THOUGHT BREXIT WAS BAD NEWS? IT MAY ALSO BRING WITH IT AN APOCALYPTIC TIME-BOMB...

I came across an article from The Guardian this morning that, unbelievably, still managed to make my jaw hit the deck - even amid a world regularly fringing on lunacy. You can check it out here. The rest of what I have to say will make a lot more sense if you do.

The piece by Maryn McKenna is from last year, but as I say, I've only just encountered it. Which possibly says something in itself: as everybody should probably know about this. I'm pretty sure they don't. They're likely to know Ant and Dec won best presenters at the recent National Television Awards for the seventeenth time, but not that Brexit could potentially bring with it chickens that wipe out humanity.

Holy shit. And I thought chicken was the 'healthy option'.

I didn't know any of this. Yes, I knew American food was generally bland, stodgy, and pumped full of chemicals to make it mutant-sized; I've spent a fair bit of time in the U.S, and even if we put aside the veritable horror stories that are our Yankee cousins' notion of things like bread and chocolate (I have never tasted anything as disgusting in my life as Hershey's), I also remember the first time I encountered their bizarre, warped 'puffy' fruit. I remember chowing down on an apple the size of a very large male adult fist, which somehow didn't feel particularly healthy to be eating, even to someone who generally eats crap back here at home in the UK. As for the bananas, they looked like they could possibly be used to bludgeon someone.

So much of the food I encountered in the U.S didn't 'feel right'. A problem I never really encountered in Europe, or elsewhere in the world. However, the rabbit hole goes far deeper.

The biggest threat to humankind's existence other than climate change, is antibiotic resistance. And apparently it is literally being invited through mass produced food. More specifically, in America, chicken. It's a ticking time bomb (or rather, a clucking one). And now developing nations are hopping aboard the drugged-chicken-gravy-train too.

As for the fact this is being done in America to a mass-produced food that is... how can I put this delicately... stereotyped as being quite popular with the poor and certain oppressed ethnicities? Ethnicities that America doesn't have a great history of looking after so well? However you spin it, the bottom line is that people/groups who've been overexposed to antibiotics in cheap mass produced food will be the first wiped out, if and when a super-bug arrives.

Doesn't look good, does it?

In fairness, it should probably be mentioned, some U.S companies have bowed to pressure from consumer watch groups, agreeing to stop using antibiotics in their chicken, like McDonalds. KFC and other larger fast food chains are also following suit. However, domestic food sold in supermarkets is not quite as under the microscope.

Knock-off goods

Also note the American author starts off the whole piece by comparing these U.S 'mutant' chickens to those found on a French market place.

"I had eaten chicken all my life: in my grandmother’s kitchen in Brooklyn, in my parents’ house in Houston, in a college dining hall, friends’ apartments, restaurants and fast food places, trendy bars in cities and old-school joints on back roads in the south. I thought I roasted a chicken pretty well myself. But none of them were ever like this, mineral and lush and direct."

McKenna speaks of what real, authentic, chemically un-enhanced chicken tastes like by comparison, and how she finally enjoyed flavours denied to her in her native America: land of the mass-produced. You see, the E.U do things a little differently to the U.S - they generally try to protect their citizens. They look out for them. For example, they don't unethically poison them (or risk wiping out humanity) just to increase the profits and turnover of large greedy corporations.

Ah, you've gotta love capitalism.

So basically, rich Americans are selling mostly poor Americans stuff that could eventually kill us all. And then are using the exuberant proceeds they've earned from doing so to live the life of Riley. (And, one would imagine, to buy posher food not laced with chemicals.) If it was someone selling cheap knock-off Rolexes en mass, and using the proceeds to buy proper ones for themselves, no doubt the law would intercede; but when it concerns the future of the whole human race, well... it's apparently not worth the time and effort.

Today's capitalists care nothing for the future of humanity. That seems to be the era we're in. Like they've done a deal with the devil, and simply decided: "the whole world is screwed, we're on borrowed time, so WE might as well all get as rich and fleece it while we can, fuck everyone else". And really, no group or government in any modern Western society represents that attitude as much as Trump's America, or indeed Brexit Britain under the Tories.

What a wondrous tag-team they are.

Brexit means breakfast (a really bad one)

There are so many aspects of Britain's departure from the E.U that sadden me; the list is endless. But as a man who enjoys his food, who was born and grew up in a Britain that enjoyed easy and cost effective access to fresh produce from across the European continent for nearly forty years, this aspect of what Brexit will do to our availability/price of staple foods really depresses me. And even worse, that Britain seems desperate to plug that trade gap of 40+ years with closer U.S trade. Eg: the one country in the world with lower food standards than just about anywhere, where any Martin Shkreli dip-shit can pump it full of turpentine if he's greased the right people in congress.

Britain is selling its soul for corporate greed. (Ironically, the one thing Brexit was supposedly an antidote to.) Swapping European pragmatism and cooperation to become the 51st state: under a mad orange orangutan who'd sell his own Nan to the highest bidder. It just makes no sense to me.

I've teased my American friends about their crap, bland food for many years; joked how eating too much of it might cause one to 'grow gills', or maybe just additional nipples. Well, thanks to Brexit, British families might soon get to put my theory to the test. 

ONE OF BRITAIN'S MOST INFLUENTIAL RAPPERS JUST SMASHED THE ENTIRE ANTI-CORBYN ARGUMENT IN SECONDS (2017)

(Written for Evolve Politics, May 9th 2017, going viral to near half a million people: also referenced by Buzzfeed and The Independent as example of online/left-wing news outperforming mainstream news. Since removed from the former link.)

British rapper Akala is well known for his political activism, as much so as his music and his equally famous sister, Ms Dynamite. The man affectionately dubbed ‘the black Shakespeare’ has appeared on countless debate and news-related programmes over the years, including both BBC flagship political shows, Newsnight and Question Time. Many of those speeches and discussions have gone on to become viral hits, as well as his frank analysis of racism on Frankie Boyle’s Election Autopsy in 2015. Perhaps most memorable was his much publicised verbal annihilation of EDL leader Tommy Robinson – a rare occasion when the hateful and ill-mannered man was left momentarily stopped in his tracks.

