Are No.10 ditching “Global Britain” for straight-up nationalism?

One of the things promised throughout the Brexit referendum, and throughout the nuclear-hot mess of the last three years, was that Britain would become a “global player” (which some people might see as paradoxical to the “control our borders” and “make our own laws/rules” and “stopping immigration” and of course that famous Breaking Point poster).

The outlook was positive (for Leavers).

We can make our own laws! – We already can.

We can control our borders! – We already do.

We want our parliamentary sovereignty! – We already had it. In fact, when Parliament tried to exercise their sovereignty, Brexiters slated them.

We want to open up trade with other nations! – We have trade deals with over 150 countries and we have more clout as part of the biggest trading bloc in the world.

But forget those asides, the point is, the country was told that we were going to become a “global Britain”. But not an empire. Oh gosh no. Don’t use that word.

So what happened to Global Britain? Well, it was abandoned for strategical purposes. And here comes the big D.C.

Dominic Cummings turned Boris Johnson the blusterer into a one-phrase wonder throughout the 2019 election. You can almost imagine Cummings with phone in one hand and a wooden meter ruler in the other slapping Johnson about the face. “Repeat after me: “Get.” Smack. “Brexit.” Smack. “Done.” Smack. “I sold the country “Take back control”, you can sell them this.”

Boris rubbed his hands together, safe in the knowledge that he was onto a winning tactic. Any interviews that could cause problems – avoid. Any people give you hassle – get away as fast as you can. No! Not into the fridge you tit! People show confront you about policy, change the subject – damn it Boris don’t take the chap’s phone and put it in your pocket! You loon! Oh, wait, we won. Do what you want. Spaff everywhere you like, you’ve earned it.

The truth is, the message was a good one. It was simple. Classic three word clip like a classic boxer’s tactic. Jab-jab-cross. And it focused the nation not toward a global narrative, but toward the finalising of cutting the UK’s ties with its closest allies and longest standing friends. The entire Brexit opera has played out and Britain is now facing the world anew, with one foot firmly stuck in the past.

But it all feels like it’s changing. The idea of a global Britain had a very liberal-sounding pretence. But then we went and imposed an Australia-style points-based system. Ian Dunt put this thought into words in a recent piece in which he claimed:

“What we are losing is about so much more than money. It is about being open. It is about being a place that is confident enough to take in new arrivals. Being a place new arrivals might wish to come to. We’ve lost that confidence. We’ve lost the sense that difference is beautiful.”

Global Britain has not only told the whole world that it is shut off to the outside, but Dominic Cummings has spared no time at all raising the barriers around his cabinet, cutting them off from interviews with broadcasters, publications or journalists who might do the unspeakable and hold them to account.

What Cummings is doing, and doing with lethal precision, is removing cabinet from the spotlight and therefore keeping them from any form of accountability. The less they say, the less likely they are to slip up and make the government look stupid. But he is not only removing the cabinet from the institutions whose job it is to ask the hard questions and who should hold the government to account, he is removing the institutions themselves.

It was recently declared that No.10 are scrapping the BBC television licence fee. The licence fee has been a contentious issue for years and has plagued many people, whilst others are happy to continue paying in order to uphold what is considered a quintessentially British institution. Either way, Cummings has clearly considered the objective as high on the agenda because it essentially clips the wings of a broadcasting service whose podcasts, news channels (local, national and international) and TV shows could provide in-depth coverage of the government’s actions.

It was also reported by the MailOnline that Boris Johnson plans to privatise Channel 4. MP Philip Davies (Shipley) who sits on the Culture, Media and Sport select committee has stated; “I’ve been arguing for years that it should be sold off.” No.10 considers Channel 4 “left wing” and this seems to be a stance that Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson simply can’t abide. Make no mistake, this is a strangling of any dissenting voices who might judge or stand up to No.10.

But Cummings is also going one disastrous Orwellian leap forward by strangling the very language that the cabinet, and by default the publications that support them, will use from here on out. It is paradoxical given that those who supported the Leave campaign made the European Union out to be some kind of all powerful, untouchable overlord. It turns out that the enemy of free speech and democratic values is, in fact, sitting at the very heart of our so-called “democratic” society.

