It’s grim up north

This Arte documentary looks at the impact Brexit has had on cities like Grimsby and Hull, but in the process makes it very clear that Brexit was just the final nail in the coffin after decades of neglect and decay.

It’s easy to be judgmental about somebody like Darren Kenyon, the fisherman featured here. How could he have been so stupid as to believe the lies told about Brexit? How could he have voted to cut his own throat? It’s easy and tempting to do so because it absolves everybody else. Your own fault, you shouldn’t have been so stupid as to trust the Tories. You made your bed, now lie in it. But the reality is that Darren’s company was in trouble long before he voted for Brexit, one of the few fishing companies left in a town that once had thousands. Through decisions made and policies created beyond his control, Darren and thousands like him, not just fishers were left to struggle. No wonder they went for Brexit when it was explicitly sold to them as the one thing that could take away all those obstacles. Somebody like Darren, who started work at 13, not “very educational” as he puts it himself, but who managed to create a small, thriving business with his own hands yet sees it threatened by forces beyond his control, was primed to believe the promises Brexit and Boris Johnson made.

As such Darren and all the other Brexit voters like them are the least culpable for this disaster. Their fault was to trust the media and politicians who lied to them. Decades of tabloid lies about the EU and politicians blaming everything bad on it, but who steal the credit for the good it brought set the stage for the referendum. Then the media, from the BBC on down failed completely to educate and inform, at best just parroting what both sides said with few attempts to actually determine the truth. And even in those rare cases where this was attempted, it once again was reduced to “experts say X but these politicians disagree, we’ll let you figure it out”.

Worse, once Brexit was a reality and the only issue in question was how damaging it was going to be, the media and the political establishment did its upmost best to make it as damaging and hardcore as possible, while sinking any chance of an alternative. It was deemed more important to keep a mild social democrat out of Number 10 then it was to make sure the country wasn’t entirely fucked over. Time and again chances to get a soft Brexit were missed and the end result was the clown show that was the 2019 election, where Boris Johnson was shitefested over the finish line by an united press and political establishment determined to see off the threat of Corbynism. That three years later it has ended with hyperinflation, a crumbling economy and a health service on the edge of collapse is the price they would pay all over again if asked.

On the remain side there’s this annoying tendency to blame Brexit for all of the UK’s woes, but at best it’s a catalysor of already existing trends. Back in 2001 I was doing leafletting in the then elections for the Socialist Alliance in Plymouth and getting to see some of its estates was shocking. A level of poverty I’d never seen in the Netherlands. Again, reading between the lines in this documentary it’s clear that the poverty and misery in places like Grimsby and Hull aren’t recent either, but have been present for decades. This is why people voted for Brexit because it promised to change things and people were desparate enough to take that gamble. We shouldn’t blame them for it.

The sheer hypocrisy

You can’t help but sympathise with the guy being interviewed here, a funeral officer who at the height of the Covid pandemic had had to stop people from saying their last farewells, now feeling a fool for having done so when the government that set the rules never had any intent to obey them themselves

What sticks in the craw is that’s James O’Brien he’s talking to, who with his employer LBC was one of the people responsible for destroying the one credible alternative to a Johnson led Tory government back in 2019. What sticks in the craw is that all of the press currently falling over themselves to explain what a bad ‘un Boris Johnson is and who could’ve guessed, could’ve told us that in 2019 but refused to. What sticks in the craw is the pretence that having an office party is what made Johnson bad, that the failed and utterly corrupt covid strategy of the government as a whole isn’t an issue. That for the second time in a decade the Tories are responsible for mass deaths amongst the most vulnerable, first through austerity, second through herd immunity is ignored or outright denied even. But the chance at taking down a prime minister who has become an embarassment without doing damage to the larger Tory project by using this trivial issue has the same people who championed him two years ago chomping at the bit.

First Cameron, then May, now Johnson. The media install Tory prime ministers to do their dirty jobs, then discards them when no longer needed, but never questions the legitimacy of the Tories as a whole. That fate is left for anything that challenges the established order. Tell me, if democracy means that the press is allowed to ruthlessly monster anybody they take a dislike to, that only those candidates and parties acceptable to it are allowed anywhere near power and that allowance can be withdrawn at any time, how much of a democracy is the United Kingdom still?

Should Corbyn stand as an independent?

So Jeremy Corbyn has had the whip withdrawn from him for over a year now and this weekend Labour made noises about appointing somebody else to stand in his constituency in the next elections. That of course immediately started speculation about whether or not he should run as an independent or start his own party. There’s little doubt that Corbyn could do this and very likely would win as an independent, but would he do so?