Akala could quite feasibly be described as a modern philosopher. His intelligence, his factual knowledge, and obvious powers of persuasive rhetoric leave most opponents dwarfed. There is simply no substitute, or defence, against an individual whose arguments are based on true understanding and thorough research. Which is of course exactly the reason the far-right are so persecuting of the educated, and demonise supposed ‘liberal elites’. But Akala is living proof that born wealth and ‘liberal elitism’ are nothing to do with it. And as much as educational opportunities do play a vital role in producing informed/sentient members of society, to a certain degree, it’s also the choice of any individual as to whether they educate themselves. This man certainly has.

In a post today on his Facebook page, Akala explained why – for the first time in his life – he is actively going to defy his inherent beliefs and vote for an ‘establishment’ political party:

“I will be voting in a general election for the first time on June the 8th and I will – I am shocked to be typing this myself – be voting Labour. I am not a Labour supporter; I do not share the romanticism of many that the Labour Party was ever as radical an alternative as some would like to think. Labour – despite building the welfare state/NHS – has been an imperialist party from Attlee to Wilson to Blair, thus for a ‘third world’ internationalist such as myself I have never been able to cast a vote for them.

In truth my politics are closer at present to the Green Party, of the options available. Regardless, in the years since I have been an adult, neo-liberal New Labour has basically been a Tory Party anyway, so I, by virtue of my age, missed any point in history where Labour could have even been argued to have been any sort of real political alternative.

So why will I be voting now? The answer will surprise none of you, Jeremy Corbyn.”

What I, and hopefully others too should find fairly remarkable about Akala’s post, is that it dares to be nuanced; to read between the lines. He is not bound by tribal allegiances to one faction or another, he thinks for himself, and dares to acknowledge that Corbyn is not perfect – that he has short-comings too:

 “It’s not that I am naive enough to believe that one man (who is of course powerless without the people that support him) can fundamentally alter the nature of British politics, or that I think that if he/Labour win that the UK will suddenly reflect his personal political convictions, or even that I believe that the Prime Minister actually runs the country.

I also recognise that Mr. Corbyn is a human and as such is an imperfect ‘leader’. He was abysmal during the Brexit campaign for example and this whole sense that a left wing exit from the EU was possible via a campaign led by anti-immigrant fervour is to my mind ridiculous.

It seems around this issue Corbyn was more committed to an ideology than reality and how that reality would affect real people. He is a politician, he will make more mistakes, or at least what I deem to be mistakes."

In fact, in some ways Akala seems quite sceptical of Corbyn – describing him as not having an “electric personality”. And even more sceptical of the power he’d physically wield as Prime Minister, when so many members of his party (not to mention parliament) are opposed to the fundamental re-balancing of equality in Britain Corbyn seeks. However, the rapper goes on to succinctly explain why it doesn’t matter; how there is simply far more at stake here than ‘business as usual’ party politics:

In a sense, he smashes every single anti-Corbyn and Abbott-related arithmetical smear in a matter of seconds:

“We do not need perfect politicians, because we are not perfect people ourselves. However for the first time in my adult life and perhaps for the first time in British history someone I would consider to be a fundamentally decent human being – that is, someone who does not want to kill the poor and does not routinely make a habit of rationalising the bombing and invasion of other people’s countries under the rubric of humanitarianism – has a chance of being elected."

Akala goes on at length, and points out how Jeremy Corbyn has championed equality, social justice and peaceful resolution his entire career.  He was one of only thirteen MPs who voted against the disastrous military intervention in Libya in 2011, which undeniably initiated the humanitarian crisis of refugees crossing the Mediterranean, and unleashed the new emboldened ‘war against terror’. When it comes to issues of inherent freedom and moral decency, Corbyn has always been on the right side of history, and has warned countless times where all this aggression will lead.

Akala also goes on to communicate his deep concerns regarding the current Conservative government’s war-like stance and militaristic rhetoric. Controversially, he even suggests that denying the “Trump worshipping Tories” and Theresa May the keys to Number 10 should be an easier decision than US voters faced, deciding between Trump or Clinton:

“I simply think we cannot afford, in this very particular set of circumstances, to not vote. Our brothers and sisters in America were not given an alternative, their options were one war-mongering lunatic vs. another and many of them (almost half the US electorate did not vote at all), quite understandably could not bring themselves to vote for Hilary Clinton, despite the threat of Mr. Trump. Were I an American I must confess I would have done the same. We, however, do have a chance for the first time to vote for the lesser of two evils.”

He warns with specific examples of other countries such as Jamaica and India, and how if they came up against the mighty nationalist will of the US or UK respectively, public opinion could quickly be swung to make them the enemy. Just as the Murdoch/Rothermere/Desmond press now do with EU nations. It doesn’t make for comfortable reading – but that is the point. That’s the world into which Trump and May, and other right-wing politicians are dragging us.

On the NHS

The Kentish Town born rapper also speaks of what should be the key ingredient in this General Election (sadly too often saturated by bickering, nationalistic nonsense and talk of ‘saboteurs’ etc), eg: the NHS. His words are both powerful and poignant:

“There are a great many other progressive policies that make Corbyn a genuinely different candidate from what we have seen before but another very key area – of literally life and death – is the NHS. If you want to see what privatised healthcare looks like just ask any poor American. There are countless American families mired in a lifetime of debt for basic healthcare that citizens of every other industrial country (and Cuba) receive as standard from public money. When I was five I got the measles and nearly died, if I was an American child born into a similarly poor family I would either likely be dead now or my family still paying off the bill.