It was writer Haruki Murakami who put the argument best in 1Q84:

Knowledge is a precious social asset. It is an asset that must be amassed in abundant stockpiles and utilised with the utmost care. It must be handed down to the next generation in fruitful forms.” Funnily enough, the words are those of an NHK licence fee collector, but the message around knowledge being a “social asset” is an important and timely one.

The Lie of the “Northern Powerhouse”

The Northern Powerhouse brings to mind the coal burning days of old. Of industry and progression. Of manufacturing and textiles and everything in between. It was a concept developed by the coalition government (2010-2015) to try and boost entrepreneurial endeavours and transform the north into a hub of industrial and innovative excellence.

But was there ever any real determination to make sure that the plan became a reality, and that government would stick to its vision of a brighter and stronger future for the north?

An article released in today’s Guardian claims that “almost half of new jobs in England in the last decade were in London and the south-east, despite only a third of the population living in that region”. In the last decade, 1.8 million jobs were created in London and the south-east whilst only 0.6 million jobs were created in Yorkshire and the north-west.

The north-east has fared worse than most regions with a mere 1% of the total number England’s job increases. The area also has the lowest average disposable income.

The north has been let down by the governing politicians of the last decade and the term rendering the phrase “northern powerhouse” little more than a term to throw about when doing the election rounds. It placates by offering a vision, but the reality is that there is very little substance in it.

It is not only ruling governments which have let down the north. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the party historically known for championing the working people of the northern territories, has often been hailed as more of a “metropolitan socialist”, focusing his energy in the capital.

Is it so surprising then to see the “red wall” of the north being dissolved by suspiciously highly-funded Conservatives?

But will the Tories boost the north as Boris Johnson seeks to “level up” the country, or will they fall short like the governments before them? The closure of multiple automotive manufacturing plants in the face of Brexit and the general downturn of trade expected as a result of leaving the European Union predict a slowing of the economy and therefore not much hope for drastic change.

Fiction & non-fiction

Reading is an experience. A channel to another world. Whether that other world be fictional or rooted in fact, seeing the world throuhh different eyes is refreshing, challenging, thought-provoking and wondrous.

Fiction books should be new. When tumbling into another world of endless possibilities, the smell, the feel and the crisp pages should all feel untouched. It makes me feel like I am the first to experience the universe on the other side of that book cover.

Non-fiction books are sometimes better used. History books, for instance – bent spines, dog-eared pages and a little yellowing goes a long way. The reader(s) that have come before have left their mark and I hope that through those used pages comes not only the knowledge of the book, but something more from those who passed the book down. Vestigium, perhaps.

Fiction interprets, emphasises, dissects, peels back the layers and wonders about the real world. It also adds to it by creating new myths and provides new outlooks.

Non-fiction shows the world how the world and society came to be, what it is and where it may be heading. To write good fiction, it is good to know the facts. And can’t we say that fact is sometimes even more extravagant and more incredible than fiction could ever be?

Phrase dissection: “Politics of envy”

Anyone reading the news nowadays would be remiss not to have noticed the surge in populism over the past few years. 2016 especially saw a seismic shift that only few people with their ear to the ground were able to predict.

With the rise of populism came a rise in factionalism and tribalism.

Socialism, democracy, capitalism, republicanism and liberalism pulled out the stops, jumped online, onto the pages of opinion pieces and the pages of newspapers and started swinging.

With competing ideologies came a rise in word-warfare and phrase-flinging.

Politics of envy

This is actually a phrase that’s been used for years by high earners, Tories taking swipes at other parties, and people of a certain class who disagree with liberal, democratic or socialist thinking.

If workers and/or unions believe that employees should have better wages, a place in boardrooms or at least a stronger voice in the workplace, they are deemed to be suffering from envy. Even people who think that higher earners should pay more tax are also often thrown under the “politics of envy” banner.

So, anyone on a lower rung of the socio-economic ladder who wishes to get ahead or go further in life.

But the phrase itself needs some dissecting.

Those people who are very well off have a tendency to protect themselves, their companies, and their profit margins. Businesses progress by making sure that they repeatedly turn a profit. This is because they have a duty to give their shareholders a healthy return on their investment.

But companies are only as good as their employees. If a construction company such as Persimmon Homes generates a multimillion pound profit, is it because of the person who started the company or because of the crews who worked through all weathers to build homes?