That’s the real question: would Corbyn want to stand in election again in the first place? The man’s seventytwo now, would he want to be in parliament for another five years, pushing eighty at the end of it? Or would he rather spent his time on activism outside of parliament, via his new Project for Peace and Justice? If denied to stand as a Labour candidate, would Corbyn have the will to stand as an independent against his old party? Nothing in his history suggests he has anything but a deep abiding loyalty to Labour even when the party has no loyalty to him or his ideals. He has never shown that sort of spite that could compel him to ‘wreck’ Labour like that.

The other question is what it would accomplish, other than schadenfreude when some parachuted in Starmeroid inevitably loses their deposit? Could a hypothetical left of Labour party build on a Corbyn win in the next elections, or would it be just a stunt, ala Galloway and Respect? Is it actually worthwhile to pursue a parliamentary solution or should the left’s energy be more constructively used outside it, in the unions for example? Is there the infrastructure in place to make this more than just the Corbyn show?

He’s only shit and soil now like anybody else

It turns out disgust at enforced mourning is something of a British tradition:

After the death of George VI, in a society muc more Christian and deferential than this one,  Mass Observation survey showed that people objected to the endless maudlin music, the forelock-tugging coverage. 'Don't they think of old folk, sick people, invalids?' one 60-year old woman asked. 'It's been terrible for them, all this gloom.' In a bar in Notting Hill, one drinker said 'He's only shit and soil now like anyone else,' which started a fight.

If the mass hysteria about the death of the nation’s racist grandpa is this bad already, imagine what happens when Beth pops her clogs. Eight days of mourning, BBC with wall to wall coverage on both BBC One and Two, the shutting down of BBC Four yesterday, all the pious assholes who couldn’t say anything as covid racked up 150,000 deaths due to Tory complacency now scolding anyone not in the mood to mourn… All the things that the British public was accused of after Diana died, now enforced by the government, the media and an army of finger wagging neighbour watch types on Twitter and Facebook.

But in the end nobody cares but the sort of royalist simp who thinks it’s understandable to be worried about the colour your grandchild will be born with.

The limits of Owen Jones

Oliver Eagleton exposes the limits of Owen Jones and puts the boot in hard in his review of Jones’ new book on the failure of Corbynism:

Of course, Jones is most aligned with his Guardian colleagues on The Antisemitism Crisis (which he places centre-stage, awarding it more coverage than any other topic). Here again, press relations are the overwhelming concern—a fixation evidenced by the semantic fluidity of the term ‘crisis’. Sometimes Jones suggests that antisemitism had reached crisis-levels within Labour; sometimes he describes a pr crisis rather than a real one. A similar sliding of sense afflicts the word ‘failure’: it is unclear whether Corbyn failed to deal with a racist infestation, or failed to rebut a smear campaign—as if Jones cannot distinguish between the objective reality and the media representation. He accepts that allegations of antisemitism have sometimes been cynically deployed to gag critics of Israel, but he would presumably lose his column space were he to describe the charges against Corbyn as a politically motivated miasma. So instead he strives for ‘balance’ through a series of self-contradictions. Corbyn is a lifelong campaigner against antisemitism, yet he has a ‘blind spot’ on the issue. Only 0.3 per cent of Labour members were accused of antisemitism, yet it is a ‘crisis’ within the party. The leadership team vastly improved the disciplinary process, yet their response suffered from ‘a lack both of strategy and emotional intelligence’. The party produced a thoughtful pamphlet ‘designed as a political education tool for members’, yet it ‘never rolled out political education’. Alongside such incoherent formulations is a summary of Israeli history which ‘could have been written by Shimon Peres’, as one critic has remarked. The description of Israel’s foundation as a valiant socialist endeavour, worlds away from ‘settler-colonialism’, which subsequently degenerated under a series of reactionary leaders, is a rehearsal of liberal-Zionist hasbara that betrays scant engagement with scholarship on the region.

The inability or refusal to see the Labour antisemitism crisis as manufactured is the worst failure of Jones and people like them on the (soft) left. Being employed by The Guardian it is likely more the latter than the former, because his employer was such a major player in ginning up this crisis in the first place. Column after op-ed pretending NWO1488ILoveHitler tweeting something antisemitic had anything to do with Labour just because he said he was a Labour voter. Granted, Jones was one of the few nominally left wing voices in the UK media that even tried to argue against this, but in the end he still accepted the framing of Labour and Corbyn as inherently antisemitic.

Like almost every other pundit, Jones now has to keep up the pretence that this was a serious crisis, because to do otherwise would reveal his own culpability in the whole ‘scandal’. Less guilty than others, sure, but he still played an important role in it, by establishing the limits of acceptable criticism. Jones could say that the attacks on Labour were politically motivated or exaggerated the crisis, but not that the crisis wasn’t real. Even now we conclusively know how little substance there was to the allegations thanks to the EHRC report, Jones has to keep up the charade. That’s why his retrospective is so incoherent, because he cannot afford to admit the truth.