#i place a large part of the blame for these riots on the bbc for giving farage so much excessive coverage

[gayforcarstairsgirls]

The English Dickhead League can go fuck themselves

[invisibleicewands]

The BBC’s new three-part drama The Way is Michael Sheen’s directorial debut. It has been nearly a decade in gestation, this story of civil unrest fermenting in Sheen’s Welsh home town of Port Talbot – cradle of militant unionism and symbol of working-class fury and pride. It has been created with writer James Graham (Brexit: The Uncivil War, Quiz, Sherwood) and – slightly more unusually, documentary auteur Adam Curtis.

The opening episode is something so different and fresh that even if you can’t say you’re actively enjoying it (though I was), the power and ambition of it all, the unashamed idiosyncrasy that permeates the direction, the allusiveness of the narrative and its slightly dreamlike (or nightmarish) off-kilter quality surely makes you sit up and take notice. It has a clear, accessible narrative at its heart, for sure, but the sensibility is rare and all its own.

It’s a tale of civil discontent, sparked by the death of a youngster in a vat of molten slag at the steelworks and his father’s self-immolation – in grief, in protest, in some unspeakable combination of the two – thereafter. The union blames management and decades of underinvestment. Management offers to reline a furnace, a sop to the emotion of the moment, rather than a recognition of needs. “We didn’t realise we were buying a mood,” says one of the new investors, with a combination of bafflement and frustration.

The unfurling of the unrest plays out for the viewer mostly through the long-established local Driscoll family. The late paterfamilias was a committed striker in the 80s, the failure of which terrible feat of suffering and endurance is largely blamed by the family for his death. His son Geoff (the stalwart Steffan Rhodri, last seen in the excellent Men Up at the end of last year) takes an approach to communicating with the bosses that is more pragmatic/conciliatory/weak/treacherous – delete according to political proclivities. He is separated from his wife and family for reasons that become clear over the succeeding episodes, as does the specific bad blood between his son, benzos addicts and petty dealer Owen (Callum Scott Howells), and his police officer daughter Thea (Sophie Melville).

As the internet is shut down within the town, tensions rise, curfews are imposed and riots between townsfolk and police start to break out. The Driscolls become the police – and the media – scapegoats for it all, and are eventually forced, along with Owen’s eastern European girlfriend, Anna (Maja Laskowska), to flee their home and their town.

Threaded through this growing but none-too-incredible – especially to a post-lockdown audience also being assailed with headlines about coming redundancies at Port Talbot’s Tata Steel (though business secretary Kemi Badenoch has extensive explanations about how government investment is actually saving the works) – dystopian landscape are, presumably thanks mostly to the Curtis influence, potent illustrative clips of real-life news and CCTV footage. Through them the sense of dislocation increases, while the themes of the drama only become more closely knit. From Graham – and, I’d posit, Sheen’s powerful sense of Welshness and all that means historically as well as currently – come the more mystical, ancient touches. The importance the town places on the works’ pilot light never going out; the sword made of the first steel forged in the town, long before modern industry got there; the red-hooded figure appearing and disappearing; Sheen as Geoff’s father’s ghost and/or manifestation of his conscience, pursuing him as they make their escape. And then, as the Cambrian borders become increasingly policed, there is (garbed in a costume somewhere between pastor, Clint Eastwood nemesis and Matthew Hopkins’ finest) the Welshfinder.

It is a bravura opening episode – powerful, confident, ambitious, confrontational and unexpected. It conjures precisely the feeling of a town on the edge, a tinderbox for the powder keg that is an increasingly divided Britain as a whole. Then it pushes things a little further and if you squint just a tiny bit, you could be looking at the future. Maybe even a blueprint, if you were so minded. It feels like a drama fully in the tradition of Bleasdale, Loach, Alan Clarke and Jimmy McGovern, and if it occasionally falls victim to the latter’s tendency to agitprop, that still leaves it head and shoulders above the usual fare.

It doesn’t quite meet the high bar it has set for itself over the remaining episodes. Although they gesture towards the issue of displaced persons and what is to be done with waves of desperate people, they become too much about the internal dynamics of the Driscolls and their family history to feel as innovative or thrilling as that which has gone before. But you can live off the first hour for quite some time to come.

[afishlearningpoetry]

Still seeing people call us a cult in 2021 😑 🚬 Is there anything that broke this blogging website's brains more than a 2010s BBC show?

Tbh and I’ll get to why it connects to what you’re saying but what really broke this website’s brains is the crab bucket culture of disposability and cycle of online abuse that it nurtured for years until it spread to the rest of the internet... like the early social justice awakening to the yfip blogs and call out posts and anonymous stalking and commenting (that carried over partially from livejournal/older fandom, tbf) that’s translated into like, faulty, second-hand sourced fanwiki websites tracking the perceived dancing with the devil transgressions of some person, a random stranger essentially, has made in their online life, and for what reason, really? For what purpose? Like I think a lot of us gained some awareness at a certain point that these tactics were thinly veiled guises to harass and take personal shots at basically random people for mostly petty reasons (clearly plenty of people are pretending that’s not what it is and went back to it), but I also wonder what it did to the brains of like the youngest people on here, who started using the website since they were children, not just high school age or close to, but even younger people.

That frame of mind is everywhere now, especially with younger fandoms, not just on here. Twitter is pretty terrible. I was watching the Mask Off video from Lindsay Ellis recently and it’s just horrifying to me the way this website essentially birthed that form of harassment. Every step of the way, the way that she (and Natalie, in her own video) detail how it happened is absolutely identical to how it happens on here, except it’s happening in daylight where public figures are in the same fight-to-the-death arena as the rest of us, which is what makes it easier to articulate. This is not to dismiss anything someone like Lindsay has to go through, considering what she disclosed in the video and that she’s been harassed by the alt-right for years, but she also has enough of an online standing to publicly face those charges and refute the majority of them. Like Natalie also said, but what happens to someone else? Someone with no name, or social or financial security, and that’s basically what I’m getting it. That kind of online abuse happening over and over and over and over again trickles down to everybody else. That’s what broke people’s brains. That’s what ruined this website.

And it isn’t just the reactionary, cringe culture post-fandom nihilism that shifted into online culture in 2016 and onwards (I’ve mentioned this before, like, the constant jokes about bad and infamous moments from tumblr), but harassment that still happens on here. You can accuse people of being a pedophile with no credibility, harass them about their eight year old fandom history, or dox and shame them out of public life without much effort, granted there are enough people willing to hop in the crab bucket with you. It has nothing to do with genuinely caring about anything but being an asshole. So for most of that to be distilled into people hate following tjlc (which was named such as a self-aware joke) for literal years when it was largely one of the most fun, positive, creative and dedicated fan spaces I’ve ever been in, and then finally having the wind at their backs to essentially cut everyone down and collect some heads because series 4 finally got the critical backlash they were waiting for to do so with widespread permission (they tried this with series 3, but it just didn’t take because the quality was too consistent), is severely aggravating.

I’ve had plenty of other, smaller negative experiences on here, whether they be trends or staples, and I’ve certainly contributed, but there’s always been enough good for me to stay. But after series 4 that was no longer the case. I just hit a breaking point where I couldn’t be as personally invested anymore, it got so bad. As much as I still want to come here for specific reasons and contribute what I can, I have a lot of trouble engaging with anything because I’m ready to see any new blog or topic I follow to dip into those same habits all over again, which is inevitably what happens. To watch anti-intellectual post-fandom nihilism — and if you’ve been here at all between end of 2016 to now you know the kind of attitude, posts, rhetoric and style of speech, and blogs I’m talking about — kind of dominate this website, has been a large part of why I only pop up sporadically. After Nov. 5th it’s been ironic watching so many people I’d describe that way unironically get into the paranormal show again. Not because I think that’s bad, I follows blogs that talk about it and think it’s cool, I made an edit at the time, or that anyone should be “above it”, we’re on tumblr after all, but because that kind of venomous behavior is still there underneath, like we’re not all also blogging specifically about superwholock shows.