When I was 10 my mum got cancer, same story. The idea and reality of an NHS is one of the most democratic ideas ever invented, it must be protected at all costs, the Tories have made their intentions in this area quite plain – as has Corbyn. If you are so busy hating those pesky ‘immigrants’ (you know the same darkies and foreign nationals that overwhelmingly staff your NHS) that you can’t see that the Trump worshipping Tories are callous enough to condemn millions of ‘their own’ people to slow and early death because they are poor and because it’s profitable, (as the Republicans just have) then you are unlikely to be reading this anyway. But if you have such people in your family (as I do) please try and talk some sense into them, for their own good.”

Everyone should hear Akala’s thoughts and reasoning on this matter. He, like many, is simply incredulous that a Conservative party so demonstrably keen to deprive its citizens of fundamental human rights can be apparently ‘sweeping to victory’. Voters are not asking themselves the right questions – they’re too caught up in the polarised issue of EU membership to notice we’re actually on the brink of losing far far more, by virtue of this new ‘Anglo-American convergence’.

"The simple fact is, if enough people vote for Corbyn/Labour they will win. In fact there are enough people that did not vote at all in the last election to tip the scales decidedly. A Britain led by the SNP and Corbyn’s Labour would be drastically different – though still far from utopian, whatever that means – to what the Tories have in mind and have clearly told us they intend."

It really is that simple. ‘To be anti-Corbyn at this precise moment in time, is to effectively stand for something far worse’.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m beginning to think Akala should perhaps run for office himself. Few politicians communicate with his clarity. But in the mean time, this remarkably talented and eloquent activist makes it only too clear where he believes votes should go on June 8th. And that is to Jeremy Corbyn.

NUKES, BRIDGES AND WALLS... COULD ELABORATE LEGO-SETS BE THE ANSWER?

So Kim Jong-un wants to build nukes. Donald Trump wants to build a wall. And now Boris wants to build another bridge.

Anyone else think we just need to get these idiots some Lego?

The fact Johnson has ALREADY got a failed bridge project to his name, and in very recent times (the cancelled 'Garden Bridge' project and vast £37m wastage of taxpayer money), just proves the man is a straight-up buffoon who refuses to learn from his mistakes, with zero concern for what people in Britain actually need.

(As if more proof were required.)

It just fries my brain. The country is falling apart, our NHS is crumbling, we have the highest inequality in Europe, a social care crisis, people in work relying on foodbanks, our schools can't afford sodding books, and now Boris f**king Johnson wants to build a new 22 mile bridge across the Channel we don't even need.

Okay Boris. Because we didn't need a bridge (in addition to a tunnel) for all the decades of free-movement between the UK and France. But now that's gonna end, now it's gonna be a right pain in the keester and require border/passport checks for Brits to travel in Europe (and vice versa), yes... obviously an extra bridge will be needed. Just for the sheer volume of Brits rushing across for Euro-breaks; especially with our economy tanking and GBP worth less than toilet paper. Likewise, I'm sure Europeans are just dying to visit Little England in their droves, now they know they're about as welcome as syphilis.

Not to mention, I imagine putting 22 miles of concrete across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes might cause a few issues.

Honestly... what a dick.

These idiot boys with their toys are a liability. Please please can somebody put the adults back in charge now??

It's so hard to accept the state of the world today; it feels like it should all be a very bizarre dream, or some kind of wind-up.

HERE COMETH THE PURGE: IS THE FACEBOOK 'CLEAN-UP' CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION, OR CONCERN?

News just moves so damned fast nowadays.

In the UK we've had a cabinet reshuffle (after half of them quit), the resignation of Toby Young, an NHS crumbling before our eyes, Farage's suggestion of a second Brexit referendum, and in the U.S, a book about Trump, conflict with Bannon, natural disasters, 'stable genius-gate', and now the president just called every non-white country a shit-hole.

That was just the past few days.

Brexit, Trump, collusion with Russia, war with Korea, sanctions on Iran, ISIS, war in Syria, war in Yemen, war in Ukraine, travel bans, migrants, far-right rallies, fake news, mass shootings, social cleansing, institutionalised sexism, paedophile rings, the homelessness crisis, the NHS crisis, a looming financial crisis... it's all getting a bit much, isn't it?

It's hardly surprising many just want to close their eyes and ears to it - just to 'switch off'. But sadly, it's exactly when populaces do that, that the worst things are liable to be done in their name.

Has the world always been so frantic? Or does it just seem so because of the advance of social media technology, and the fact it's so much more in our faces? Are we just more acutely aware of what was always happening any way? The answer to the that is complex. Yes, probably... to a degree. Politics have always been toxic: it's just now we can all see it. But at the same time, only someone with their head truly buried in the sand could ever suggest there aren't major geopolitical changes taking place at present, or that things don't seem to be turning a little pear-shaped.

All the political division and bitter discourse of recent times has understandably caused many everyday people to resent politics, and more so, those 'political types' who insist on dragging misery into their 'perfect' social media worlds - where only shiny happy pictures are permitted, and boasts of all the wonderful things they're doing with their lives. In other words, those who are happy and secure in their lives (who need not worry about beastly 'politics') are fed up with being tainted by the unhappiness and frustrations of angry people, those less fortunate, and those demanding justice. Boo hoo. 

It seems Mark Zuckerberg agrees. Recent news reports slipped in among all the chaos state that Facebook is planning to do a major clamp-down on 'media and business posts', and to re-structure people's newsfeeds so they hear mostly from 'friends and family'. But amid talk of making the platform more 'friendly' and accessible, less noisy, there's a whispered undercurrent as to what this is all really about: the battle against 'fake news'.

The rise of the 'political celebrity'

Facebook has admittedly become quite an unpleasant place - but no more than Twitter I'd argue. Whereas Instagram is probably okay, as it seems a platform mostly designed for shallow grunting cave-people, who like to communicate with pictures.

