers in Britain sponsored the Conservatives. Perhaps these donations had nothing to do with the special exemption from stamp duty on stock market transactions the chancellor granted to hedge funds, depriving the public sector of about £145m a year. But that doesn’t seem likely.

It seems democracy can be bought and those who championed a Leave vote for reasons of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘taking back control’ and the like should be the most angry, but you won’t see any headlines on the front pages of the Sun or the Daily Mail decrying this corruption. 

Trident vote

Speaking of money, this enlightening article from the Canary has some rather shocking facts about the funding behind Trident, the renewing of which MPs voted in favour of yesterday, 472 - 117.  All but one Tory MP voted in favour of Trident, as did 140 Labour MPs.  47 Labour MPs voted against and another 41 abstained, among them Clive Lewis who - despite being a prominent anti-Trident campaigner - did so in protest at what he considered a “political game” designed to sow further divisions within the Labour party.  All members of the SNP voted against, as did all Liberal Democrat and Green MPs. 

As with the money behind the EU referendum and politics in general, it’s not just the submarines that are in murky water; according to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.  The Canary article goes on to explain the full cost of this to the UK taxpayer:

RBS are also financiers of the VEB bank who fund Russia’s nuclear submarines – and they also invest or part-own seven companies directly contracted to Trident. What is most deplorable about this is the fact that RBS is, of course, state-owned –  we bought a 79% majority stake after the 2008 financial crash.

In layman’s terms? We, the public, pay for Trident directly via taxation. We also paid for RBS, directly through taxation. In turn, RBS directly fund (with UK taxpayer money) our “enemy’s” nuclear weapon systems.

Essentially, the UK taxpayer is paying for both sides in this perceived nuclear stand-off.

Yesterday’s vote also taught us that our new Prime Minister would be more than happy to push the nuclear button.  When asked by SNP MP George Kerevan if she was “personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children” May, without hesitation, approaches the mic and intones coldly that yes, she would.  Some MPs can be heard to gasp, some shout their disagreement.  But not enough.

This, we are told, makes for strong leadership.  The willingness to act without hesitation, the courage to push the button that consigns hundreds, thousands or even millions to their deaths.  What a strong leader, what a safe pair of hands.  How brave they must be, to make that call and then go home to a warm house and a good night’s sleep.  What strength it must take to say yes, we will go to war, yes, we will drop the bomb, yes, we want more death and destruction, all the while knowing you will never have to look your enemy in the eye as the life drains out of them, you will never have to apologise to the mother who lost her children, and you’ll never have to comfort those soldiers who wake screaming in the night.

One year on from the 2015 general election and I can still remember the abject despair and frustration I felt at learning we had elected a majority Conservative government.  Despite receiving more votes in 2015 than they did five years prior (quite amazing when you consider all the votes they lost in Scotland), the media narrative was that it was Labour’s worst defeat in a generation.  Ed Milliband resigned and no one knew what would happen next.  Then, in September, many Labour supporters and the left wing as a whole received a well need injection of hope when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the party. 

Let’s just take a moment to remind ourselves of those figures.  Corbyn was elected with the biggest mandate EVER of any Labour leader.  He received 59.5% of first preference votes and would have won even without the support of the dreaded “£3 registered supporter” votes.  He earned votes from just under 50% of full party members and well over 50% of affiliated members.  Since his election, Labour has seen their party membership sky-rocket!

The way the media and even some Labour MPs talk about Corbyn it’s as if he’s an imposter, as if he cheated his way into the job and we need to keep reminding ourselves that is simply not true. 

Many media outlets were calling this weekend’s local elections and mayoral elections a test for Corbyn.  Well, if they were then he passed with flying colours.  While sceptics were predicting losses into the hundreds, in England Labour lost only 18 seats (at the time of writing, with results from 123 councils) whilst the Tories lost 47, with the Lib Dems and UKIP making gains.