A few months ago when someone accused me of being part of a q anon-level conspiracy and that we’re all “monsters of your own making”, this being before the capitol riot where dozens of members of the US house were nearly murdered en-masse, one of the things they said was that we couldn’t admit that our show was bad, but it was fine what they were doing with the other show because they were just having fun, and that we couldn’t, I don’t know, do anything or whatever about it until we were ready to admit our show is also bad. Which is a pretty revealing look into how that line of thinking, all the way from the early tumblr days, to other places like twitter, all the way back to here again has evolved despite staying the same. This bizarre blend of ironic detachment, self-deprecation, moralizing over a show’s perceived wrongdoings as perceived personal transgressions, bullying, rumors, fan wikis, and years of witnessing or being in on online harassment rewiring people’s brains to the point where not only is it impossible to do anything without jumping through twenty mental hoops before you do it, it’s essentially a both a constant threat and entry-level trial by fire into having any kind of existence in an online fandom space.

Of course it’s not just the barraging from people on here that’s contributed to that kind of culture, it’s everywhere else, because it spread everywhere. Think pieces by people not involved in the space, summaries of what happened mostly written by people who were hate following it to begin with, academic papers by ex-fans, faux-investigative pieces from wanna-be media critics trying to canonize their version of what happened into definitive internet history after preemptively blocking everyone involved so no one can respond to what they say — it’s extremely exhausting every step of the way. I can’t blame ex-tjlc people for just abandoning this place or any online space completely, because it’s still relentless four years later, and if the initial experience of series 4 wasn’t already distressing enough, whatever you think about it now, everyone’s faced the same challenge of being gradually smothered into relinquishing any ties to it through that cycle of shame that’s been perfected and streamlined right down to quick and recognizable beats on this website for over a decade.

[newstfionline]

Friday, May 14, 2021

Climate Change Is Making Big Problems Bigger (NYT) Wildfires are bigger, and starting earlier in the year. Heat waves are more frequent. Seas are warmer, and flooding is more common. The air is getting hotter. Even ragweed pollen season is beginning sooner. Climate change is already happening around the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday. And in many cases, that change is speeding up. The freshly compiled data, the federal government’s most comprehensive and up-to-date information yet, shows that a warming world is making life harder for Americans, in ways that threaten their health and safety, homes and communities. And it comes as the Biden administration is trying to propel aggressive action at home and abroad to cut the pollution that is raising global temperatures. “There is no small town, big city or rural community that is unaffected by the climate crisis,” Michael S. Regan, the E.P.A. administrator, said on Wednesday. “Americans are seeing and feeling the impacts up close, with increasing regularity.”

Forests May Not Be Up A Tree (BBC) According to a recent study, forests around the world have regrown naturally over the last twenty years—with a total area adding up to the size of France. This natural forest regeneration has the potential to soak up 5.9 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide—more than the United States’ total annual emissions.

Ransomware attacks could reach ‘pandemic’ proportions (Washington Post) A cybersecurity expert warned U.S. lawmakers last week that the world was on the cusp of a “pandemic of a different variety.” Christopher Krebs, who formerly headed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security, testified last Wednesday before the House Committee on Homeland Security that a form of malware called ransomware has become more prevalent than ever. Given an ever-widening criminal enterprise and vulnerable digital landscape, he said, critical infrastructure is at risk of debilitating attacks. Two days later, Colonial Pipeline, a major fuel pipeline connecting the East Coast, was hit in the largest-known hack on U.S. energy infrastructure. The incident, which instigated a shutdown of the pipeline, panic buying of gas and a price jump at the pump over the weekend, is one of the latest in crippling ransomware attacks orchestrated by extortionary criminal organizations that mostly operate in foreign safe havens. Ransomware attacks have reached a record high recently, with nearly 400 assaults on critical infrastructure in 2020, according to data compiled by Temple University. In the past week, hackers published personnel files of D.C. police officers, caused city services in Tulsa to shut down, and paralyzed a California hospital system.

US cities see surge in deadly street racing amid pandemic (AP) Jaye Sanford, a 52-year-old mother of two, was driving home in suburban Atlanta on Nov. 21 when a man in a Dodge Challenger muscle car who was allegedly street racing crashed into her head-on, killing her. Across America, illegal drag racing has exploded in popularity since the coronavirus pandemic began, with dangerous upticks reported from Georgia and New York to New Mexico and Oregon. Street racers block roads and even interstates to keep police away while they tear around and perform stunts, often captured on videos that go viral. Packs of vehicles, from souped-up jalopies to high-end sports cars, roar down city streets, through industrial neighborhoods and down rural roads. Experts say TV shows and movies glorifying street racing had already fueled interest in recent years. Then shutdowns associated with the pandemic cleared normally clogged highways as commuters worked from home. Those with a passion for fast cars often had time to modify them, and to show them off, said Tami Eggleston, a sports psychologist.

Partisan discord instead of Jan. 6 answers (AP) A House hearing about what went wrong in the Jan. 6 Capitol siege frequently spiraled into partisan shouting matches on Wednesday, with lawmakers more often blaming each other than thoroughly questioning witnesses about the events of the day. Democrats and Republicans have so far been unable to agree on a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection, and officials involved in responding to the attack have pointed fingers at one another. Amid the rancor, the hearing yielded few new answers about the confusion that day. Five people died, including a Capitol Police officer who collapsed afterward and a woman who was shot by an officer as she broke through a broken window adjacent to the House chamber with lawmakers still inside. Two other police officers took their own lives in the wake of the riot.

Vaccinated can largely ditch masks (AP) In a major step toward returning to pre-pandemic life, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eased mask-wearing guidance for fully vaccinated people on Thursday, allowing them to stop wearing masks outdoors in crowds and in most indoor settings. The guidance still calls for wearing masks in crowded indoor settings like buses, planes, hospitals, prisons and homeless shelters, but it will help clear the way for reopening workplaces, schools and other venues—even removing the need for social distancing for those who are fully vaccinated. The new guidance is likely to open the door to confusion, since there is no surefire way for businesses or others to distinguish between those who are fully vaccinated and those who are not.

Navy SEALs Are Russian To Training Exercises (CNN) Since April, the US has sanctioned Russia for its interference in the 2020 election, the SolarWinds hack, and the poisoning of activist Alexey Navalny, which led to a rise in escalation between the two countries—including the expulsion of a number of diplomats from both sides. Due to the rising escalations, American Navy SEALs deployed to Romania to take part in a set of training exercises alongside 600 NATO and non-NATO forces known as the “Trojan Footprint.” The training is taking place alongside this month’s much larger Defender-Europe 21 NATO joint exercises, which have some 28,000 forces participating from 26 different countries, and is meant to prepare forces against the increased aggression shown by Russian forces in Europe. A big part of the aim of the NATO exercises now is simply at a tactical level: if the allies and partners need to join a fight together, they will know how to work alongside each other.

Colombia’s Police Force, Built for War, Finds a New One (NYT) In Colombia’s decades-long conflict with violent rebel groups, the country’s national police often fought on the front lines, wielding tanks and helicopters as they battled guerrilla fighters and destroyed drug labs. It was a force built for war, and now it has found a new one—on the streets of Colombia’s cities, where the police stand accused of treating civilian protesters as battlefield enemies. Demonstrations that began two weeks ago as anger over pandemic-related tax reforms have intensified and spread, turning into a collective howl of outrage over abuses by the national police force. Officers have beaten, detained and killed protesters in recent days, sometimes opening fire on peaceful demonstrations and shooting tear gas canisters from armored vehicles, according to more than a dozen interviews by The New York Times with witnesses and family members of the dead and injured. At least 42 people have died, including one police officer, the government said Tuesday. In addition to those killed, almost 170 people remain missing. Human Rights Watch and other organizations say the total is likely higher.