Ironically, I daresay even the political ranters get very tired of so much ranting on Facebook. Becoming a 'political voice' is the new, more inclusive X-Factor: anyone can have a go.

It's a pattern that's dogged me my entire life to be fair, much to my frustration. I wanted to be a singer and musician when it was a fairly specialised vocation, next came reality TV, then everyone and their dog started thinking themselves a singer. I've watched the industry devolve into a saturated, shameless and vacuous mug's game as a result. Similarly, I've been writing and talking about politics on social media for ten years plus now while everyone else I knew was sharing cat videos; in the past two years I've seen more political blogs and political 'celebrities' spring up, commanding vast swathes of sycophants, than in the entirety of my time on social media before that.

Katie Hopkins, Paul Joseph Watson, Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos... and dozens more.

Strangely, I personally moaned for years that nowhere near enough people were paying attention, that more people should take an interest in politics. Careful what you wish for. Now I can't help but think too many cooks spoil the broth. And actually, now everybody is shouting, it was possibly better when the medium of political discussion was niche, unofficially reserved for those who genuinely closely follow current events (not just sound bites) and know what they're talking about. Look at the carnage that widespread ignorance has caused.

Baby out with the bath water

Objectively, that is what we'd hope Zuckerberg is trying to counteract. But there's a very real danger that the 'baby will be thrown out with the bath-water'. Our freedoms, particularly our internet freedoms and freedom of speech are incredibly fragile - and once they've been taken away, not only will they be incredibly hard to win back, but we've pretty much sealed our own fate.

One problem is that 'fake news', to most people any way, will be an entirely subjective concept. Ask anyone mainstream or on the right in the UK, and they'd point you in the direction of publications like The Canary. Ask anyone on the left, and they'd point out that publications like The Canary sprung up exactly to counteract right-wing propaganda and spin.

And it's exactly the ambiguity of the blanket term 'fake news' that's so frightening. It can literally mean absolutely anything the people in charge want it to describe. Those in charge of Facebook, the police, the government... THEY get to decide. Words can't really stress how dangerous that is, not least given the authoritarian turn our societies seem to be taking. We all gasp and jeer at leaders like Erdogan silencing the press and civil dissent in Turkey, but really, the same thing is happening in Britain - just more gradually, more subversively. Small piece at a time. Only a few days ago, I saw a Facebook user video showing a van load of UK police attending a union sanctioned strike, blocking and man-handling protesters. We ain't got Bobbies to police the streets, or to stem knife crime and acid attacks, but God forbid large companies in league with the government should lose out on profits. Meanwhile at the same time, they're proposing rounding up homeless people in Windsor to avoid unsightliness at the next royal wedding, and new scratchcards to gift the Queen a yacht.

The police in the UK and America are gradually becoming enforcers of corporatism, not the rule of law. A privatised police force, as prolific authors like Orwell predicted. If those same principles are applied to social media now (more so than they already are), we're in real trouble.

Upsetting the apple cart

What this is really about is that left-wing voices and ideologies are now heard. For a while, a good long while, the powers-that-be were unable to silence them. Political discourse and journalism were no longer merely the realm of cold, distant and passionless words - of facts and figures voiced by a disassociated clique, to whom small matters like poverty, starvation, war and injustice are just words in a conversation. Referenced as flippantly as anyone else might 'tea & cake'.

Emotions, passion, righteous anger... these are things most distasteful to the privileged and moneyed classes, who really just wish the plebs would shut-up.

The independent online journalism 'epidemic' really started with left-wing blogs and activists, mostly since 2010: when openly hard-line Conservative politics again took root in Britain. The left-wing started to fight-back. The wide availability of information meant that those who paid attention started recognising lies, and asking questions. They gained traction. Skip forward five years, we had a genuinely socialist leader of the Labour party in Jeremy Corbyn. Then, despite every effort of the right-wing and mainstream press to destroy him, the activists and independent left-wing press who championed him (of which I'd consider myself a very small part) almost upset the apple cart at the 2017 General Election.

The 'noise' has only ramped up in the last few years because the right-wing caught up. The likes of The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Express were losing their grip, so the same factions started making their presence felt on social media - perhaps even more effectively. The left and centre weren't at all ready for the level of callous dishonesty and unashamed manipulation they'd employ, which is how we ended up with Brexit, and Trump. The angry clash between the two parties on both sides of the Atlantic has been making one helluva din ever since, and social media insanely toxic.

'Woke' populations

It's hardly surprising that 'woke' populations, aware of the corruption rife among those supposedly governing in their interests, go hand in hand with civil unrest. It's a legitimate and justifiable response. It's also how humankind and civil rights made progress, mostly in the twentieth century - when rich men and dictators robbed millions of everyday people of their lives, in a grandiose game of chess. The free press and freedom of information played a big part in that progress, which in turn is now amplified beyond imagination by social media.

However, now the suggestion and general feeling is that instead of embracing truth and justice like we did in the past, being informed is actually a bad thing. No, we all need to go back to being 'ambivalent'. Eg: instead of visibly addressing widespread malcontent, the establishment's answer is to forcibly shut our eyes, and tell us not to care. To let them get on with it. 

Nor is it coincidence that it's happening precisely as we concurrently see the beginnings of assault on education and learning in Britain. Smart, well informed people rock the boat. (The French Revolution began in universities, after all.)

The real target

Social media news has certainly engaged younger generations in ways that newspapers always struggled. They generally only appealed to 'boring elites' in suits, and people looking for gossip and/or tits on page three. That youth engagement is incredibly dangerous to an establishment that actively relies on little people just accepting their lot in life, and not paying much attention.

If the wide availability of news and information on Facebook is shut-down, or at very least severely hamstrung, the right-wing press will survive. Rupert Murdoch will survive. Those who've always controlled the flow of information will survive. The large corporations who profit on misery will survive. Left-wing causes may not. It's a very deliberate step to silence the likes of The Canary, Evolve Politics, Sqwawk Box, Another Angry Voice, and also more 'respected' left-wing varieties like the Huffington Post, The Independent, and The New European. Not to mention little old blogs like mine too. Eg: those who rely on social media circulation. 

