jacob-harger

[jacob-harger]

“Devoid of any commitment to liberty”: How the CRG’s condemnation of the PM’s COVID-19 policy misses the point

Liberty. It’s a word we hear a lot in politics, usually in the context of it being defended from some perceived threat, and rarely with regards to a situation where it really is under attack. It’s beyond ironic that in the week that saw the House of Commons vote against legislation that would allow the High Court to determine whether a country was engaged in genocide in order to prohibit trade deals with it, an internal message from Steve Baker to the COVID Recovery Group (CRG) accusing the government of not having “any commitment to liberty” in its Coronavirus strategy surfaced. Baker, the mastermind of the ERG which sought to represent the hard brexiteer wing of the Conservative party, apparently saw no irony in criticising the government for its lack of interest in liberty, even as he supported its stance essentially to ignore the grave attack on Uighur liberties taking place in China, as to acknowledge it would compromise Britain’s ability to strike trade deals post-Brexit. It would appear that Baker is just as uncommitted to liberty as he argues the government’s pandemic policies are. It doesn’t matter that millions of Uighurs and other minorities are being identified, rounded up, and reportedly tortured and sterilised, because the good people of Britain are being kept indoors all day and only allowed out for a jog or to go to the shop, and that of course is a far graver assault on liberty than the fate of ethnic minorities, under a one-party dictatorship, on the other side of the world. 

The CRG did largely support the latest round of government restrictions, in light of the emergence of a new, far more infectious strain of the virus in December, but as with all previous restrictions, have warned the government of the need to outline a roadmap out of them, keen to stress that their support is by no means guaranteed in future votes. Following the emergence of the internal message, despite explicitly arguing for Boris Johnson’s position to be considered at risk if their concerns were not heard, Baker issued a statement in support of the PM on Twitter, perhaps an indication that he realised the political toxicity of proposing an internal power struggle over the need to ease restrictions whilst daily death tolls were in excess of a thousand. Yet, this won’t be the last time that the idea of liberty is leveraged as a way of criticising the government’s COVID policies. More dangerously, it taps into the sentiments of fringe conspiracy groups on both sides of the political spectrum which see COVID as a hoax, are sceptical of the vaccine, and instead believe they are witnessing the formation of some kind of fascist dictatorship. These groups urge people to be sceptical of what they read and hear, instead sharing disinformation through social media in a phenomenon that could be described as the UK strain of a disinformation pandemic which has been devastating the political fabric of the US for some time. To have politicians with the kind of undeniable influence as Steve Baker, owing to his position at the helm of these factions of disgruntled Tory backbenchers, mirroring the language of these fringe groups in his attacks on government health policy is not just thoughtless, but irresponsible. By framing their critiques in the terminology of liberty and freedom, MPs will only further the cause of those outside mainstream politics who have been arguing that these are the things under attack by a ‘hoax’ pandemic. Spending as much time on social media over the last year we all have, it’s become unavoidable that there are an uncomfortably significant number of individuals who, to differing degrees, have expressed views that vary from mild scepticism to absolute denial toward COVID-19. Ideas of protecting liberty and freedom therefore don’t just give ammunition to extreme fringe views, but also feed into a more common sentiment that COVID isn’t serious enough to warrant draconian measures - something which was also fed enormously by both the Eat Out to Help Out scheme and the disastrous tier system which respectively disarmed and fragmented the public’s view of the pandemic. 

However, not only does this obsession with grand ideas of liberty under siege undermine the counter-COVID effort by feeding into both disinformation and apathy, it also totally misses the crux of the problem with the government’s haphazard response to the crisis. Baker’s message gets close to the problem but fails to really engage with it when he writes that “nothing seems more certain to break the public than giving hope before taking it away, and doing it repeatedly.” This is absolutely true; the EOTHO scheme and accompanying relaxed messaging from the government about the virus over the summer was quite literally an exercise in behavioural science, designed to disarm the population sufficiently that they would go out, spend money and revitalise the ailing economy, especially the particularly decimated hospitality industry. The argument was that, so long as social distancing was enforced and changes made to how hospitality premises functioned, the sector could be saved from the brink and the economy could begin to heal. It worked - millions of us went out and relished the opportunity to recover a bit of normality which had been so sorely missed in the preceding months. It was easy to ignore voices of concern that the NHS was still facing an unparalleled winter crisis when you could catch up with friends over a half-price meal out at your favourite restaurant. It was, with hindsight, a strategy which instilled a false sense of optimism that proved difficult to withdraw from when, just as had been predicted by scientists for some time, cases began to rise again in the autumn. It also goes some way toward explaining why the government clung onto a ridiculous tier system for so long: both consumers and businesses were understandably unwilling to let go of the freedoms they had been granted earlier by the government. 