Uruguay, once a coronavirus model, struggles against a deadly wave (Washington Post) In the early days of the pandemic, Uruguay was a global model. Leaders in the progressive, stable, high-income nation united behind science-based measures to contain the spread of the coronavirus. Low case counts enabled it to reopen schools and businesses before many of its more virulent neighbors. But now the nation of 3.5 million is trending in the wrong direction. For several days in April, Uruguay had the world’s highest daily case count per capita. More than 92,000 people were diagnosed with covid-19 during the month, 42 percent of the country’s total since the start of the pandemic. Authorities reported 1,642 deaths, more than four times the toll in March. The country, wedged between Brazil and Argentina on South America’s Atlantic Coast, has been unable to avoid the deadly wave now engulfing the continent. South America leads the world in new cases and deaths per capita, and Uruguay leads South America in both. “The situation is dramatic,” said epidemiologist Jacqueline Ponzo, who serves on an interdisciplinary panel that studies coronavirus data. “I don’t usually like to use adjectives to explain these things, but it really is fitting.”

German government makes hate-motivated insults a crime (AP) The German government passed a new law on Wednesday making hate-motivated insults a criminal offence that can be punished with a monetary fine or prison of up to two years. Germany’s justice minister said the new law is meant to protect Jews, Muslims, gays, people with disabilities and others. “It is our responsibility to protect every single person in our society from hostility and exclusion,” Christine Lambrecht said, the German news agency dpa reported. The new measure, which still needs parliamentary approval, includes insulting hate messages sent as texts, emails or letters.

Holy River Full Of Bodies (NBC) Dozens of bodies have washed up on the shores of the Ganges as India faces a rampant second wave of Covid-19. Officials said in a statement Tuesday that over 70 corpses have washed up in the city of Buxar, and that they were likely coming from India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. Hospitals across the country are overwhelmed and though the country opened up vaccinations to all adults, there is a shortage of vaccine stocks.

Taiwan, hit by power outage, works to restore supply (Reuters) Tech powerhouse Taiwan started phased blackouts islandwide on Thursday after an outage at a coal- and gas-fired power plant hit 6 million homes, as the government worked to resume normal supply by evening. In a text message, the government said its grid did not have sufficient electricity capacity after the outage at the power plant in the southern port city of Kaohsiung. Several cities reported blackouts, the official Central News Agency said, as a top official appealed for calm. The main international airport near Taipei, the capital, and the high speed rail line were operating normally, the transport ministry said. Fire officials said they were responding to more than 200 reports of people trapped in elevators.

Activism in Iraq can be deadly (Washington Post) Recorded yet unpunished, a spate of killings in Iraq is having a chilling effect on activism. Prominent figures in Iraq’s protest movement are being picked off as they walk the streets or drive home at the end of the day, underscoring the reach of Iraq’s militia network over citizens who dare to criticize them and over a political system meant to hold them accountable.

Driven by despair, Lebanese pharmacist looks to life abroad (AP) The shelves are bare at the Panacea pharmacy north of Beirut. Its owner, Rita El Khoury, has spent the past few weeks packing up her career, apartment and belongings before leaving Lebanon for a new life abroad. For the 35-year-old pharmacist and her husband, and countless others feeling trapped in a country hammered by multiple crises, Lebanon has become unlivable. Driven by financial ruin, collapsing institutions, hyperinflation and rapidly rising poverty, thousands have left since Lebanon’s economic and financial crisis began in late 2019—an exodus that accelerated after the massive explosion at Beirut’s port last August, when a stockpile of improperly stored ammonium nitrates detonated, killing 211 people and destroying residential areas nearby. Lebanon has been without a functioning government since, with political leaders deadlocked or complacent as the country hurtles toward total collapse. Fuel supplies are running out, leaving the country at risk of plunging into total darkness as power stations and generators run dry. Now young to middle-aged professionals are leaving—doctors, engineers, pharmacists and bankers, part of the latest wave of emigration in the small country’s modern history.

Israeli tanks pound Gaza ahead of possible ground incursion (AP) Israeli artillery pounded northern Gaza early Friday in an attempt to destroy a vast network of militant tunnels inside the territory, the military said, bringing the front lines closer to dense civilian areas and paving the way for a potential ground invasion. Israel has massed troops along the border and called up 9,000 reservists following days of fighting with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza. Palestinians militants have fired some 1,800 rockets and the military has launched more than 600 airstrikes, toppling at least three apartment blocks.

As Gaza War Escalates, New Front Opens in Israeli Cities (NYT) A new front opened in the military showdown between the Israeli Army and Palestinian militants in Gaza on Wednesday as a wave of mob violence between Jews and Arabs spread across several Israeli cities, leading to riots and attacks in the streets as rockets and missiles streaked across the sky. On the streets of Israeli cities and towns, rival Jewish and Arab mobs attacked people, cars, shops, offices and hotels. One of the most chilling incidents was in Bat Yam, a seaside suburb south of Tel Aviv, where dozens of Jewish extremists took turns beating and kicking a man presumed to be an Arab, even as his body lay motionless on the ground. A video of the attack was broadcast on Israeli television. In Acre, a northern coastal town, an Arab mob beat a man presumed to be Jewish with sticks and rocks, leaving him in a critical condition in another attack captured on video. The sudden turn of events, which in less than two full days has escalated from a localized dispute in Jerusalem to full-scale aerial war over Gaza to widespread civil unrest, shocked Israelis and Palestinians alike, and left some of the country’s most experienced leaders fearing that the decades-old Israel-Palestinian conflict was heading into new territory. For years, leaders warned that a failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might eventually lead to fighting within the state of Israel itself.

Corruption in South Africa (Foreign Policy) South African President Cyril Ramaphosa gives evidence today before the country’s inquiry into public sector corruption and fraud. His testimony comes as Ramaphosa’s party, the African National Congress (ANC), is attempting clean up its image ahead of local elections later this year. Last week, the ANC suspended Elias Sekgobelo “Ace” Magashule, the party’s secretary-general, over multiple corruption allegations. As Lynsey Chutel writes in Foreign Policy’s weekly Africa Brief, while the ruling party fights factional battles, South Africa is “slipping deeper and deeper into economic and social malaise.”

[gyrlversion]

Jon Snow’s ‘white people’ jibe reveals contempt his type have

Channel 4 News has long enjoyed a reputation as a niche current affairs programme with a markedly Leftist take on the world. I often watch it, usually in a state of contentment.

Because it is so niche, and there is no expectation of political impartiality, I find myself expostulating far less frequently than when the BBC is guilty of less egregious bias.

Auntie is so powerful, and so eager to insist on her neutrality, that when she betrays even slight evidence of partiality in her news coverage, some of us are apt to howl our objections.

Channel 4 News’ veteran anchorman, Jon Snow, 71,  said: ‘I have never seen so many white people in one place, it’s an extraordinary story’

But it is no longer possible to be so indulgent towards Channel 4 News after its veteran anchorman, Jon Snow, last week provided some revelatory proof of anti-Brexit bias. He seemed to be speaking on behalf of a whole tribe of metropolitan liberals who regard Leave voters with a mixture of contempt and disbelief.

Flags

Last Friday there was a Leave march in Whitehall and Westminster, and the 71-year-old journalist took up a vantage point to observe it. The episode can easily be viewed on YouTube. I thoroughly recommend it.

Against a background of apparently well-behaved people, some of whom were carrying flags, Snow had a somewhat overwrought air. I was reminded of correspondents in war-torn foreign climes who, forgivably, look rather anxious as bullets whizz around their heads.

‘As we speak there are crowds rallying outside Downing Street,’ Snow informed viewers in excited tones. ‘We’ve just got these pictures in… police are now wearing riot gear. Police dogs are patrolling. The mood has changed.’