Yes a few publications like Westmonster and Media Guido might get taken down with us, but there's more than enough bile and spin to take their place. The BBC alone have probably got it covered. Social media news allows the populace to decide what's important and what's not: it interrupts the intended news cycle of what we're supposed to forget, or simply not notice. (Grenfell survivors, for example, would have been long forgotten without the advent of social media activism. And Toby Young would now be in office. Two drops in an ocean.)

So as much as many of us would prefer to rewind the clock, back to before the world chose insanity, and no-one cared too much for politics...back to when Facebook was just for funny videos and pictures of cats, please friends don't be too quick to condemn us to the potential darkness of ignorance and easy manipulation. The only 'clamp-down' should be upon those who disseminate false, unverified, and unsubstantiated material.

Because of course, the simply huge elephant in the room, is the only people who get political updates on Facebook any way, are those who've actively chosen to see them. Anyone who wants to clean up their timeline and/or bury their head in the sand, can already do so very easily.

What Zuckerberg, or those pulling his strings seem to be removing, is that very ability to choose. I'm not sure I can celebrate that.
 

PLEASE STOP HARPING ON ABOUT LIB DEM "BETRAYAL". BLAME THE ORGAN GRINDER, NOT THE MONKEY.

I just don't get it. It's infuriating. The same old lines about "betrayal", and how Lib Dems must never be trusted again. It's so absolutist, and so tiresome.

Let me break it down simply.

Dave and Nick rent a house together. Dave pays dramatically more of the rent than Nick and has a much higher regular income, but Nick has the initial lump sum to pay the deposit. Without Dave's greater income, never could Nick afford to live in that house, but without Nick, Dave can't quite get the house either. They both need it to get to work easily. So they do a deal.

Yes they play friendly and try to get along initially, compromise where possible, but the imbalance becomes very obvious very quickly. Nick later finds out Dave is a right bastard. Which one of them do you think gets final say in the house? Will Nick get any say in anything at all really, when Dave takes very obvious pleasure in pointing out he has all the money, and he pays all the bills?

No is the answer.

“The souls of emperors and cobblers are cast in the same mould. The same reason that makes us wrangle with a neighbour creates a war betwixt princes.”― Michel de Montaigne

What I'm trying to say, is the analogy of an everyday situation like a 'house share' possibly isn't as daft as it might first appear.

If you don't like that analogy, how about the Bible? Where does it say that if a party/person or organisation makes a mistake, they can categorically never be trusted again? Or their words should cease to carry any worth at all?

On the contrary, in the words of Jesus Christ, our (alleged) Lord and saviour:

"Let he without sin cast the first muthaf**king stone."

Okay, I may be paraphrasing slightly, but you get the point.

I refuse to bow to this idea we must all follow one party and/or leader blindly, rather than judging by the policies they propose and what physically comes out their mouths. That is tribalism, plain and simple.

Am I a fan of Tony Blair? No. Did I agree with his role in the Iraq war, or somehow condone it? Not in the slightest. Do I think he was virtually a Tory in disguise? Yes. (But hey, at least he was that now sorely missed breed of Tory who merely pursued wealth as the end-goal, as opposed to these hard-right ideological Tories we now face.)

However, do I also think he's saying some sensible things about Brexit, and the future of this country? Yes, yes I do. And I do sorely miss the days when a British statesman of gravitas could put Nigel Farage in his place, like this:

I know some people hate Blair, but I came across this of him giving Farage a good talking to in EU Parliament.

“You sit with our country’s flag. You do not represent our country’s interests. This is the year 2005, not 1945! We’re not fighting each other anymore”

Then came DC. pic.twitter.com/wHToTsEyk6

— Damon Evans (@damocrat) January 9, 2018

As much as I support Corbyn in many regards, certainly his ethics, I shall not be sucked into refusing to acknowledge what other reasonable and pragmatic people have to say, labelling them "scum" and "traitors" etc on account of mistakes made by former leaders, back before Brexit was even an issue. It's senseless.

Though in fairness, Lib-Dem supporters and many ardent remainers are just as rude and dismissive about Corbyn too. It's just such a bloody mess, and very depressing.

Meanwhile the Brexiters and far-right are cackling, rolling around in the spoils of our demise. 

Suing the doorman

It's just so bizarre. Some Labour supporters apparently hate the Lib Dems and resent them so much, and vice versa, they're both effectively willing to give a free pass to the party that physically caused all the woes! Like suing the doorman, rather than the owner of the company that screwed you.

It seems to me that reasonable western populaces needs to wake up sharpish, and remember the meaning of 'compromise'. To take stock of the fact that sometimes those we disagree with, or even oppose, might have a point and be right about some things. We need to stay talking, acknowledging shades of grey; not become polarised into two teams of mortal enemies on single principles alone. That way lies ruin.

The minute you stop listening to someone on account of who they are or something they once did, as opposed to the merit of what they say, you're in very shady and prejudiced territory. Prejudice never benefits an informed or rational analysis. Ever.

DEAR LUVVIE FRIENDS WORKING IN MUSICAL THEATRE, PLEASE LIGHTEN UP A TAD?

I must admit to being slightly amused by various friends and former colleagues in Musical Theatre being up-in-arms about an article in The Guardian yesterday, where writer Stuart Heritage lays into the genre in admittedly, quite brutal fashion:

It's probably no coincidence that I really liked it! The success of Frankie Boyle's writing for The Guardian has obviously rubbed off here. And I say bravo.

"Maybe we’ll get to see a musicless version of Cats, where some cats introduce themselves and then nothing else happens."

That genuinely made me laugh out loud.

Luvvie friends, please. It's clearly a comic article, pitched in the most insulting way possible for comic effect. A style I'm rather partial to myself. Please please ditch the outrage.