Work is the biggest killer outside of natural death. Workplace accidents. Slips, trips and falls. Muscular-skeletal injuries. People breathe noxious and hazardous substances. Later in life people will experience back problems, breathing difficulties, cancer through exposure. A vast array of problems from a lifetime of arduous work.

There is a romanticism about “an honest day’s labour.” Earning an “honest living.” There is truth in this. Working laborious jobs and seeing a job completed comes with an immense amount of satisfaction. But that satisfaction of a job well done should come with a wage that mirrors the worker’s toils. But those toils have a heavy toll on the body and, often without financial security through sustainable wages, on the mind.

On the other hand, higher earners have a longer life expectancy and are far less likely to suffer from those physical detriments that are incurred through physical labour.

Is it therefore politics of envy to want more money for your efforts or to want a certain quality of life? Or is it just politics of what is fair? After all, people sacrifice themselves.


“Politics of envy” is a phrase used to dismiss any kind of socialist thought, even that kind of socialist thought to which most people adhere. Like wanting a free NHS. Like wanting the more wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes or perhaps wanting to redistribute wealth.


Is it fair to claim that ordinary people looking for true representation within the political system are suffering from politics of envy when modern day politics is controlled by the dispersion and directing of capital?


So is it really politics of envy? And even if it is, how does that compare against those who partake in the politics of greed?

Did you vote for Henry Smith?

Henry Smith was re-elected as MP for Crawley in this year’s general election.

But what does Henry Smith stand for? We can get an idea by looking at his voting history. He has voted:

  • Against banker’s bonus tax – despite bankers being responsible for sinking the economy in 2007/2008
  • Against gay rights
  • Against laws promoting equality and human rights
  • Against a “right to remain for EU nationals” already living in the UK
  • Against benefits raising in-line with prices
  • Against higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
  • For increasing rate of VAT (BUT against increasing rate of taxes for those paid over £150,000
  • For allowing employees to exchange some employment rights for shares in the company they work for
  • For more restriction of trade union activity
  • For reducing capital gains tax
  • For reducing corporation tax
  • For raising England’s undergraduate tuition fees to £9,000
  • For reducing government funding for local government
  • Against a more proportional system for electing MPs
  • For greater restrictions on campaigning by third parties, such as charities, during elections
  • For mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities
  • Against measures to prevent climate change
  • For selling England’s state-owned forests
  • Against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods
  • Against greater public control of bus services
  • For capping civil service redundancy payments
  • Against restrictions on fees charged to tenants by letting agents

After a visit to the Cayman Islands, Henry Smith also supported the fight against anti-money laundering measures and criticised plans to introduce more transparency to the islands. In other words, Henry Smith supports offshore tax havens.

The Panama Papers have shown that offshore tax havens support organised crime including drugs and human-trafficking and terrorist cells whilst also allowing banks to hide money and avoid paying those taxes that could go toward public services.

Does Henry Smith stand up for the average person? Please check the site:

They Work For You

Post-election Questions

The election was vicious. Not the kind of high-quality sparring that we were once used to when politicians fought tactically over policies and with pride and decency. Instead, we saw tribalism, character assassination and online vitriol the likes of which have left most of us flabbergasted and confused.

Either way, people gave the Conservatives the majority meaning that, unless some kind of large-scale scandal arises, we are leaving the European Union. If Scotland and Northern Ireland will be part of that process is yet to be determined.

Boris Johnson may claim that we should let the “healing begin”, but he and the country now face some very serious questions. Such as:

Will Boris Johnson now open the enquiry into Russian involvement in the 2016 referendum? This is an enquiry into hostile foreign forces meddling in western democracy that Boris Johnson previously quashed.

What is the future for the Labour government? Do they continue to follow so-called “Corbynism” or do they move on to greener pastures in a bid to win back the vote of the working classes?

Will the government move toward green energy or will they continue pursuing fracking?

Will Labour make fresh moves to push Anti-Semitism from their ranks?

Will the government show the full document (and not the redacted version of which three-quarters were blacked out) in which they are shown to push a “pro-shale narrative” on the communities in which they plan to undertake fracking?

Despite leaving the European Union, will government still make sure that they follow the upcoming directive to make sure that transactions to offshore tax-havens are made transparent?

What do the government plan to do about disenfranchisement of the “North” and other areas across the UK?

Is the UK going to become a vassal state for the United States?