(source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/local-election-results-2016-your-7907123)

This could hardly be called a catastrophe for Labour.  What’s more, Labour candidates won all four mayoral contests, with particularly impressive results for Sadiq Kahn in London and Marvin Rees in Bristol.  Here in Bristol, Tory candidate Charles Lucas circulated leaflets warning voters of “Corbyn’s man in city hall” (never once using Rees’ name!) who would experiment with Corbyn’s “dangerous, radical” policies.  It seems Bristolians - myself among them - either didn’t care or quote fancy a spot of radicalism.

And let’s be clear, Kahn and Rees’ victories are their own.  It was their name on the ballot paper and they won because they were the best candidates for the job.  To say this is Corbyn’s victory is just as untrue and unfair as it would be to blame him for their loss but it’s worth bearing in mind that voters were sold anti-Corbyn messages by the Tory campaign - the candidates links to Corbyn exaggerated - and voters still elected them in huge numbers.  It would appear Corbyn’s association isn’t as toxic as the Tories would like to think it is.  Whether this can transfer into Labour votes in 2020 remains to be seen but having Labour figures in such high profile positions doesn’t do any harm.

So all in all, it looks rather positive doesn’t it.  Doesn’t it?  Well here’s the front page of the BBC news website this morning (Sunday 8th May)

A quote from Kahn’s article in the Guardian is placed centre stage, a barely-concealed dig at Corbyn, while the bar chart above seems to suggest Labour’s reach is fairly broad already. 

The BBC’s ‘key points’ also manage to paint a negative view of Labour’s success and contain no criticism of the Tories whatsoever, a tactic they have stuck to throughout the mayoral contest, reporting heavily on the accusations of anti-Semitism within Labour and virtually no air time to Zac Goldsmith’s poisonous, racist campaign of fear and division.

THIS is our government, THIS is the true heart of the Tory party.  A Prime Minister who cuts funding for health services, cuts funding for education, cuts benefits for the most vulnerable in our society - telling us all to live within our means - whilst profiting from shadowy tax avoidance schemes and campaigning against caps on bankers’ bonuses.  They just take take take and give nothing back.  You can’t have that extra bedroom in your council house, move out or get fined.  There’s a shortage of one-bedroom properties?  You need that room for your disabled son?  Tough, not our problem.  The ideological austerity imposed on this country over the last six years has seen services stripped like never before all because “there’s not enough money”, well no wonder.  The hypocrisy is so thick you could choke on it.  It’s not even one rule for them and another for us, rules don’t seem to apply to them, they can do what they like.  Just cast your mind back a few months to Google’s ridiculously small tax settlement that George Osborne branded a “major success”.  Companies and rich individuals who could be making huge contributions to the public purse are being allowed - actively encouraged even - to get away with paying a tiny proportion of what they owe.  This is money that could be spent keeping my local library open, paying for more teachers to prevent over-crowded classrooms and invested in mental health services.  It’s not tax avoidance, it’s theft. 

The problem is - as so wonderfully demonstrated by Sir Alan Duncan MP - that for most Tories, wealth and success are indistinguishable from one another and a person’s value is measured solely in numbers. 

“Shouldn’t the Prime Minister’s critics really just snap out of their synthetic indignation and admit that their real point is that they hate anyone who’s even got a hint of wealth in their life?  May I support the Prime Minister in fending off those who are attacking him, particularly in thinking of this place?  Because if he doesn’t, we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers.”

It should be pointed out that the right honourable Mr Duncan was born into wealth, was educated privately just like the vast majority of the country aren’t and after Oxford and a stint at Harvard went to work in the homely and parochial field of selling oil before becoming an MP and getting embroiled in a big expenses scandal.  I know, it sounds like a Willy Russell play.

Duncan’s comments betray the secret belief that the Tory party tries to keep hidden - that the poor deserve to be poor because of some flaw in their character or lapse in judgement and the virtuous rich deserve their millions because they are simply better than the rest of us.  It’s the ideology that underpins so many of their policies.  They sell it to Joe Public under the banner of ‘nothing comes for free’ and ‘you get what you work for’, tapping into an over-worked and under-paid nation’s jealousy and insecurity, but really they are just pulling the safety net out from under us knowing they will never ever have to rely on it themselves and those who do must have something wrong with them anyway so fuck ‘em.