In actual fact, the police seemed remarkably relaxed and, in the coverage I saw, they didn’t appear to be wearing riot gear, if by that is meant helmets, shields and other defensive paraphernalia. Nor was there any evidence of patrolling dogs, or even of dogs hoping to be stroked.

Snow raced on, approaching his fevered crescendo. ‘It’s been the most extraordinary day,’ he announced. ‘A day which has seen… I have never seen so many white people in one place, it’s an extraordinary story.’

Riot gear. Police dogs. An extraordinary day and an extraordinary story. Above all, an unprecedented preponderance of white people. If one had started watching Snow’s report after it began, one might have thought he was describing an ugly demonstration by violent supporters of the Ku Klux Klan rather than a march of generally peaceable Brexiteers.

His remarks have up to this moment attracted more than 2,000 complaints to the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom. Channel 4 has said that it ‘regrets any offence caused by [Jon Snow’s] comments’, while the perpetrator himself has so far kept schtum.

It’s his contention that he had never seen so many white people in one place that is most astonishing. I perfectly understand that he lives in a multi-racial city where there are sometimes almost as many non-whites as whites in sizeable gatherings of people.

But it’s surely not yet a crime to be a white person in a largely white crowd. If those on the march were overwhelmingly white (and Snow’s observation is disputed by some witnesses), it was probably because they mostly came from outside London, where, believe it or not, there are still many white people.

The BBC presenter Andrew Marr wrote at the time that he would have been sacked if he had yelled the same thing in public. Channel 4 merely warned Snow to watch his step in future — advice he seems not to have heeded

What would Jon Snow have said if he were reporting on a march dominated by black people? Would he have mentioned it? I doubt it. Either it wouldn’t have occurred to him, or he would have refrained from doing so for fear of being accused of racial stereotyping.

Why shouldn’t white Brexiteers be allowed to make their point without racial aspersions being made against them? Despite Snow’s insinuations, they weren’t scary and threatening. But I suspect that their crime, in his eyes, was to emanate from outside the M25, which circles his hallowed metropolis.

Am I being unfair? I don’t think so. Admittedly, I may be more inclined to find fault because he has form. In 2017, it was reported that Snow had chanted ‘f*** the Tories’ at Glastonbury. He said he had no recollection of this, but did not deny it had happened.

The BBC presenter Andrew Marr wrote at the time that he would have been sacked if he had yelled the same thing in public. Channel 4 merely warned Snow to watch his step in future — advice he seems not to have heeded.

What is most objectionable about his sneering and disdainful mischaracterisation of Brexiteers last Friday is that it was divisive at a time when we already have far too many divisions.

The fact is, Leavers are not made up exclusively of the white provincial (and, Jon Snow probably thinks, half-witted) people at whom his comments were seemingly directed.

Hostile

Indeed, research carried out by the polling company Ipsos Mori suggests that almost a third of Britain’s black, Asian and other ethnic communities voted Leave in the 2016 referendum.

Even in Jon Snow’s precious capital city, many more Asians may have backed Leave than is generally supposed. Dr Rakib Ehsan has noted in a paper for the London School of Economics that in Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow (in each of which boroughs the Asian population is above 25 per cent) there was a strong Leave vote.

Are they also to be dismissed in supercilious terms by Jon Snow? I don’t suppose he would dare do that. Much easier to write off those who supported Leave as white bruisers from the sticks.

There is, of course, a long and lamentable record of metropolitan, liberal-minded Remainers referring to Leave voters in a condescending and sometimes hostile way.

A year ago, the Lib Dem leader Vince Cable declared that ‘too many [Leave voters] were driven by nostalgia for a world where passports were blue, faces were white and the map was coloured imperial pink’. What evidence does he have for that?

Prejudice

In 2017, the novelist Ian McEwan suggested the deaths of ‘1.5 million oldster’ Brexit voters over the next two years would help swing a second referendum in favour of Britain staying in Europe. With highly questionable accuracy, he added: ‘A gang of angry old men, irritable even in victory, are shaping the future of the country against the inclinations of its youth.’

As a writer, McEwan is free to say whatever he wants, however inflammatory. But presenters on Channel 4 (which has the status of a public service broadcaster) are not supposed to abominate Leavers publicly — or, indeed, Tories — as Jon Snow has done.

Leavers come from all classes and backgrounds and from every part of the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason to suppose they are any more or less stupid than Remainers. And, just like Remainers, they hold deeply felt and usually well-considered views.

We rightly blame the Government and the Commons for their failure to find a way out of our national crisis. But what hope is there if broadcasters enjoined to be impartial demonstrate such prejudice?

Watching Jon Snow marvel at the alleged whiteness of Leave marchers, and hearing the contempt he and so many in the metropolitan chattering classes express for millions of their fellow countrymen, it’s hard not to feel gloomy about the future cohesion of our nation. 

The post Jon Snow’s ‘white people’ jibe reveals contempt his type have appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/jon-snows-white-people-jibe-reveals-contempt-his-type-have/

[simrankd99]

Sociology #3

A recent event that has stuck out to me recently in the news is the outrage in Ireland over the 17 year old who was forced to hold up her underwear in court during a trial against the man who sexually assaulted her. I am choosing to discuss this article because the #MeToo movement as well as women’s right is a topic that I am passionate about and continue to further my research on. I will be analyzing possible bias from a news article obtained from BBC World News: titled “Irish outcry over teenager's underwear used in rape trial.”

This BBC article mainly focuses on the reaction society had to this trial and in my opinion how digital feminism is taking the world by storm. This 17 year old girl came forward and took a 27 year old man to court whom had sexually assaulted her. Though there were witnesses,  in court they used the young girl’s underwear as grounds to claim that because she was wearing a thong, ultimately implying that her underwear choice was a form of  consent to sexual intercourse with this man. This eluded to a riot around the world and millions of individuals sharing the hashtag of #ThisIsNotConsent, socialist feminist group Rosa were protesting outside the courthouse next day placing underwear on the steps and chanting: “whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!”

 This is a primary example of how digital feminism is becoming more common, take #MeToo for example. Just 24 hours after Alyssa Milano called out Harvey Weinstein for sexual misconduct millions of survivors bravely came forward and bravely shared their stories.

This article resonates with me because as mentioned before, this topic hits close to home with me and I carry a large amount of passion for it. I mean, any opportunity I’ve had to research movements such as #MeToo or anything to do with women’s right’s I chase after. So I guess, this could be an example of my personal bias. I gravitated towards this article because it reflects with my personal beliefs towards this issue and discusses feminism / socialist feminist groups. It places emphasis on the reaction of society, which was anger and disgust. I was at a loss for words waking up one morning and reading this on the news. You would think in a world today where we are progressing as a democratic society thing’s such as ‘victim blaming’ would not be as prevalent especially in the hands of the justice system. The justice system failed this young girl and this is an event that will not be forgotten and will spark more movements and I hope that one day victims of sexual assault will be able to trust our justice system to believe them, and provide support in the healing process. 

Although what has happened is extremely unfortunate, this will only push us to fight for what’s fair and moral. I am proud to be a part of generation that realizes what is vial in our system and will not back down. 

[alamante]

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionBBC captures footage of post-election violence in Harare

Troops have opened fire in Zimbabwe’s capital Harare after opposition supporters went on the rampage.

At least one man has been shot dead by the army, reports from the scene say. Another was shot and wounded by police.

The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party has rigged Monday’s presidential and parliamentary vote.

Parliamentary results show Zanu-PF heading for a big majority. The presidential result has yet to be declared.

European Union poll monitors have expressed concern over the length of time it is taking to declare the presidential result.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa has urged patience and calm following the first elections since long-serving ruler Robert Mugabe was ousted from power.