How is the NHS really going to be effected?

Now that we should be without bias, are the British public ready to return to fact-checking and verification and to take part in face to face discourse, and hold politicians to account when they lie or do not deliver on their promises.

Will Boris Johnson finally be interviewed by Andrew Neil?

Two things are certain:

1. Journalists have a hell of a lot of work to do to make sure that people are held to account.

2. Government have to make sure that they do everything they can to keep disinformation and misinformation out of the public sphere.

Cut disc

I have suffered from Sciatica for a year and a bit now. In most cases, Sciatica disappears after a few months. In this case it kept on for 14 months, until yesterday.

I had an operation called a discectomy in which part of the disc pushing onto the nerve was cut back, allowing my Sciatic nerve some breathing space.

I am now sofa-bound. Every time I get up and walk around it feels like my midriff is going to just snap and I’ll end up doubled over, my eyes looking between my feet.

The anaesthetic was amazing. Some clear liquid and an oxygen mask before the white liquid, the main barbiturate solution, pumped in.

‘Do you feel a bit light-headed?’

I nod and the next thing I know I’m waking up in another room. The surgeon tells me something that I think is meant to be important but I have no idea what it is. Why do they have to tell you how it went when you’re out of it? For all I know I could have been left paralysed but missed the memo.

I was given an egg sandwich and a cup of tea. I chilled and listened to the radio. It was a pretty easy recovery, until I got home and the pain meds wore off.

Homage to Ozack Van-Damme

I loved my car. A Renault Clio Tourer Dynamique with a 1.1 engine, though the engine size didn’t stop Renault selling it as a; “sport edition.” Every time I renewed my insurance I had to convince the person on the other end of the phone that it didn’t have spoilers and nitrous but it did have a large boot for shopping and it shook when it hit 71 mph.

When Ozack Van-Damme shuddered to a stop on a busy dual carriageway I had no idea he was going to be a write-off. The recovery guy told me it didn’t look good before he winched it onto the back of his van and drove Ozack and myself to my local garage.

A couple of days later I got the call. He was as dead as dead can be. A piston shot through thrle cylinder and there was nothing I could do without materialising a couple grand. The next day I found myself emptying Ozack of all those things a car holds. Receipts. Emergency kit. Log book. Ice-scraper. No matter how hard I jammed my fingers down into the gap between driver’s chair and handbrake I couldn’t reach that two-pound coin.When it was emptied, I watched it get hauled onto the back of yet another recovery vehicle. Why didn’t it have scrapyard or car funeral service written on the side instead of “recovery vehicle” as if it was going to give Ozack another chance at life?

Ozack took us around Europe, large boot crammed with camping gear and three weeks-worth of clothes for three of us. He had taken us across the flat expanse of the Netherlands, along the no-such-thing-as-a-speed-limit autobahn and up the steep mountain roads of Switzerland.

It is because of Ozack that we accidentally discovered a dogging spot and caught sight of two people going at it in the back of an old faded red Vauxhall something-or-other, pale naked figures illuminated by our headlights as we swung out of the car park. Men and women stood around the Vauxhall looking like rabbits caught in headlights, others refused to look up and instead kept their heads down. I made out furrowed brows as if they were pondering the universe and not whacking off as they watched two strangers going at it. Though we didn’t see any spectator flesh so maybe it was too cold.

My partner and I had spent many a night huddled under duvets in the back of Ozack, the car perched on top of the cliffs of Cornwall. We were rocked to sleep by harsh coastal winds and awoken by morning light draining in through the windows.

It saddens me to think that he is being put through the works at the local breakers yard. But I guess like so many dead bodies he is being plucked of organs so other machines can last that little bit longer.

Living with a (tired) teacher

I was spread out on the living room floor, reading a bulky sci-fi novel when I heard an intake of breath. Not exactly a snore. But kinda like a snore.

My fiance (let’s call her “Tired Teacher”) was sitting cross-legged on the couch. A four-colour bic hanging from her hand and a student’s English book spread on her lap. Her head was on her chest and her eyes were closed. Asleep.

This is common. I reach over and shake her leg. She comes to, head snapping up like she had never stopped marking. She offers an exhausted, embarrassed smile and gets her pen ready.

I get another paragraph in, a boy trapped underwater, his best friend struggling to get to him. The adults are racing to the scene but who knows if they’ll be there in time – another not-quite-but-kinda-like a snore.