Housewives’ favourite Jeremy Corbyn has announced some new Labour policies and the business world are not happy.  In particular, Corbyn’s suggestion that companies who don’t pay a living wage could be banned from paying dividends to shareholders has been lambasted by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and denounced as “unworkable”.

In this article from Reuters, the CBI are quoted as saying:

“The idea of politicians stepping into the relationship between a private company and its shareholders would be a significant intervention, and not one that we would support”. 

Whilst the CBI apparently abhors the idea of government legislating on what a company can and cannot do - er, isn’t that their job? - the CBI’s sole purpose is, according to their website, to “keep business interests at the heart of policy in Westminster“ through their lobbying and campaigning.

So, just to be clear, the CBI aren’t keen on politicians telling them what to do but are more than happy to tell politicians what they should do; back in March of last year they outlined the priorities for the next government in their first 100 days following a predicted uncertain election outcome.  The CBI have been advocating the cutting of welfare whilst lobbying the government to spend money on improving roads and other infrastructure to the benefit of business, even suggesting that tolls be introduced to fund the upkeep.  Oh yeah, and the majority of top CBI companies don’t pay a living wage.

Last week, the BBC - as part of their season on tax - broadcast a programme about a group of small business owners in Crickhowell, Wales, who began a movement called Fair Tax Town.  The idea was not to avoid paying tax - all participants agreed that was morally reprehensible - but to expose the avoidance tricks and loopholes exploited by big business and force HMRC to do more in collecting their fair share.

As part of the documentary, the plucky Welsh villagers met with a head honcho at HMRC to discuss their unfair tax collection.  What amazed me was how openly he talked about the private meetings that personal account managers have with representatives from big business.  The fact that negotiations like this exist is surely proof that HMRC and the government have no intention of forcing companies to pay their fair share.  Only a few days ago, George Osborne announced that getting Google to pay 3% tax was a “success”.  Meanwhile, the Tories impose harsher austerity on the rest of us, cutting benefits and taxing the vulnerable to suicide.

The biggest scam of all is how the Tories and their media mates love to paint Corbyn as “hating Britain”, all the while passing and supporting legislation that makes life harder for the majority of people who live here.  If Corbyn had his way, big business would pay all their tax bill - putting billions into the public purse - and pay workers a proper living wage, reducing the welfare bill and improving the quality of life for huge swathes for the population.  Corbyn’s commitment to building more council houses will ensure homes for those least able to afford them and re-nationalising the rail networks is likely to see services improve and costs fall.  Meanwhile, his foreign policy focuses on compassion and human rights, in the hope of avoiding another failed conflict and loss of life on all sides.  What an unpatriotic bastard.

Tuesday 18th November 2014: I cancel my membership to the Labour Party.  Rachel Reeves has said some stupid stuff about Labour not being the party for people on benefits and you can buy a mug from the Labour shop with some shit about being racist.  The party are not opposing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - save for excluding the NHS - and their promise of a Living Wage by 2020 is nothing of the sort.  I am disappointed and even though they still have my vote, they’re far from the party I wish they were.

As 2015 hurtles towards May and I read more about Milliband and see him on the TV debates, I actually find myself liking him - and Labour - more and more.  Maybe I’ve fallen for the underdog or perhaps it’s the little glimmers of progressive politics that I see in the small print of the party’s manifesto, like tuition fee reduction, the promise to bring down the voting age to 16, closing tax loopholes, and Milliband’s favourite soundbite, ending zero-hours contracts.  Either way, there’s the slightest hint of “Up the workers”, and I like it, and on May 7th I’m happy to give them my vote.  Had I been conned by a centre right party who dropped just enough morsels of progressive policies to ensnare a floating leftie like myself not brave enough to vote Green?  Maybe.

The disappointment and despair I felt on May 8th still burns.  My friends, my social media bubble and the polls all told me there was no chance of a Tory majority.  I went to sleep dreaming of an alliance between Labour and the SNP - where Nicola would persuade Ed to scrap Trident and reverse Tory austerity - but I woke up feeling queasy and by lunch time, I felt sick.