Skip Twitter post by @edmnangagwa

At this crucial time, I call on everyone to desist from provocative declarations and statements. We must all demonstrate patience and maturity, and act in a way that puts our people and their safety first. Now is the time for responsibility and above all, peace

— President of Zimbabwe (@edmnangagwa) August 1, 2018

End of Twitter post by @edmnangagwa

The MDC Alliance says its presidential candidate, Nelson Chamisa, won Monday’s election.

Correspondents stress that Wednesday’s violence is confined to the centre of Harare – an opposition stronghold – while other parts of the country remain calm.

Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi said the army had been deployed in Harare to disperse a violent crowd and to restore “peace and tranquility”.

He added: “The presence of the army is not to intimidate people but to ensure that law and order is maintained. They are there to assist the police.”

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption Troops were deployed to help police clear the streets

Chaotic scene

By Pumza Fihlani, BBC News, Harare

Protests by MDC Alliance supporters in the city centre took an ugly turn by the afternoon.

The crowds had been there since the morning but when news came that Zanu-PF had won the majority of seats in parliament and that the presidential results were not ready, the mood turned.

They went on the rampage down Harare’s busy streets towards an old Zanu-PF office with large stones, sticks and anything they could grab along the way.

The crowds chanted: “We want Chamisa.” They believe the election has been stolen, and are demanding the MDC be announced as winner.

Riot police using water cannon and tear gas arrived to a chaotic scene of burning tyres and an unrelenting crowd. Hundreds jeered and pelted the police vans with stones.

This group has lost all faith in the electoral system and says they will not stop until their man is in the top job – except that’s not quite how elections work.

What results have been declared?

The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec) has announced 122 seats for Zanu-PF so far, and 53 for MDC Alliance, ZBC state media reported. There are 210 seats in the National Assembly’s lower house.

More than five million people were registered to vote, and there was a high turnout of 70%.

State broadcaster ZBC had reported that the electoral commission would announce the presidential results at 12:30 local time (10:30 GMT), but only parliamentary results were read out.

The BBC’s Shingai Nyoka reports that the announcement on the presidential poll was not made because representatives of some of the 23 candidates had failed to turn up to verify the results.

A presidential candidate needs more than 50% of the vote to win outright. Otherwise, a run-off election will be held on 8 September.

What are election observers saying?

The EU mission has criticised the delay in announcing the presidential results. Zec has until Saturday to do so.

Image caption The electoral commission says 70% of registered voters took part in the election

It said it had observed several problems, including media bias, voter intimidation and mistrust in the electoral commission, adding that there was an “improved political climate, but un-level playing field and lack of trust”.

This is the first time in 16 years that the government has allowed EU and US election monitors into the country.

The African Union mission has said the elections “took place in a very peaceful environment” and “were highly competitive”.

It added that it could not confirm opposition parties’ complaints of vote-buying, intimidation by the state and bias by traditional leaders.

A preliminary report by the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) observers said the elections were largely peaceful and conducted in accordance with the law.

What are the parties saying?

Zimbabwe’s main opposition has said Mr Chamisa won the presidential election, sparking street celebrations by supporters on Tuesday.

The MDC Alliance said the ruling Zanu-PF party was attempting to rig the vote to allow President Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results was unacceptable.

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption MDC Alliance supporters burned election posters of Zimbabwe President Emmerson Mnangagwa

MDC Alliance’s Tendai Biti said there was a clear attempt by Zanu-PF to interfere “with the people’s will”.

However, Douglas Mwonzora, a top MDC Alliance official, told the BBC’s Andrew Harding that the endorsement on Sunday of their candidate by Mr Mugabe had cost the party votes. He also alleged that the ruling party had bribed voters in rural areas.

A Zanu-PF spokesman dismissed the opposition’s allegations of interference, telling the BBC he had “no clue” what Mr Biti was talking about.

More on post-Mugabe Zimbabwe

Meet the frontrunners:

Emmerson Mnangagwa, Zanu-PF

Image copyright AFP

Known as “the crocodile” because of his political shrewdness – his party faction is known as “Lacoste”

Accused of masterminding attacks on opposition supporters after the 2008 election

Thought to be 75 years old, he promises to deliver jobs and is seen as open to economic reforms

Survived several alleged assassination attempts, blamed on supporters of ex-President Mugabe.

Read more: The ‘crocodile’ who snapped back

Nelson Chamisa, MDC Alliance

Image copyright Reuters

His skull was fractured when beaten up by state security agents in 2007

Became an MP at 25, a cabinet minister at 31 and could become the youngest president at 40

A recently qualified pastor, he has been using the hashtag #GodIsInIt for his campaign

Has promised to rebuild the country’s devastated economy, but has been criticised for making extravagant promises – such as the introduction of a high-speed bullet train and bringing the Olympics to Zimbabwe.

Read more: The crusader taking on Zimbabwe’s ‘crocodile’

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js Source link

   The post Violence flares over Zimbabwe poll appeared first on MySourceSpot.

[theoptimisticpatriot]

A nation divided?

This lecture, A nation divided? The identities, politics and governance of England, was given in Speaker’s House at the House of Commons on June 27th by invitation of Mr Speaker, the Rt Hon John Bercow MP

I’m very grateful to Mr Speaker for inviting me to speak and for hosting this lecture. I can’t think of a better place than Speaker’s House to make my remarks tonight, though I hope the foundations are in good order.

I always thought it odd that my colleagues on the left felt so uncomfortable with patriotism, but I only began to think about the politics of national identity seriously when David Blunkett asked me to lead the response to the northern riots of 2001. It was Ted Cantle’s ground-breaking report that highlighted the lack of any shared national identity between the white and Pakistani-origin youth.

The subsequent debate was centred on British identity. But I began to realise, partly from my own sense of English identity and partly that of my constituents, that it was English identity that was most contested, most challenged and also ignored.

I’m grateful to Winchester University and its support for the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester in providing some space to explore those issues.

Tonight, I want to talk about England: its divisions and its governance.

England divided

England is deeply divided. We are divided by our poverty and our prosperity; between London and the South East and most of the rest of England; yes, within the wealthier regions too.

In many parts of England, city centres may prosper while nearby towns lose their purpose and their able young people.

The lines that divide us are being re-drawn. Poor white working-class children from towns and the seaside are now more likely to do less well in school, than most ethnic minority kids of the large cities. But race and faith, prejudice and discrimination still have the power to divide us.

We are divided by our experiences and our values.  Age, class, and higher education are strong predictors of which of us is likely to hold individualistic cosmopolitan liberal views and which to hold of a more, communitarian social conservatism.

These differences don’t map readily onto the familiar divides of class, of ‘left’ and ‘right’. Older working-class voters may be less keen on rapid immigration and diversity than their university educated grandchildren but are strong supporters of public ownership and the NHS. Young liberals may to be less keen on redistribution and the welfare state; more likely to blame poverty on the individual.

We sometimes lack the ability to talk to each other. One person’s resistance to change in their community is another’s clear evidence of racism

England would be happier if we could find common ground across those divisions.

Tonight, I want to explore how.  

Why England matters

England is by far the largest part of the union. It is here that the forces that have torn us apart on Brexit are most violent. And it is England – and England outside London in particular – that is taking the whole of the union out of the EU.

England’s politics are distinct within the union.   Despite the apparent return of two party politics in 2017, it was still the case that the elections in each nation were contested by different parties, won by different parties, and, to a large extent, fought around different issues. Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales have their own cultural dividing lines that are different to those in England.

England, as we recently learned from the massive BBC/YouGov survey, believes that its best years were in the past, while other parts of the union believe the best lies in the future. Not a single demographic in the published poll had future optimism ahead of nostalgic pessimism. Confidence in Westminster’s ability to represent people where they live is catastrophically low, as is their ability to influence their local council.

The other parts of the union enjoy their own political identity and space, their own democratic institutions and their own democratic powers, England has none of these.