A lot of people hate musicals, deal with it. For those who do, this piece is undeniably rather funny. Similarly, anyone who likes musicals is not going to stop going to see them or suddenly start hating them as a result of this chap sharing his opinion. Are former colleagues really suggesting that a writer shouldn't be free to take the mick, or publish his/her thoughts on a very much Marmite art-form? Really? And on account of what...their sense of personal offence?

Dare I say, the overreaction seems a tad 'snowflakey'.

Whereas that's normally a jeer by the soulless right-wing to describe anyone with the vaguest sense of compassion or decency, in this instance, I'd have to say it does actually demonstrate the derisory 'limp and weak' qualities they mock. I don't think it helps the perceived 'liberal' cause or credibility, being brutally honest.

On a personal note, even my partner Lucy and I - who both trained in Musical Theatre at one of the country's top drama schools and even knew perhaps fifty percent of the supporting cast - could not sit through the Les Miserables film. Sorry guys.

The truth is, we turned it off after twenty minutes. It was genuinely traumatic; the equivalent of audio-visual self-harm. Director Tom Hooper's decision to have the cast over-act like they were on stage, and glower down the camera lens singing, was truly one of the most horrific things I've ever witnessed on celluloid.

"Do you hear the people sing?" Yes. In fact I still have nightmares about it.

MY PLEA TO VINCE CABLE & THE LIB DEMS: "DITCH THE SMEAR, AND KNOW YOUR ENEMY".

Dear Vince Cable, and the Liberal Democrats.

This morning, I encountered this video from you on social media:



I have a few things to say about it, and hope someone from the party might pay them heed.

I am a swing Labour/Lib Dem voter. And I've also written for two of the publications that unequivocally helped Corbyn garner support in the UK against considerable odds - those supposedly odious and untrustworthy publications The Canary, and Evolve Politics. I eventually parted company with them for a number of reasons, but partially because of my inclination for the centre ground, the Lib Dems, and my preference for more moderate centre-ground politics. (Not to mention I follow policies, not a cult of celebrity.)

I've written pieces that defended the Lib Dems, and Nick Clegg specifically, that have often literally alienated me from Labour supporters, and one even got me blocked by Momentum members.

So please believe me when I say, as someone who supports you, this sort of social media campaigning is remarkably lack-lustre, and simply won't cut it in modern day political discourse. Not in Britain in 2018. You need to be fighting a battle for the soul of this country. There is a war for hearts and minds occurring, in case you hadn't noticed! A cutesy little piano 'Maple Leaf Rag' and a demeaning pic of the opposition leader, with a list of supposedly awful things he did, is really quite a shocking effort.

In short... ditch the smear, and know your enemy??

For God's sake, please focus on what the Tories have done wrong, the countless ways they've ravaged our country, and the things you'd do to save our necks. You need to realise that Corbyn now, bizarrely, really is like Obi-Wan Kenobi... the more you try to strike him down, the more powerful he will become.

I think you also may need some 'big-guns' willing to help you properly engage in this social media war. Someone not afraid to cut to the nub of issues in fairly frank fashion, to tug on heart-strings. (Someone like me, and I'm available by the way.) People may want gentler, more humanist politics in the UK, but they're getting increasingly angry about their absence, and sometimes you need to fight for decency. Scoring points that are small-fry, the politics of inter-party bickering:...the British people are bored of it, it's not what they want to hear. The Tories too were snooty about independent online/grass-roots journalism and its effects, and it nearly cost them the election in 2017. Now they've wised up, and are getting in on the act too. The Lib Dems need to as well, if they are to have any hope to survive.

I've been a Lib Dem voter all of my life; only in recent times have I swung and supported Labour. I support most of Corbyn's policies in truth, other than his position on Europe and defence, but more than anything, I recognise he is a good man. That is why your smear tactics will inevitably fail. (As did Murdoch's and Dacre's.) I also recognise Labour are in an impossible situation: if they come out clearly against Brexit, we WILL have a Tory Brexit, of that there is no doubt. Corbyn walks a precarious path. While there is ambiguity, both remainers and leavers have a reason to vote for Corbyn: opposition to the Tories. They are forced to judge on factors other than Brexit. Take that away, and sit back and watch support for the Tories spike beyond recognition, and maybe even the return of UKIP.

You guys really need to stop scoring points, and start making allies of one another. Along with the Greens, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru... anyone and anything to stop this Tory coup of Britain. SO many people are praying for it to happen; I wish the Lib Dems and Labour would see it.

Yours faithfully,

Alex McNamara

MUSIC TODAY: ROCK STARS SUING POP STARS FOR PLAGIARISING SONGS THEY PLAGIARISED

It's nice to talk about something other than politics occasionally.

Although I suppose, if one were intent on being a real pedant, everything we talk about and discuss are 'politics' of some variety. Even the porn industry doubtlessly has its politics. Though admittedly, you're less likely to find them discussed in The Sunday Times.

Rock star sues pop star

I read this morning that Radiohead are suing Lana Del Ray for ripping off their song 'Creep': a song I happen to know rather well, and loved dearly as a kid. Apparently Ms Ray's song 'Get Free' was more than a bit reminiscent of the Oxford-born misery-peddlers' original masterpiece. But that's not something we're unaccustomed to today, is it?

As a man approaching thirty-nine, I can safely say the ageing process brings with it select joys, such as nasal hair, random strands sprouting from your ears, aching joints, and the inability to walk up stairs without farting. But also a keen ear for popular music that's been ripped off by whippersnappers.

Musical plagiarism is something I'm torn about. I trained as a musician for the entirety of my childhood education and beyond; I'd also say my musical tastes are pretty eclectic by anyone's standards. And as any self-respecting music fan would probably have to acknowledge, nearly everyone has borrowed something from someone else. I remember the day I discovered one of Andrew Lloyd Webber's most iconic theme tunes - 'The Phantom of the Opera' motif - was nicked pretty much directly from Pink Floyd's 'Echoes': it was quite a revelation, and one I hadn't expected.