However since Corbyn’s leadership victory, that sense of desperation has been all but replaced with hope and optimism.  Rachel Reeves has quit the shadow cabinet, Corbyn’s first act as leader was to attend a solidarity march for refugees and, presuming a slight shift in direction, I’ve renewed my membership.  Things seem, most definitely, on the up.

Everyone seems to be getting into a bit of a tizzy over Jeremy Corbyn’s predicted victory in the Labour leadership elections.  Despite the party’s claim on their own website that “Every new member makes our party stronger”, the BBC has said that up to 1,000 applications have so far been rejected.  I’d be interested to know how Labour are vetting these applications.  A friend of mine who has been a Labour supporter all his life until very recently joining the Green Party (he lives in a constituency in Bristol that was predicted a Green victory in May) is desperate to register to vote for Corbyn but fears he will be rejected.  Likewise, one can understand members of other left wing parties wanting Jeremy Corbyn to become leader of what is still the largest opposition party (at least in number, if not in action).

All this commotion just shows what vindictive children our politicians really are.  They set the rules to the game and when it doesn’t go their way they have a big silly tantrum and refuse to play.  I’m sure that if Andy Burnham was receiving this kind of grass roots support the Labour party would be celebrating how wonderful it is that “Our Andy”, man of the people, is connecting with the electorate.

The main criticism being thrown at Corbyn - at least by the other candidates (and my own local MP) - is that he is unelectable.

The man who (if the polls are to be believed) is on course to win the leadership on the first round alone is, apparently, unelectable.  The man who has inspired such a surge in political engagement amongst the young is, they say, unelectable.  The man who has held his seat since 1983 is, clearly, unelectable.

The Labour party and the right wing media think if they tell us he’s unelectable enough times we’ll believe it.  Why?  Let me explain...

The anarchist writer and activist Emma Goldman famously said “If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal”.  I completely agree, but this is often taken out of context and understood to mean that it’s the physical act of voting that changes nothing.  With that I don’t agree.  Voting gives ordinary people a voice but the whole system built around it means we are often unable to say anything.

Noam Chomsky has observed that “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum”. 

I try to understand economics, I really do, but it’s so damn boring that my brain just refuses to make sense of it.  Which is, I think, the way “They” want it.  The whole banking / investment / hedge fund world is so shrouded in confusion that the aforementioned They can do whatever They want and We won’t call them on it because We haven’t the slightest clue what it is They have done.

I’m reading about the RBS sell off that’s lost Us £1bn (thanks to a sale price drastically lower than what the government paid for it) and trying to find the logic in Osborne’s statement that "Now is the time for RBS to rebuild itself as a commercial bank, no longer reliant on the state, but serving the working people of Britain”.  So far, I cannot.  It’s most likely meaningless, soundbite-y bollocks - and I think Osborne knows it - but nonetheless search for meaning I will.  Top of the agenda is how on earth will a privately run RBS (let’s just take a moment to remind ourselves that reckless, unregulated banking caused the global financial crisis) serve the British people better than one controlled by (and therefore for) the state?  This is not a rhetorical question either, I’d genuinely like to know the answer. 

This article from the Guardian outlines the key moments in RBS’ dealings between October 2007 and now and reads like the worst CV in history.  If this was a company in any other industry they would have gone out of business years ago.  Instead, Blair and Brown decided to pump a total of £45bn into the bank.  In December 2009, the last of three tranches, £25bn worth of shares were bought at 500p a share.  Yesterday, Osborne sold shares at 330p.

In June 2012, RBS swapped 10 shares for 1 new share, increasing the share price from 20p to 200p overnight.  Erm, what?!  Care to explain what that means and how exactly that is possible? The Guardian describes it as a “share consolidation”, which after a quick Google I understand to mean reducing the number of shares by a certain percentage which then rise in value by the same percentage to compensate, for example owning 10 shares worth 10p becomes owning 1 share worth £1.  It’s a classic massaging of the figures, but it worked: “It hasn't stopped some investors thinking there has been an almighty rally, as shares were up 969% on Friday's prices, or 7.3% from Monday's starting price of 200p to 214p.”  Sounds crooked to me but what do I know.  Apparently lots of companies have done the same, but it only goes to strengthen my belief that the financial industry make up their own rules and have engineered a business of making money out of literally nothing.