England, as England, is absent from our national political debate and conversation. What happens in England affects the whole of the union, but England is rarely mentioned.

Yet English identity has taken on a new weight and political significance.

By the extent to which people say they are English, British or both, we can predict their likelihood to vote Leave or Remain, to the left or right, be satisfied or dissatisfied with the current constitution, feel empowered or disenfranchised, or prioritise England over the union, Brexit over the Irish border.

England matters.

Reprise

I’m not going suggest that all the answers to our current problems lie with England. I was in politics long enough to learn to beware simple answers to simple problems, let alone simple answers to complex problems.

I will argue that we won’t meet the many challenges we face without addressing England: without engaging with English identity, England as a nation, with England as a place, as a democracy and as a political community.

I’ll ask why – even though English is the most widely shared and strongly held national identity amongst England’s residents - why that ubiquity and popularity is marginalised? Why is it actively opposed and even suppressed in public life and the national debate: not by the British as a whole, but by elite liberal Britain?

I’ll argue that we cannot overcome our national divisions unless Englishness is allowed its proper place as an accepted, legitimate and celebrated identity within the multiple identities of modern England.

I’ll suggest that our historic attachment to the remains of the unitary imperial state has left England without political institutions of its own and with a level of centralisation quite incompatible with good governance

While those who feel strongly English must in future be fully included and represented, the future cannot belong exclusively to those who feel most strongly English.  Reforms to England’s governance are needed but they must rest on sound, inclusive, democratic and civic foundations.

English and British

I don’t like peppering talks with numerous statistics, so I hope you’ll accept that the broad points I make are, to the best of my ability, based on sound data. When I come to write this up I’ll provide the numbers.

Around the turn of the century, when Scottish and Welsh devolution began, a marked change took place in England. The apparent assumption that English and British were pretty much the same broke down. Increased numbers of people began to identify as English as well as British. There was a sharp fall in those naming British rather than English identity.

The numbers bounce around a bit but, over the past 20 years a broadly stable position has emerged.

If asked about strength of identity, the great majority say they are strongly English and strongly British.

If asked to choose one identity, slightly more will choose English than British.

If asked whether English, more English than British, and so on, the largest group is equally English and British (35-40%), with the English and more English outnumbering the British and more British by around 3 to 2.

By any measure, Englishness is the most widely shared national identity; it is at least as strongly held as Britishness, and more people emphasise their Englishness than their Britishness.

The preference for Englishness over Britishness is strongest in the over 65s. As we move through the generations, it becomes more balanced, until, amongst the 18-24 years olds the more British exceed the more English, though even amongst the youngest, a large majority say they are strongly English.

The major cities have higher numbers of British identifiers, though nowhere outside London do the more British outnumber the more English. (And London is more polarised between English and British identifiers than any other region, with fewer ‘equally English and British’). In smaller cities, the towns, suburbs and villages, the more English markedly exceed the more British. Regional and county identities, particularly in the north and in Cornwall, are strong enough to present a major part of people’s identities.

As for the political salience of identity, just under 70 % of the English not British voted Leave; over 70% of the British not English voted Remain.

46 % of the strongly English say they voted Conservative in 2017, 25% Labour.

My survey of Conservative activists revealed deep scepticism amongst English identifying members about the benefits of the union to England. It prompted Paul Goodman, editor of Conservative Home, to describe the Tories as the ‘Conservative and just about Unionist’ Party.

Labour members are significantly more likely to identify as British than the electorate as a whole, which may go some way to explain its relative lack of appeal to English identifiers.

In 2015 English fears of SNP influence on Labour dominated the campaign and some commentators, and those close the party campaigns, believe the issue gave David Cameron his majority.

National identity

There are many different takes on national identity, so let me explain how I understand it.

Both Trump in the US and Brexit here prompted a flood of analysis correlating voting patterns and individual pieces of data. Every week produced a new explanation: economic status; demographics of age or race; education attainment; levels of recent migrations, ‘open’ or ‘closed’ values.

These insights are very valuable, but in the search for the holy grail of the ‘real cause’; the single explanatory factor, we can miss the wood for the trees.

All these issues, our economic experience, our experience of migration, our levels of education, the values of our community together to shape our view of the world.

Our national identities become the repository of our experiences and perceptions. They offer narratives that help to make sense of them. They help to shape the way we understand the world.  

Our national identities reflect our sense of who we are; the values we hold, the symbols we recognise, the history we understand, how we see our status and influence. It’s not the individual elements of those identities that explain people’s behaviour, but the overall world view that they reflect and sustain.

You may find echoes tonight of David Goodhart’s ‘people from somewhere’ and Will Jennings work on England’s divisions between cosmopolitan and socially conservative values.  I want to emphasise the importance of national identity in organising, reflecting and expressing those different world views.

If, for example, your experience of 40 years EU membership has been of factories closing, jobs lost, status diminished, community weakened and now changed beyond recognition by rapid migration, you may be attracted to a world view, and its associated identity, that gives a particular explanation of why that has happened. If by contrast your experience has been one of expanded opportunity, stimulation and personal success, this is likely to be reflected in a different identity.

If people who feel English rather than British tend to vote in a particular way, it is because they share a world view for which that behaviour makes sense. And vice versa.

This understanding of identity goes some way to explain why the correlations in voting behaviour are so strong, yet identity is rarely ‘operationalised’. Few people, after all, said I’m voting Leave because it is the English thing to do, or I’m a Remainer because I’m British.

Anthony Barnett, author of The Lure of Greatness, highlights the word clouds of important Brexit issues from the British Election Study. For Remains it was the Economy, followed by Rights; for Leavers it was Immigration followed by Sovereignty. This was not one group of people answering a question in different ways, but two groups, giving different answers to different questions.

It was not Brexit, of course, that divided us; Brexit highlighted the divisions that already existed.

Not two tribes, but divergent views

The recent BBC survey gives some new insights into the different world views of English and British identifiers.  I don’t want to overstate the case. We are not separate tribes; mixed identities happily co-habit in most of us.

But there are real differences between English-only identifiers and British-only. And, by and large, there is a smooth gradient from one pole to the other as we move through more English than British and to more British than English.

One divide, of course, is whether someone’s primary allegiance is to the geography and institutions of Britain or the geography and political identity of England. The English are more inclined to prioritise England over the union; the British to prioritise the union.

The way that British unionist priority has been expressed politically has caused its own problems, but I will return to that later.

The British and the English also describe England in different terms.  Twice as many British chose ‘diverse’ to describe England as do the English. Half as many are likely to say England has always been proud to stand alone.

On the other hand, well over two thirds of the English believe we are tolerant, welcoming, friendly and generous. Just under half the British see the English in this positive light.

And the survey at least hints at the emergence of minority amongst British identifiers who are not just ‘not English’, but positively antipathetic to the English.

The clue is in the people who say they would be embarrassed to call themselves English, about just 7% of the total sample.

The embarrassment is not felt by people who identify as English, or equally English and British, but by those who emphasise their British identity or who otherwise say they are not English.

This anti-English fragment of Britishness seems to be highly educated, found more in cities and university towns, and much more likely to identify strongly as European than the general population. Contrary to what you might expect, this anti-English outlook is not stronger amongst ethnic minorities than white people.

Minority though it may be, I’d suggest this anti-English fraction is over-represented within the institutions of government, within the leadership of the public sector, within the media, within corporate capitalism, and in academia (in short, a large part of what is sometimes called the elite). It is of course found within politics, and on the left in particular.

That observation is based on personal experience, rather than hard data, though I suspect most of you will recognise what I am describing. I’m often struck by how many people in powerful positions say they are British not English while expressing disparaging views about English identity. They seem blissfully unware that being British not English puts them in less than on in ten of the population, and by being antipathetic to Englishness, in an even smaller minority.

We saw their influence in Remain’s decisions to campaign as Scotland Stronger in Europe, in Scotland; as Wales Stronger in Europe, in Wales, and – only in England – as Britain Stronger in Europe. The English were, apparently, not worth even speaking to.

Given that the Remain campaign lost heavily amongst English identifying voters, this was a mistake with serious and far-reaching consequences.

Before the World Cup senior police officers described the St George cross as ‘almost Imperialistic’, and the Royal Mail – the RoyalMail - banned it from their vans. Yet polling shows support across the nation and diverse communities for both the England team and the flag.

England disappears from the national conversation.

The Prime Minister recently e-mailed English voters about health funding but did not make it clear she was talking about the English NHS. Labour recently published eight policy consultation documents which were largely about England but only in one actually mentioned England.

The UK government has recently produced a video for Scotland on a new UK child care policy, with the #deliveringforScotland. The same policy applies in England but, as yet, no video addressing England. No #deliveringforEngland.

I was pleased to take part in the York Festival of Ideas with David Willetts recently. Several of us discussed English higher education for a day – under a banner which read ‘the future of UK higher education’.

And it does seem that more academics have a fascination with the minority of English people who express their identity in racist and ethnic terms than the majority who do not.

On Tuesday Gareth Southgate gave a powerful interview in which he said ‘We’re a team with our diversity and our youth that represents modern England’ and talked explicitly about English identity. The Guardian headline today was ‘England team represents modern Britain’.

That’s not lazy reporting. You have to work extra hard to write England out of the story.

No wonder people say, as they do on the doorstep: ‘you’re not even allowed to say you are English anymore’.

The cumulative impact of this influential fraction is to delegitimise and marginalise Englishness; by portraying it as inherently reactionary and unpleasant we don’t need to engage with it as we do with other identities.  

It claims that Englishness is an ethnic identity; is a racist identity; it belongs to the far right; and that any political expression of Englishness is both extreme and the product of English nationalism.

Three quarters of people believe you do not have to be white to be English (although it’s true that some are more accepting of those who were born here and have a local accent)

Far right groups do try to appeal to English identity. But fully 80% of the population is strongly English. How can Englishness belong to the far right?

Yes, the English do identify English issues and interests; they may sometimes feel they are ignored. But is this really a political movement we can call English nationalism when we find none of the things we might expect from a nationalist movement: there is no mainstream nationalist political party, no nationalist cultural institutions, nor nationalist public intellectuals? Supposed ‘English nationalism’ becomes another reason to exclude the English from debate.

Now, I’m not naïve. Englishness, like Britishness is not monochrome. Look for the more unpleasant edge and you will certainly find it. Its fears can be inflamed by populist right. The current ‘Campaign to Free Tommy Robinson’ trades on claims that the ethnic dimension of grooming has been ignored.

But this reactionary minority does do not justify the marginalisation of Englishness as a whole; indeed, the very opposite. Fears can most easily be exploited amongst people who feel they are not being listened to. The shunning of Englishness feeds the populists.

The English are more concerned about the cultural impact of immigration, though as many British identifiers share similar concerns it is largely a matter of degree. While some do reject migration for racist reasons, as trade unionist Paul Embery says about rapid migration into east London, ‘it wasn’t their sense of race that had been violated by the sudden upheaval in their community; it was their sense of order’. I would say the same about my old Southampton constituency.

But instead of engaging with this view, the anti-English fraction simply takes it as proof that Englishness is beyond the pale.

The marginalisation of English identity prevents us exploring the shared values and common goals that are needed to heal England’s divisions. The work of British Future has found a large centre ground on migration, valuing its contribution but wanting it controlled. Yet public debate does not allow this to be expressed.

Without question, much good has come from the spread of socially liberal cosmopolitan values. This is a far less closed and less bigoted society than the one into which I was born. But I would also argue that communitarian values of collective identity and solidarity – what we might call the bonds of belonging – that mark much of English identity also have a power and value that deserves recognition.

Exclude the English and we also lose the ability to draw on England’s radical and reforming traditions. Our defence of liberty, our traditions of self-organisation, our history of struggles for rights and freedoms.

Nation-building

We will also struggle to shape shared identities and challenge the less pleasant aspects of Englishness

It is not actually a surprise that people from ethnic minorities are more British than English, and not just because of perceptions of English as an ethnic identity.

Being English is strongly associated with being born here, and it’s the younger generations that are more likely to be English.

And identities change their meaning. As Prof Tariq Modood reminds us, forty years ago many felt that association with the legacy of racism and colonialism would prevent ethnic minorities ever calling themselves British. That did not happen, and Englishness too is continuing to change.

The popular acceptance of a multi-racial English football team suggests an inclusive Englishness is being built as we speak. (It’s only a generation or so since some fans didn’t count goals scored by black players).

I wouldn’t argue for one moment that we should just take Englishness as it we find it. Just as the far right want to make it reactionary, those of a more progressive outlook should make every effort to strengthen its progressive, patriotic and inclusive expressions.

But once again, the anti-English elite does its best to get in the way; rather than help shape Englishness and counter its more reactionary manifestations, Englishness is absent from public policy. The contributions of high profile ethnic minority figures, including Sadiq Khan, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Trevor Phillips, who are all at ease talking about Englishness, are ignored.

There is a stark contrast between the pro-active efforts of the Scottish government to inculcate an inclusive Scottish identity and the lack of almost any public engagement with English identity by the UK government that runs England.

Instead of nation-building we have national neglect.

Identity, values and change

These divisions of culture and identity have huge implications for our ability to tackle England’s other divisions.

We cannot heal this divided nation without radical changes to our political economy that will reduce inequality, the gaps between regions, and raise productivity, innovation and the quality of working life.

In the vision of the recent IPPR commission on Economic Justice

‘an economy in which prosperity is joined with justice and builds the common good’

But that change needs more than technocratic policy; it will depend on a shared vision of our nation; a shared idea of the common good; shared values. In the search for those common goals we cannot ignore national identity.

National identities transmit values, and popular values determine how society can and can’t be changed. To take one example, the NHS is popular, despite its failings, because its core value ‘we all pay in and it’s there when we need it’ is not so much a funding mechanism but a statement of the sort of people we imagine ourselves to be.

Old identities of the unionised working class; and the conservatism of order, service and respectability have weakened. Across the west, the identities of people, nation and place have assumed greater importance. Sadly, it is the divisive and xenophobic right that has taken most advantage. Centrist parties like the SNP and leftist parties like Syriza have been the exception.

The urgent need to address England stems, not from a narrow nationalism or parochialism but as a necessary condition to create a strong sense of shared identity, common interests and a determination to work together to build a better society.

The governance of England

Thisplace, this nation of England, will always belong to people with multiple and mixed identities. Yet the most widely shared identity is too often excluded from the national debate.

England and the English must be included if we are to overcome the divisions – of identity, culture, geography, values and economy; if we are to create the sense of shared identity and common purposes that is now so essential. But where on earth can that discussion currently happen?

This is where we must turn to the governance of England.

England is now the only part of the UK governed permanently on most domestic policy by the UK government and not by its own elected parliament or assembly.

It is the only unreformed element of the old imperial state and parliament. Reform that started with the division of Ireland in the 1920s and continued when Scotland and Wales took authority from Westminster at the turn of the century, has not yet touched England.

Nor, in the main, has it touched the political parties that dominate England.

Attachment to the old unitary state was embedded in the pretence that Scottish and Welsh devolution simply lent Westminster powers to the nations. This was used to justify the UK government continuing run England. That pretence about devolution has been dropped, but not the belief that England should be subject to the parliament and government of the UK.  

Of course, people say that England is so big within Westminster that the distinction is a technicality, a matter of form not a matter of substance. This is to miss the point about what a national parliament is.