Fast forward to the third national lockdown on the back of two periods of tiered restrictions, and it can safely be assumed that, in Baker’s words, the public has indeed been broken. Yet that’s not simply because they have been robbed of their freedoms, but rather because of the chaotic way in which restrictions have been put in place. The government used the grace period during the summer to encourage us into a new normal rather than highlighting its temporary nature sufficiently, and in the meantime totally failed to build effective infrastructure for contact tracing or mass testing which would have substantially cushioned the transition to the challenges posed by the coming winter. Even as it became clear following the emergence of a new variant prior to Christmas that drastic measures were required to save lives, the government believed it more important to give people the hope of spending Christmas with their loved ones (a luxury it didn’t afford numerous other religious holidays prior), than to act decisively based on the grave dangers it knew faced the country. The consequence has been death tolls that dwarf the first wave at precisely the worst moment for the NHS, which has been thrown into crisis as hospitals countrywide reach capacity.

So yes, Steve Baker is right, the country’s spirit has arguably been broken, but not because it’s been robbed of its liberty, but because as he points out it has time and time again been given false hope which has been nurtured by a government unwilling to take decisive action until events overtake it. However, when he seeks guarantees that a lockdown won’t be on the cards next winter, and that the government should have a clear roadmap out of the current restrictions in the spring, Baker and the CRG are a part of the very problem they are seeking to address, pursuing an optimistic narrative of relaxed restrictions at the earliest opportunity at the very same time as thousands are paying for a prior false sense of hope with their lives. This is the crux of the problem with the government’s COVID strategy, but it is something that the CRG’s obsession with liberty at all costs has helped happen. 

[jacob-harger]

COVID & Clubbing: How Coronavirus has allowed the Tories to pricetag culture

COVID-19 has - unless you’re in the 1% of course - been, to varying degrees damaging to all our lives whether directly through sharply rising unemployment or indirectly through the mental impact of our previous day-to-day existence becoming something dangerous and unpalatable. Millions have suffered, and based on the government’s unfathomably negligent policymaking, will continue to over the coming months. Faced with the plurality of issues facing the UK therefore, it might seem remiss to focus on one area as particularly suffering during the crisis: the so-called ‘nighttime economy.’ Of course, if we were to prioritise our concerns based on the government’s concerns, then clubbing would be in last place. Despite persistently replying to every plea from the live music industry with a blasé response that the government was providing emergency funding to businesses and that the furlough scheme was ensuring continued incomes for individuals during the crisis, the reality was that clubs were for some time ineligible for cultural funding. Equally, musicians, ¾ of whom are self-employed, were like most self-employed individuals left out in the cold faced with minimal government support. 

Following a sustained and widely supported campaign, Let Us Dance, led by and supported by both significant individuals and companies involved in the UK’s nightlife, the government finally committed to including clubs as recipients of £257m of the £1.57bn Cultural Recovery Fund package. However following the commencement of payments earlier this month, only a handful of clubs received support, and the list of recipients was dominated by London, and to a lesser extent Manchester. Some of the largest recipients included Ministry of Sound which scooped up £975,468, Studio Spaces (owner of E1) with £500,000, and controversially, music journalism and ticket vendor Resident Advisor with £750,000. Smaller venues were not completely forgotten, with spaces such as Electrowerkz, The Glory and M.O.T. also receiving funds. Of course, there are numerous notable absences, whether in the form of Queer spaces in the capital, or of course clubs equally in peril outside of London or other major cities. Even in the capital, established locations such as Printworks, Studio 338 and Egg were denied money. Printworks makes for a particularly concerning example, not least as the venue is a clear example of how intertwined clubs are with freelance workers: it employed 34,000 of them last year. If even these established and household names can’t attract government funding, it doesn’t leave much hope for smaller venues with smaller profit margins and smaller audiences. More money is in the pipeline over the coming weeks, so it is too early to judge whether the distribution of funding is fair and effective. However, it is important to note that applicants to the scheme were not just required to demonstrate their importance as cultural institutions, but also that they were financially viable pre-pandemic. It is this second criteria that not only demonstrates the soulless, calculating approach the Tory government has inflicted on culture but also that taps into issues that have plagued club culture, particularly in the capital, for far longer than the last year. 