My trail of research then led me to an article from the Independent about how Iceland took the exact opposite approach to dealing with the crisis: they imprisoned the bankers and let the banks go bust.  The article, written nearly two months ago, shows how Iceland’s economy is recovering nicely and goes on to explain that it will in fact become the first European country to beat it’s pre-crisis peak of economic output.  Nice one Iceland!  What particularly caught my eye however was this quote from prosecutor Olafur Hauksson: "Why should we have a part of our society that is not being policed or without responsibility? It is dangerous that someone is too big to investigate - it gives a sense there is a safe haven."

Now who have I heard use the term “safe haven” recently?  Oh yes, I remember...

“The UK will not become a safe haven for migrants in Calais”

The words of our dear Prime Minister, bravely protecting the UK from the oncoming “swarm”. 

Like many people with an interest in politics who identify as being of a leftist persuasion, I couldn’t be happier that Jeremy Corbyn is leading the polls to become the next Labour leader.  Of course polls can be misleading - as we all learnt on May 8th - but it gives a bit of hope none the less.  This once rank outsider must now be taken seriously and his detractors seem rattled.  Everyone’s least favourite uncle Tony Blair even showed up uninvited to say something about Corbyn supporters needing a heart transplant, like Tony Blair knows anything about what it’s like to have a heart.

Those who disapprove of Corbyn all seem to have the same problem, they don’t see him as electable, or more importantly, don’t think the general public will see him as electable (politicians of course being the experts in what the public want).  Whilst Blair, along with Liz Kendall and others, seem to believe in order to become electable again Labour should look more like the Tories (clamping down on benefits, cutting spending and a bit of anti-immigration rhetoric thrown in for good measure), Corbyn and his supporters have remembered one important thing: only 24% of the electorate voted for Cameron.  A third of those eligible didn't bother to vote at all.  It is the disenfranchised and the forgotten that Corbyn is seeking to inspire, not the home county Tories and countryside traditionalists. 

Before Corbyn entered the race the only candidate for the left was Andy Burnham, although what qualifies him as a leftwinger I’m not sure.  Apparently when Miliband announced the ‘mansion tax’, Burnham’s mother text him to say she found it “spiteful”.  I wonder what she thinks of her boy bravely abstaining from the benefit cap vote. 

Did Burnham’s mother consider the mansion tax an ‘attack on aspiration’ I wonder?  Ever since a Tory majority took hold in May, Labour MPs and commentators alike have been talking about “aspiration” and how Miliband and Labour didn’t understand it. 

Let’s get one thing clear.  Aspiration is a lie sold to us by the rich and powerful that promises we can become rich and powerful too if we work hard and obey the rules - knowing full well that just a tiny minority of people not born rich and powerful will ever become so - in order that when laws are passed from which only the rich and powerful benefit, we’ll not only let them but insist they must. 

In the wake of such a shock election result there’s been a great deal of speculation on both sides about how it all came to be.  The left have done some soul searching and concluded that perhaps retweeting the occasional Owen Jones article wasn’t going to bring about the socialist utopia we all wanted.  I’ve read countless articles that accuse the left of preaching to the converted, shouting into a feedback loop of agreement, all the while ignoring the concerns of “middle England’.  This may be true however as Michael Rosen pointed out today “9.5 million people voted Labour. So, that's 9.5 million people who resisted the desperate begging of every national and most local papers apart from the Mirror and a reluctant Guardian (and of course the Morning Star). They had to resist the ridicule and abuse directed at Miliband, and the narrative that Labour caused the deficit”.  It’s slightly reassuring.

We’ve also seen demonstrations in the capital.  Let me just repeat that; demonstrations.  Not riots, not chaos or violence, demonstrations which, if all the videos I’ve seen populating my Facebook feed are to be believed (and I trust actual video evidence over the Daily Mail any day... I trust most things over the Daily Mail in fairness), were escalated by the police and not protesters.  We’ve all read about the gratified war memorial and I agree it was stupid, for one thing if you’re going to scrawl something that garners so much press at least make it insightful, but let’s remember why it was written in the first place.