Her head is down again. Eyes closed. Pen at the ready.

I shake her awake. Tell her to go to bed. She nods and puts her student’s book into a large bag. The same bag she lugs in and out of the car and somehow hefts to and from school Monday to Friday.

When the book is away she slumps sideways across the couch and is asleep. It’s 12.32 in the morning. She’ll be getting up at six-thirty.

Spectating The Spectator: Trading places

Image source: Pindex

The Spectator’s 10th August, 2019 edition of The Spectator opened up with a piece called Trading places.

The article considers the argument that the UK should look positively on a trade deal with America in place of the trade deal which we already have with the EU.

“The reality is that free trade is almost always on balance a good thing, regardless of which country is it conducted with. That said, there will always be compromises to be made. Vested interests to be tackled. Product standards have to be reviewed…Good trade deals can even destroy native industries – but the overall effect of global trade is to boost the creation of wealth…The important thing is to make the right concessions.”

The U.K already has these concessions with the European Union but with the extra added benefit that, as a democracy, the United Kingdom also has a vote and therefore a voice in the passing of European law. The author of this piece is essentially trying to argue for a position that would make the UK worse off.

“Free trade with the US is opposed by some Remainers for no better reason than because it is advocated by Leavers.”

The author is clearly a hypocrite. What kind of bias does it take to argue that getting away from our closest allies (culturally and by locality) and toward the US would be preferential over the kind of deal we already have? To say that Remainers oppose a deal with America for no other reason than Leavers want it seems exactly what this piece is arguing…only the other way.

‘…the NHS has always outsourced some of its services – which last year accounted for 7 per cent of its budget. There is no reason why US providers should not be allowed to compete for this work on equal terms with British companies.”

That was not the line towed by Leave supporting parties and groups throughout the 2016 referendum and there is also solid reasoning why the US should not be competing on the same terms with British companies: American health care standards are lower than the UK’s. Not only are American health care standards lower, the introduction of more private interests within the NHS goes against public polling which shows that people want private companies kept the at the biggest possible distance from health care system.

The NHS is not the author’s only area of attack. On GM foods:
‘No one can point to ill-effects, and for good reason: GM foods are subject to far more scrutiny than non-GM foods.’

The reason for the GM foods being held to higher scrutiny is because…well…they are genetically modified. A crop created as opposed to one grown is no doubt going to undergo far more scrutiny because it has to pass myriad tests that would decide whether said food was safe for consumption.

The simple truth is that America uses GM crops as it helps mass production which ultimately makes the crop cheaper to make. European food standards are among the highest in the world whilst America have been time and again castigated for packing out their foods with copious amounts of highly addictive and highly fattening corn-syrup.

‘Then there is the practice of washing chicken in chlorine, which has been continuously cited as a reason why we shouldn’t do a trade deal with the US. Even the EU, when it banned chlorine-washed chicken in 1997, came to the conclusion that the practice was perfectly acceptable from a food-standard point of view – but banned it anyway on the flimsy pretext that it might provide farmers with a sense of false security. A better explanation is that it spied the opportunity to snuff out US competition for less efficient European producers.’

The pretext was far from “flimsy”. For instance, the European Commission decided that using chlorine to wash chicken dramatically lowered standards because it allowed farmers to get away with providing poor conditions. As highlighted by Ben Chapman writing for the Independent (Sunday 3 March, 2019) – “Advocates of this approach” (not washing chicken in chlorine) “say that it leads to higher standards of hygiene and animal welfare because farmers must take care at each stage of the process rather than relying on a chemical bath to kill any harmful pathogens after animals are slaughtered.”

The idea that European farms are supposedly “less efficient” is exactly because European standards are higher and do not lower themselves to mass-production quality levels, which results in questionable practices like washing chicken in chlorine. The author also argues that the EU was being protectionist in its endeavours, something which many conservative thinkers is one of the best outcomes of Donald Trump’s America. When the EU tries to put EU farmers and food safety levels first, it is chastised.

What it comes down to is facts. Is chlorine washed chicken okay to eat? Looking back on Ben Chapman’s piece for the Independent, the answer is quite clear.

Are we so loathing of the European Union that we would opt for subservience to the US and lower not only our standards but our global standing?