But listening to other musicians is how budding musicians develop and grow. Hell, it's how most things develop! It's called progress. Houses and buildings constructed today are built upon the architecture of previous generations. Cars today are based on older ones that originated in the early Twentieth Century. It's a very natural order for things. The saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" holds true in many situations, not least in music. And I'd generally hate to think that any musician or author should hold rights to a good chord progression simply because they got there first; there's only so many physically possible for a start.

'Self determined'

The other thing is, not all musicians are songwriters - some don't possess that gift, and/or instead follow careers as performers, performing the work of others. For some reason this is perfectly acceptable if you're a classical or jazz musician, performing the works of Bach or Miles Davis, but if you choose more recent popular music... still in living memory, there's often a peculiar snobbery about it. Especially in the UK. I know. I sang in the number-one 'tribute band' in the world for five years, selling out arenas and theatres worldwide...outselling even 'legitimate' bands I loved growing up - something that often astounded me. But there was still always that stigma of being 'cheap knock-offs' in Britain - where we as a population are generally spoiled, self-entitled, overly hostile, critical of those with talents far exceeding our own, and keen to put down anyone and everyone we can.

Sorry. What I mean to say is, we're 'self determined'.

The point is, I'm not averse to musical ideas being re-formed and rebranded. In fact I rather enjoy it - in fact I possibly feel slightly smarter for being able to recognise the influences! So I was certainly rather shocked to read Radiohead are demanding 100% of the royalties from Lana Del Ray's song, 'Get Free'. That seemed a bit extreme. If Ed Sheeran can get away with re-writing/releasing TLC's 'No Scrubs' under the name 'The Shape Of You' - and be on top of the charts for a whole frickin' year - how badly could Lana have ripped off 'Creep'?

Then I listened on Spotify. Wow. Fair play. As shameless plagiarism as it comes. Bad Lana.

It's one thing to borrow an element of a well known song... a motif, a rhythm, a chord progression, even a lyric.... quite another to literally 'borrow' the exact same chord progression for the entirety of the song and the same structure, not acknowledge the theft, then pass it off as entirely your own. Lana's vocal line in 'Get Free' is very different, but it's unmistakably 'Creep' underneath.

Very bad Lana. Or so I thought.

Taking the piss

Keen to share positively anything worth discussing on social media that's NOT politics related these days (I'm keen to hold on to the few remaining friends I have), and knowing a fairly plentiful pool of musicians, I thought it was worth a sardonic post.

Lo and behold... literally moments later, a couple of friends corrected me - pretty much schooling my own musical knowledge. Musical education never ends; it's a beautiful thing.

It turns out that 'Creep' by Radiohead itself was an incredibly blatant plagiarism of another famous, older song. A song that somehow, until now, had escaped me - called 'The Air That I Breathe' (no, not the Simply Red version) by The Hollies. And that Radiohead themselves were apparently sued for exactly the same thing by the song's composers Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood!

Again, I had a listen. (From the consumer point of view, admit it, Spotify is great.)

If anything, the plagiarism is even more striking. Lana, or her production team, nicked the chords and wrote her own soulful vocal tune to go over the top. Radiohead nicked the chords and the vocal melody!

That makes the whole situation entirely ridiculous. You can't sue someone for plagiarising what you've obviously already plagiarised?! That's like doing a caricature of the Mona Lisa, then complaining someone else has done their own.

I do have admiration for Radiohead. No one paints musical despair and angst quite like those chaps, and it's often quite beautiful. A healthy respect for them too, given their support of the fight for justice for Scott Johnson: the drum technician tragically killed in Canada in 2012. But come on guys... haranguing a young pop star for nicking a song you already nicked is frankly taking the piss. Take it as a compliment and move on. You're rich enough, you're still making money from music today, and hypocrisy is a truly ugly trait.

They could have even been really cool, and offered to do some kind of mash-up.

One can't help but think of all the problems the world is facing at present, the vast fortunes both Radiohead and Lana Del Ray have amassed. The people struggling even to eat, or keep a roof over their heads. The doubtlessly exorbitant court costs and lawyer's fees incurred by the law suit, or the resources it will occupy instead of worthy causes and situations crying out for justice. And it leaves rather a sour taste.

On a lighter note, I now understand why every generation typically grumbles about the music of those later, complaining "it's all been done before".

It really has.

HOW THE HELL DID TOBY YOUNG GET HIS "D**K UP THE ARSE" OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRITAIN??

It's funny. I'm often forced to reflect on the ways I've adversely affected my own performing career through political writing in recent years, and my inclination for rather frank discussion. I couldn't even hazard a guess how many hours I've worried myself silly, thinking about the people I've alienated, how many friends have turned their back, or the number of doors that have slammed shut because of it. It keeps me awake at night; I live with that legacy every day.

Which is why I am so utterly confounded and bemused, so entirely outraged, that concurrently individuals like Toby Young - the new Tory 'minister for universities' - experience literally the exact opposite.

Frogmarched out the door

I was physically sacked in mid 2017 by an organisation called 'Rock Choir' as a choir leader, the instant they found out about my writing and political activism - more specifically, my left-wing activism and support for Jeremy Corbyn. No exaggeration to say I was literally frogmarched out the door without any justification, or even an opportunity to protest. And all because the night before, at the end of an unpaid training week, I'd suggested I use a different name for my work with them - so not to cause the company any unwanted complications with my writing for Evolve Politics at the time. I was trying to be pragmatic, and to do the right thing!

At that stage their CEO, Caroline Redman Lusher, and/or Rock Choir's leadership team went away and checked out my online material. I was let go within fifteen minutes of arriving the next morning, no reason given other than "I was not the sort of person they wanted working for them".