Today the Telegraph published a rather odious little article entitled “Stop your whingeing: why the left are such bad losers”.  Give it a read, it’s a perfect lesson in spectacularly missing the point.

There’s nothing contradictory about championing the importance of voting and then protesting when it doesn't go your way. An effective protest promotes debate about why you didn't vote for the governing party and reminds governments of their mandate to govern the country for all, and should they disappoint us we WILL let them know.  Calling the left sore losers, whilst being all part of the Tory plan to belittle us even further, implies this is a game (it isn't) and that it's over (it definitely isn't).  Protesting a Tory government isn’t the same as throwing the little metal car on the floor just because you lost at Monopoly, it’s a warning shot.

Speaking of playing games did you see the so called "Spin Room" during the election debates?  They actually called it the spin room!  You might as well just come out and call it the room where everyone’s bullshitting because that’s what you mean.  It was filled with squabbling politicians who appeared to take great joy in deflecting, confusing and evading absolutely everything put to them.  It was like dodgeball for the sort of people who would have had the ball thrown at them especially hard at school.  It made me sick.  Politics isn’t a game, it’s a means of running a country and improving people’s lives. 

The Telegraph writer also lambasted the lavishly dressed actors at the Bafas who had the temerity to lament the incoming Tory majority whilst glugging crates of champagne.  She didn’t quite use the phrase “champagne socialists” (I’d have got bingo if she had) but she suggested their concern was hypocritically at odds with their success.  I think the mistake she’s made is to confuse hypocrisy and empathy. 

Let us follow this line of logic for a moment.  If, as the writer is suggesting, these successful people cannot have empathy with the common man, then how on earth can a privileged group of politicians such as our new front bench, many of whom were born into unimaginable wealth and have never had to survive on anything close to even the average wage, be expected to understand the people they were elected to govern?  And yes, that picture of Moet being delivered to Downing St might be an old one but tell me again about the House of Common’s rising champagne bill? 

The writer’s greatest failing however is to completely reject the reason people are angry.  There’s no mention of austerity, not a word about the rise in cruel benefit sanctions and the bedroom tax, no hint of understanding people’s fears about the privitisation of the NHS.  The march wasn’t about silencing anyone, it was about expressing a voice so often ignored by the press, just as the Telegraph have done. 

Russell Brand has gone through quite the transformation.  He’s gone from espousing the futility of voting to endorsing Ed Miliband all in the space of 18 months.  Almost a year after his infamous appearance on Newsnight, Brand was dismissed as a “bum hole” by John Lydon in a Guardian interview with the always amazing Polly Toynbee and I was in complete agreement.  Now?  A bum hole no more sir! 

“The only currency we have is compassion and kindness to one another“

Brand’s very public transformation has been mocked by many but I applaud his ability to be so open about changing his opinion and his being swept up by Milifandom was nothing short of charming.  Let’s not forget he is being scoffed at by politicians and newspapers, the last people to ever admit they’ve been wrong about anything.  Whatever your thoughts about Brand, he is always honest and his heart is always in the right place. 

We need more like him.

A day on from the election result and I still feel at a loss, I'm completely numb, I can't really focus on anything. The prospect of a full Tory government for 5 years feels crushing. So many people are going to suffer. But as many of my amazing friends on social media have said already that's why we need to unite, we need to reach deep into our communities and find those people crying out for help, we need to protest, we need to march, we need to make our voices heard above the noise of the self interested media giants.

The big question is how does the left unite?  Regardless of what happens to the Labour party - and I for one am really hoping they don’t wheel out Blair MkII - how can we help the communities most at risk of being decimated by the Tories whilst ensuring there’s not a Tory majority in 2020?  People who value social justice and equality must unite together like never before but I fear the placards and banners will not be enough this time.  We need to find ways of challenging the Tory economic lie, of exposing the duplicity of their claims and prove to the people who believe the Tories can be trusted with the economy that they can’t be because their whole ideology works directly against the needs of the majority.

This challenge seems all the more insurmountable when you look at this:

That’s a fuck load of blue.

Can somebody please tell me why every major political party’s economic plan is centered around deficit reduction?  Why deficit reduction and not debt reduction?