Quietly over the last 15 years or so there has been a subtle transition from references to club culture toward a far more insidious term: the nighttime economy. The commercialisation of the arts has a history that stretches back decades, and spans many different artforms: art itself is the most dramatic example. However, for a space that was in its origins so vocally committed to the levelling of individuals, escapism, and freedom of expression as the nightclub, this transition should be especially troubling. Long before the pandemic, rising ticket prices were freezing out the very people that club culture was designed to bring in, and smaller venues that bravely attempted to buck the trend and pursue a more authentic vision of inclusivity were being closed down to make way for flats that, thanks to London’s soaring house market, were far more profitable for landlords and investors than noisy hedonistic clubs whose existence rebelled against their profit-driven perspective of the world. Inclusivity gave way to VIP culture as the same inequality that people fled to the club from found its way into those very spaces. Gentrification and the sterilisation of culture that it brings with it is a familiar story to anyone living in London, and increasingly across any UK city, as vibrant and expressive collective individuality is steamrolled by a constant influx of cold, indifferent money. This is an old story, but in many ways what the pandemic has done is exacerbate and possibly catalyse this narrative. The government’s criteria that nightclubs be financially viable as an enterprise automatically betrays the lack of government interest in meaningfully sustaining culture. There are numerous spaces, in London and beyond, that have consistently prioritised their cultural contribution over their financial viability. Numerous spaces that promote underground music, provide safe spaces for marginalised communities, or provide a platform to young creatives have already struggled against the odds to eke out a continued existence in the capital - and of course, many have lost that battle. Yet now more than ever, the government is pursuing a policy of pricing up those cultural institutions, and those spaces which don’t price up right have been left to fend for themselves. It’s not exactly surprising that a Conservative government is continuing its longstanding policy of suppressing and delegitimising youth culture; after all, similar repression defined club culture in its infancy. However, over the last two decades countless individuals and collectives have striven to establish spaces, against the odds, that not only celebrate youth culture but also provide refuge for marginalised groups from governments that claim to act in their best interests but consistently prove otherwise. The perseverance of these spaces against immense pressure has been part of what has made them so special, so vital and has also contributed to London’s truly unique cultural output, recognised globally. The Tories want to talk about London as a global financial hub, but young people the world over see a global cultural hub, and that is in no small part thanks to exactly the kinds of spaces which, in refusing to bow to commercialisation, have served as beacons of authentic cultural diversity and inclusion. These are exactly the places that are directly threatened by the government’s policies.

Of course, we’re all complicit in this price-tagging of culture, in embracing the ‘nighttime economy.’ Popular Instagram posts that circulated in support of funding for arts and culture predominantly sought to leverage the financial value of these sectors. The Let Us Dance campaign also sought to leverage its financial value front and center in its campaign, in an effort to prove its ‘worth’. Of course, this is done with the absolute best of intentions, and you can easily see why faced with the immediacy of the emergency facing these institutions, playing by the Tories’ rules in the short-term is an effective and sensible strategy. However, it points to a problem that has deep roots. Moreover, the price-tagging of nightlife distracts attention from the vital cultural ecosystems that these places are both participants in and pillars of. Recent research by Help Musicians UK revealed that 55% of musicians had earned no money since the onset of the pandemic, a troubling sign that without venues to act as platforms, not only musicians but the variety of auxiliary staff needed to execute live music events are really struggling. With the government set to supply just 20% of self-employed individuals’ wages moving forward, an already dire situation appears set to become even worse. 

All this points to the way in which venues, particularly nightclubs, operate as far more than simply venues. Apart from being invaluable communal spaces for groups which aren’t as easily able to congregate in different locations, nightclubs are vital to the electronic music scene. Aspiring young producers, by sharing demos with established DJs, often find their first proper exposure on the dancefloor. DJs looking to initially establish themselves on the scene hone mixtapes to distribute to venues. Promoters, at their best, refine concepts that tie together producers, DJs and communities in one place to create memorable and unique nights. A quick google of advice for young DJs looking to kickstart a career reveals that the unanimously advised best option is to get down into the clubs, to build networks and to persist in the search for an opportunity to get behind the decks. COVID-19 has rendered that completely impossible, and whilst the internet offers a great platform for established DJs to continue to connect with their audiences in a different environment, what is lost is that opportunity for lesser known DJs to demonstrate their capabilities, in the warm-up slots for example that have served as a key means for up-and-coming DJs to make a name for themselves. Producers continue to create productions, and DJs at all stages of their careers continue to mix and refine their skill, but for those lower on the ladder, having these venues taken away has cut off their means of climbing the ladder. Those higher up can at least, via live streaming, radio or simply self-releasing, continue to promote themselves with an eye on bookings for when, if ever, we can return to something resembling normalcy. Therefore it is perhaps not overdramatic to hear of several top DJs share their concerns of a lost cohort of talent going forward, a situation that would only worsen the longer this situation lasts.

Of course, this situation is not easily addressed, and individuals as well groups associated with nightlife will no doubt have to be creative in finding solutions - and no doubt they will be. However, it does demonstrate the particularly acute difficulty facing artists and DJs associated with electronic music, part of the far more systematic problem facing the UK’s creative art and cultural scene as a whole during this period. What it also demonstrates is that nightclubs are far more than simply businesses, something lost on a Conservative government that conditions its support foremost on economic viability. Alarmingly they also are supplying funding allegedly on the condition that venues which do accept grants are required to post positively about receiving that funding on social media channels. This disturbing development only reinforces an image of a Tory government leveraging financial support as a means to enforce cultural conformity, as well as to project an image, falsely, that the government is meaningful about supporting culture.

As noted before, it’s still early days for the grant program, and how fairly distributed funding will be is something that will become clearer over the coming weeks. However, the initial signs are worrying, with the criteria for and conditions of accepting grants suggesting that the government is more interested in preserving commercially viable culture than in really engaging with affected communities to ensure that the spaces that act as their second homes are able to make it through the pandemic, no matter how viable a business they may be. For a government that never ceases to surpass our expectations of its incompetence and cold indifference toward the population at large, the grant scheme for nightclubs just serves as another example. But for the marginalised groups and musicians who had already been fighting against the odds to survive in a gentrified London, the potential for the government’s policy to do lasting damage to their world is very real.