Showing posts with label London. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Ten years ago

Ten years ago today I was at home. A plumber was doing some work on the boiler. As the horrible events of the morning unfolded I, like other Londoners, became aware of them gradually. Partial, confused information, began coming in. The plumber couldn't contact his wife, who was in central London; the mobile networks were down. The radio started reporting that something had happened: perhaps it was an electrical fire. The subsequent blasts made it clear that this wasn't the case. News of casualties came, then images - we were by this time glued to the television, fixated on pictures that had an uncanny quality. Here was the city we knew, loved, and worked in; so familiar, yet so utterly different.

The feeling was one of utter confusion; nobody knew what would happen next. The media reflected this : armed police had drawn their weapons outside the Downing Street gates, what was going on? Rumours and misinformation spread - someone had been shot at Canary Wharf, my neighbours falsely claimed. Finally, as thousands of commuters struggled to get home across a city whose public transport was shut down, the grim realisation of the extent of what had happened began to settle in. The skies were eerily quiet, all planes had been diverted; millions of Londoners were similarly stunned into silence. This was an attack that was felt.

That was the thing about 7th July 2005. Its initial impact was to unify. Against those sections of the left who cannot see an outbreak of the collective with any popular purchase without sniffing reaction in the wings, this was something to celebrate, the human determination breaking through an otherwise relentless darkness. The shared grief, the shared efforts of emergency and tube workers (will we remember the latter when they are demonised for striking tomorrow?), the collective  resolve of those struggling to walk home in their office shoes. It was a spirit captured by Ken Livingstone's response, surely his finest moment. Our response, he said, must be unified. This was an assault on working class people, of all faiths. We must not allow ourselves to be divided. In terms that stand as a marker of the extent to which attitudes to migration hardened in the subsequent decade, he ended:

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.
 They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.
What followed, on the part of central government and security agencies, was the systematic negation of the attitude proposed by Livingstone. One person fitting Livingstone's description of someone coming to London to live their life was Jean Charles de Menezes,  who should be counted the 53rd victim of 7/7 - murdered by police in a moment of paranoid frenzy. The New Labour government rolled out successive pieces of anti-terror legislation at a dizzying pace - only being prevented by a parliamentary vote from implementing 90 days detention without trial. MI5 recruited as never before; its staff has doubled since 2005. London's Muslim communities were criminalised and surveilled.

London became a city increasingly dominated, and policed, by fear. We have become used to armed police, as we before became used to the street homeless. The years since 2005 have seen the city change in other ways. Gentrification has accelerated: the multicultural diversity and the capacity of ordinary people to live and work in this city which were both integral to the city's initial resolution in 2005 have suffered at the hands of the housing market. We are, these days, a superficially hip city whose well-groomed exterior hides a fear all too willing to lash out if provoked. We have lost so much, and those who have lost most are given least opportunity to tell their stories.



Sunday, 1 June 2014

Sunday Quicky - Answer this



A question for you. The London Borough of Barnet has one of the nastiest Tory Councils in the country, intent on privatisation and social cleansing. The Tories have just held it by the narrowest of margins*. Here are the results from the key Childs Hill ward:

Local election results 22 May 2014- Childs Hill
Name of candidateDescription (if any)Number of votes recorded
AJAKAIYE AdeLabour Party Candidate1408
COHEN Jack BernardLiberal Democrat1509 (elected)
DAVIES Jonathan MauriceLiberal Democrat1198
GROVER Rohit RoshyanConservative Party Candidate1500
HENRY Charlotte AlexandraLiberal Democrat1222
MARASCO Francesco EdoardoGreen Party501
PATEL NilaLabour Party Candidate1381
RYDE ShimonConservative Party Candidate1544 (elected)
SMITH AndrewLabour Party Candidate1463
ZINKIN PeterConservative Party Candidate1536 (elected)
You'll note that the difference between the highest Labour vote and the lowest Tory vote is easily less than the Green candidate's vote.

Now, tell me this - I'm particularly interested in the views of those leftists who advocated a Greeen vote - what was achieved by voting Green in this ward? Or indeed by the Greens standing at all?

This post is really just a forerunner of a more thorough discussion of why I think it is still right for socialists to vote Labour, and for that matter to be in Labour, but this kind of thing really annoys me.




*One seat. Voting in a safe Labour ward was delayed because of the death of a candidate.

Saturday, 24 May 2014

That London

Nurtured in the bosom of that most talked about of fictional entities, the white working class, away from large urban centres, I have spent my entire adult life in London. I therefore straddle the electoral divide of the moment, in the eyes of the commentariat, that between London and, um, absolutely everywhere else in England.

London, which is "educated and civilised", doesn't vote for UKIPers and returns Labour councils. Everywhere else is brimful of racist yokels who hang on Nigel Farage's every word, have abandoned classical political allegiances, and who would no doubt be described using the phrase "sea-change" if journalists hadn't stopped using the phrase "sea-change" about a decade ago.

Now, don't get me wrong, against the Pollyannaish line being pushed by the liberal-left, the UKIP results yesterday are significant. As I said. But the whole "it's a crazy world outside London" explanation of Farageism is less than adequate. For reasons including, but not limited to, the following:




  • The rush to paint London as some kind of leftist paradise that inevitably keeps its head whilst the rest of the country wraps itself in the union jack has to reckon with the fact that Boris Johnson twice beat Ken Livingstone in a straight contest.
  • It is pretty much to be expected the Labour will do proportionately better in (a) large urban centres, and (b) places with significant minority ethnic populations. Thus, not just the results in London, but also in Manchester and Liverpool.
  • It is absolutely true that there is disillusionment with Labour, and a widespread sense of abandonment amongst its traditional working class base. The factors giving rise to this are equally present in London. The difference in London is that there are counteracting forces preventing a peel-off to UKIP or apathy: notably more radical Labour programmes in key boroughs (Camden, Islington), strong left/ green alternatives and/ or community groups to absorb dissent in places where Labour are shit (Newham/ Lewisham). None of these things are entirely unique to London.
There remains a serious crisis of working class representation in England, and the rest of the UK. It is compounded by an immediate housing crisis and an economic 'recovery' that is having zero impact on peoples' actual well-being. These are the issues Labour needs to address; sidelining the persisting reality of class in favour of a supposed fissure between London and the provinces is the kind of politics that belongs in Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen sketch. It has nothing to offer.