As Vernon Bogdanor observes, the Commons has now the semblance of an English Parliament – because it largely discusses English issues – without being made up of English MPs.  

England is sometimes subject to the direct interference of non-English MPs (as when the DUP demands English revenues to sustain the Conservatives in power and prevent an early election, or when Labour Scottish and Welsh MPs to imposed higher university fees on England). English voters are denied the democratic right to determine national policy outside that is taken for granted in the rest of the UK.

English Votes on English Laws have given English MPs a veto on legislation, but, in the words of one authoritative study, it has not yet given England a voice. The Commons does not provide a forum and focus for the politics of England in the way that the elected bodies of Scotland, Wales and, (though temporarily incapacitated), Northern Ireland do for those parts of the union.

There is no crucible for England’s national debate.

This constitutional conservatism has shaped how England sees itself.

Scotland and Northern Ireland both delivered large Remain majorities. As did London. Wales had a narrow Leave vote, in line with the UK average but much less than England-outside-London.

The more pro-Remain parts of the UK have enjoyed civic processes, political debates, and political institutions that have enabled them to reimagine their identities in a post-imperial world. Scotland took that opportunity enthusiastically, Wales less certainly though there would now be no going back. Northern Ireland as a way of moving beyond its own tragic history.

London, of course, is the one part of England that enjoys statutory powers, its own elected leadership and political institutions to shape its identity.

These debates have allowed different parts of the union to see themselves as modern, European, post-imperial.

England, uniquely within Britain, has neither been challenged nor enabled to re-imagine its position in the union, its identity, and its role in the 21s century. It split culturally, regionally, by age and education, because there has never been an attempt to articulate what the people English share in common.

The symptoms England displays – the Brexit vote, the regional imbalances, the cultural divisions, the obsessive centralisation – are rooted in the failure of England to reconsider our role and nature in the modern world.

That England provided the lion’s share of the Brexit vote was not a pathological failing of the English people, but the outcome of England being denied any political identity, institutions and national debate of its own.

In the absence of that national debate, in the absence of any English political institutions, and with the widespread marginalization of English identity, it should not be a surprise that the English more than anyone else wanted to ‘take back control’.

Scotland, of course, also enjoyed its own ‘take back control’ moments when it both threw out Labour and determined its relationship with the union.

Of course, many British unionists have actually worked hard to prevent England being allowed a political identity, including many in my own party. Unlike the liberal anti-England British, these opponents have often been motivated by concern for the union.

These British unionists – whilst often the staunchest advocates of devolution to Wales and Scotland - have feared that England is so big that allowing a political identity would inevitably wreck the union. Instead of working out how a reformed union could accommodate England’s democratic rights, and the rights of the smaller nations, they have resisted all change.

We can now see what a catastrophic mistake that has been.

It is the ultimate irony that the architects of England’s suppression are now seeing an angry England taking the whole union out of the EU, against the wishes of the majority in the devolved nations.  The defenders of the union have triggered unprecedented threats to the continuation of the union itself. Instead of blaming a supposed English nationalism, it is time that they confronted their own responsibility for the current situation.

The attachment to the old imperial unitary state has a second consequence.

It has consolidated the Whitehall centralist state.

Wales and Scotland – and less certainly – Northern Ireland – have broken free of Whitehall micro-management.

England again is unchanged, not just in the formal system of governance but in the entrenched in the pattern of thinking in Westminster and Whitehall.

Decades of centralisation have produced a nation with dramatic variations in morbidity, mortality, education, life chances, social care, and not just by region but by city, town, village and street.  Yet propose the most modest devolution and yet within half a mile of here, the cry of ‘beware the postcode lottery’ will go up.

As the admirable Mark Sandford of your own House of Commons library has documented, the much-hyped devolution deals, as with Labour’s regionalism, are primarily designed to co-opt and engage local stakeholders in the flexible delivery of Whitehall priorities. They are not intended to transfer the ability to set different policy priorities, or accountability for public money to a more local level, let alone give statutory backing to local democratic rights.

The Barnett formula requires the UK government to give relative protection to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by linking their spending to that of England. Barnett does not require the UK government to provide any similar protection to the poorest parts of England. Hence, since 2010, the UK government has imposed bigger cuts on the poorest regions of England.  

If Barnett has been an essential underpinning of UK, devolution across the UK, English devolution requires fair funding within England. So stunted is the debate about England that I’m not aware of proposals from any party to entrench a fair funding formula for England.

No wonder so few people in England feel they can influence local and national policy. Only 13% feel that politicians in Westminster reflect the concerns of people in their part of the country. Only 23% think local people have a significant influence on local government decisions.

If anything, the English feel even less empowered than the British, and, according to the Centre for Towns, the most English towns feel least well represented. But this is a civic and democratic crisis across identities, not just for the English.

What is to be done?

If you are still with me, I hope the inter-related challenges I outlined earlier are beginning to take shape.

I want to foster an England that is more optimistic about the future than it is nostalgic for the past; an England in which there are shared aims, shared identities and a shared idea of the common good.

We need to enable the English and English identity to be fully expressed and accepted in the national debate, as legitimate as any other identity, and to encourage its development as inclusive.

We need to create the institutions in which those shared aims and the common good can be developed.

And we need to ensure that the average person in England feels far more empowered to shape their locality and their nation than they do at present.

There has been some talk by Gordon Brown and others of a new union of the nations and the English regions, but these proposals are inadequate, undemocratic and far from radical. They give other nations enhanced rights, including treaty powers; butEnglish legislation and English finance would remain in the hands of the UK government.  

The regions, a modern invention, bear only an occasional and coincidental relationship to real local and regional identities. And in a small, crowded, nation, English legislation needs to be made at English level by English democracy.

I would argue that the only system of governance that can meets our pressing is an English Parliament coupled to radical statutory devolution within England.

Westminster needs to move beyond the formal mechanism of English Votes for English Laws to allow English legislation to be fully made by elected English MPs. That is a demand that has been consistently enjoyed majority support, British identifiers as well as English, since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. It should evolve, initially at least, as a dual mandate Commons in which English MPs sit both as members of an English Parliament and of a union parliament.

At the same time, to overcome the regional disparities of wealth and opportunity, or to reduce the material divisions in England, we need a fundamental shift of power and resources from Whitehall to England’s localities. This devolution must be underpinned by statutory rights to take decisions locally.

Perhaps the moment for change may be coming.

In the BBC survey a third expressed no opinion on changes of governance. This is a debate that is starting, not one that is ended.

But exclude them, and 62% support an English Parliament.

73% support the devolution of power to combined authorities, a remarkable result given how new they are, but it strongly suggests that building on existing institutions in localities that we understand, is likely to be the best way forward.

Since Brexit, England is being taken more seriously across the political spectrum and amongst liberal and left intellectuals.  The Constitution Unit has analysed options for an English Parliament. The very commissioning of the BBC’s poll recognised England’s growing significance.

The emergence of a network of symbolically powerful elected mayors, backed by business as well as local authorities may create a powerful voice for change for all parts of England.

Few people now argue that Whitehall can solve the regions’ problems. Just ask Northern Rail passengers.

Yes, the call for an English Parliament raises questions about the future of the union, although less sharp if the first step is a dual mandate Commons. But, in anycase it seems unlikely, post-Brexit, that we will get through the next few years without facing questions about the structure and future of the union; whether from the Irish border, renewed calls for Scottish independence, or the simple impossibility of the UK government representing both UK and English agricultural interests at the same time.

Those coming debates will not be able to exclude England. Lord Salisbury’s Constitution Reform Group has laid the groundwork for a serious re-founding of the union.

The political parties have not reached this conclusion yet. It may still take them some time.

But I would suggest that this is the time for the civic consideration of England’s governance to begin.

Large sections of the public want change, they have a sense of direction.

Now is the time for civil society groups, faith organisations, unions, business and local authorities to lead that essential, overdue public discussion.