Then the company had the gall to threaten me with legal action, should I dare to speak out about their treatment of me, or report/speculate why they literally sacked me overnight. They warned they would be 'monitoring me' (quote). Sadly I don't generally respond well to threats and intimidation. My late mum brought me up to believe you should never fear telling the truth, and that's the mantra I live by.

So if anyone from Rock Choir is reading this, tough titty: your company's conduct was nothing short of disgusting; I'm not afraid to say it.

Worse still, they're the tip of the iceberg in Britain today. The year before that, after leaving Aussie Floyd, I went to work for a year in the car industry. And if you wanna learn firsthand a thing or two about exploitation, and working like a slave on minimum wage for horrid and often quite ignorant/bigoted people, I highly recommend it.

One rule for some  

But let alone having their careers negatively affected by controversial (and arguably distasteful) opinions they've aired in the public sphere, commentators like Toby Young actively go from strength to strength. They're now, albeit incomprehensibly, being appointed to government.

The difference? They're supported and backed by the right people.

Even when they've said things so horrid, infantile and outlandish... things that would never even occur to a horrible, supposedly 'militant leftie' (like me) to say in a public space. Things like this:

That is the Tories' new minister for universities, Britain. Breathe a deep breath of pride.

There's a veritable treasure trove of this stuff out there; not a flash in the pan. Toby Young has been playing to the misogynistic 'moneyed boys club' for quite some time. Years in fact. He's a younger, balder, Nigel Farage.

We've already seen the repercussions in America of politicians who believe that sort of sordid and disrespectful 'locker-room talk' is acceptable, and even desirable. I'm sure Toby would get on very well with President Trump. They'd no doubt enjoy grabbing pussies together. And sadly, Young's appointment is unequivocally a symptom of this Anglo-American 'alignment' of right-wing values we're currently experiencing in Britain. Eg: it's okay to be a vile bigoted thug espousing divisive and repellent things, as long as you're conceived to stand for the right demographic (no pun intended).

But of all departments, to assign such a misogynistic and odious thug (albeit one with a degree and a posh accent) to effectually represent Britain's universities: the revered institutions of learning and culture that truly once made Britain great?? Well...it's just an insult. And given the recent assault on Britain's higher education institutions by The Daily Mail and other right-wing entities, simply for challenging the Tory coup that is Brexit Britain, we should all be really rather concerned. 

It's barely a stretch to now foresee this Tory government appointing Katie Hopkins as minister for journalism, Tommy Robinson as minister for Islamic relations, or Gary Glitter as minister for schools.

Tip of the iceberg

Maybe we could forgive Toby Young for acting like a teenage boy discovering his first boner, if the ideals and 'virtues' he stood for were nobler and more responsible. Sadly, the truth could not be any more different. He is a veritable beacon and neon-flashing warning sign as to the type of people we are allowing governance of Britain today. 

The fact he was appointed on the very first day of 2018 (perhaps the Tories hoped Britain was hungover and would fail to notice), could hardly be a more depressing omen.

Let's start off with the fact he's grotesquely ill-qualified. He literally knows nothing and has no experience of working in education. He's a journalist, or rather, to coin the description by Lynn Barber writing for The Guardian in 2006:

"a shameless publicist the world loves to loathe, who crashed and burned as a New York journalist, a London playwright and a Hollywood screenwriter."

I won't simply repeat everything that's already been reported by left-wing press (eg: independent online publications mostly). Tom Pride has done a lot of the work for me, if you'd like to cross-reference.

But suffice to say Toby Young - the new minister for universities - did not get into Oxbridge on merit, but instead because his family were well-off and moved in the right circles. They were able to manipulate (eg: bribe) the system. He then later made outlandish comments that 'working class' students who got into Oxbridge on actual merit, were 'ugly' and effectively 'lowered the tone'. 

Bad enough? Nope. He's also actively argued that making provisions for disabled students in schools is "ghastly political correctness", and openly suggested that a student with physical impairments will also likely have an impaired mind. Ergo, they are holding back the development of other more 'worthwhile' students. 

Yeah... go fuck yourself Stephen Hawking.

Viable use of resources

Young's task bequeathed by the Tories is to turn Britain's universities into a soulless cash-making machine. As we know, disabled people usually need society's help and support - they're not generally a cash-cow to be exploited, so it's hardly surprising he doesn't see them as a viable use of resources.

In fact, what Young really prides himself as supporting is 'progressive eugenics'. The definition of which is "the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans".

If that doesn't send a cold shiver up your spine, allow me to explain why it should. The last government that openly and unapologetically supported theories of 'eugenics' was a little known group called 'the Nazis'. In fact, Hitler's book Mein Kampf - 'my struggle' - was in part his accounting for how and why eugenics should be incorporated into Germany. His dream of a perfect Aryan 'master-race', and by implication, how we should go about removing all those who don't make the grade - a process later referred to as 'the Final Solution'.

The same 'Final Solution' that killed off my own father's family, because they were 'undesirable' Jews living in 1930s Austria. So you know what? I'll be damned if I'll stand by and say nothing, watching the beginnings of this play out in Britain. I don't frickin' care how many jobs or prospects I lose in the process. 

A nation does not turn to fascism overnight; it happens in stages - a palatable chunk at a time. A population that didn't challenge the last 'small change of policy' is very unlikely to challenge the next one... or the next, or the next. It's how Nazi Germany went from mere 'self-determination' to gas chambers, all in the space of a decade.

Toby Young is a big chunk. If we swallow this, God knows what's coming next. But one such eventuality I do sadly hypothesise is the fall of the NHS in Britain: something that will kill millions of people long term, and force countless more into poverty over generations. 

But hey...that's just part of the 'eugenic' theory of 'natural selection', isn't it? Survival of the fittest. Or the richest, at any rate. Pieces of a puzzle.

Men and women of my country. Please please wake the hell up to what's going on, before it's too late. 

Oh, and Happy New Year.