Until recently I wasn’t completely sure what the difference was and I don’t think I’m alone in my ignorance.  Cameron likes to exploit this confusion and is allowed to get away with outrageous claims like “I’m cutting the deficit and helping Britain get back in the black.”  No you’re not!  National debt is still rising, we’re more skint now than we were in 2010!  If the infamous note be true and there really wasn’t any money left when Labour left office five years ago then the note has now been sold on eBay and the profits invested into a private Political Memorabilia steering group run by Goldman Sachs.

I’ve read precisely three articles about the difference between deficit and debt.  It’s all I could manage.  But if I’ve got it right then the bare bones of it are DEFICIT = disparity between what money comes in and what goes out, and DEBT = how much money we owe other people.  That’s it!  The dreaded deficit is simply a measurement, it’s not a tangible amount, unlike the debt which is real money.

Yes, when you’re spending more than you’re bringing in that’s clearly a problem but it seems the Tories’ plan is to cut what goes out, not try to bring more in.  And it’s not even like running a deficit is a huge problem.  This excellent article explains that running a deficit is common for an economy like ours.  The article points out that we ran a surplus between 1998 and 2001, the first time since 1974.  Tories love to praise Thatcher for her uncompromising saving of the economy, but all the time she was in government the UK ran a deficit.  If it wasn’t a problem then why is it one now?

As much as I hate to start this new blog with a discussion about the loathsome Katie Hopkins, her recent article in the equally loathsome Sun (no bias here, honest) raises some interesting points.

The idealogical forefather of Katie Hopkins’ brand of “journalism” (somehow even quotation marks doesn’t seem enough to show how loosely I use that word - I’d like to see someone invent sarcastic quotation marks, indicating to the reader it should be read with same serenity with which Rick Mayall would intone “Vivian”, so condescendingly sing-song) is surely Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn.  Hopkins taps into the same anti-PC sentiment of “You can’t say anything any more”, which feels like it’s reached boiling point in recent times.  Whether it’s Farage spouting some inaccurate bullshit about immigrants with HIV or twitter trolls forcing another innocent women off the social media website with threats of rape, it feels to me like a section of the population have had enough of this perceived censorship and are lashing out.  Hopkins’ abhorrent views may be the thick end of the wedge but her unapologetic “I’ll say whatever I want” attitude resonates with a lot of people.

I shan’t step on Stewart Lee’s toes and repeat his fantastic diatribe about political correctness being more like “institutionalised politeness” but I’d like to suggest that the term political correctness is vastly unfit for purpose.  It doesn’t have anything to do with politics and the phrase, if nothing else, has helped Nigel Farage bolster his unfathomable reputation as a man of the people; anti-PC, railing against the “political class”, an out-of-touch elite who’s wealth and opinions trickle down to us lower orders to lap up off the floor.

For many, political correctness has become the smug truncheon of left wing intellectualism used to beat down the opinions of those somehow outside of the circle.  It’s become an oppressive force, rather than one for good.  Political correctness should be the acknowledgement of a section of language that causes offence to or perpetuates negative opinions of sections of society, and more often than not these communities are some of our country’s most vulnerable.  Political correctness should protect against racism, sexism and homophobia; I really cannot think of a better term that Lee’s “institutionalised politeness”.  Perhaps “not being a cunt”.

So if political correctness has gone mad - to quote Littlejohn - then what, exactly, can we call Hopkins’ hateful rant and how should we describe its sanity?  

Katie Hopkins is not just the absence of political correctness, she’s a vacuum for all reasonable thought.  I’m not sure any label one could apply would do her hideous ruminations their full foul justice, suffice to say she’s clearly gone too far this time.  Surely this is her cancelling Christmas.

If we believe the right, then political correctness has gone mad.  If we believe the left (and much of the centre actually) then Hopkins too has gone mad, so what next?  Where to now?  Perhaps the silver lining to all this is that maybe we’ve hit the bottom, we’ve found the line, and we’ve learnt never to go there again.  One hopes that a writer practically wishing death on entire populations is enough to inspire a dialogue about political correctness in a positive light.

[UPDATE] I saw this the other day: