Gender Critical Men are f***ing terrifying.

By Daviemoo

As always, when I write about trans equality I need to start off with a solemn declaration that violence against women and girls is a very real, genuine problem, a cancer in society; that women are subjected to horrors beyond the stunted imagining of the men behind that violence is inarguable. I also understand that as a man talking about this debate it’s easy to write me and my words off as more misogynist twaddle that doesn’t bear scrutiny. I can’t change anyone’s mind on that- but I can continue to talk about an issue that gives me grave concern, which is that the gender critical movement came out of a nascent period last year when certain gender critics questioned why far right activists were infiltrating their circles, and the movement as a whole decided it was a necessary cost to join hands with fascists to keep their movement building.
If you don’t take violence against women and girls seriously, shame on you is the weakest sentiment you deserve- but if you don’t take violence, both state level and personal, against trans people as seriously, you must live in a different world than I, and if you condone holding hands with far right activists to bolster your movement, you’re part of that group.

Women deserve to be heard about the violence they endure at the hands of sick men. Today the newspapers are awash with claims that Nick Cohen, long time well known alleged pervert is- shock horror- an alleged woman grabbing pervert. Nick’s defence is that he “doesn’t have the faintest idea” about the accusations, but he did ask:
1- why she didn’t report it sooner
2- he said the misogynistic conversation was “joking among friends”
3- he said the accusations come from critics including “pro Russia advocates” and “trans activists”
4- he said “I assume it was stuff I was doing when drunk”, relying on alcoholism as the fulcrum of his alleged sexual abuses

This case is important, as all cases of this nature are. It’s also common, one case in tens of thousands in the UK alone, likely more- where women are maligned for staying silent, judged for coming forward, slated for speaking up, insulted for not being able to take a joke and blamed for their own bodies. If you want to know why the gender critical movement attracts women it’s because there’s hardly scant evidence as to why women should be afraid of men. That’s something anyone with even a sparking scintilla of intellect can grasp- a movement based around rage towards men, the obvious oppressors of women, is attractive- and if that’s where the attributes of gender critical thinking stopped I’d be supportive. But gender criticals somehow take the existence of a tiny proportion of the population, trans people, and make them the malign target of their hatred towards men.
You don’t have to be a card carrying member of the tofu eating lefty brigade to see that there’s a gulf between trans women and cis men – As a cis man, do I typify the behaviours of a trans woman to you? I don’t do any of the things trans women do in regards to my gender, so it’s ridiculous, laughable even to put parity between someone like me and a trans woman. Even if you don’t believe transgender women are women, someone with any grounding in reality could see that trans women don’t behave like non trans men.

Trans folk are often maligned on the internet, accused of everything from fetishes to the newly in vogue “groomer” charge levelled at LGBT+ people by right wing demagogues. Unfortunately, too many in the LGBT+ are falsely sure that slating their peers in the community with these accusations will save them- make them the exception to the rule with regular pundits from tiktok right wingers like Kelly Cardigan to ostensibly academic folk like Debbie Hayton all too happy to agree with any anti trans sentiment, provided they can assert themselves as the only exception- But Hayton and those like her are a confusing array of figures who regularly talk about how trans women are indeed problems and shouldn’t use women’s spaces, all the while using women’s spaces if accounts are to be believed. It’s the hypocrisy of trans women who declare support for the gender critical movement who believe they, because they back the movement, should be the exception to the rule.

Additionally, one finds it hard to accept the assertion that is often levelled at trans people being erotically obsessed with your own genitals is wrong, bad and disgusting when the same group post things like this:

To ascribe your feelings to everyone is deluded, and yet this holistic monstering of trans people is commonplace- one newspaper article comes out justifying the fear of trans people- a trans rapist in Scotland- and it’s touted as proof, all that’s needed to justify the phobia, the aversion, the hatred, the violence both political and physical… whereas I just look and go ‘if one example is enough you may want to google “female teacher has sex with student” and keep a strong gin handy’.
I’m not trying to make light of these very serious issues, only point out that holistically ascribing bad behaviour or malevolence to an entire group of people based on tangential aspects of their behaviour or existence is not helpful.

And that is where we start to get to the crux of my fear. The gender critical movement is absolutely not empowering women and bolstering their protections- it’s causing wedge issue “debate” which is distracting from the continual weakening of women’s rights and protections, both away from the “trans debate” and partly- because of it. And even the front runners are guilty of an exclusionary attitude too, not just to trans women but fellow cis women too. The excerpt from Kathleen Stock’s recent musings where she declares that gender nonconforming women who are kicked out of womens’ spaces are a necessary casualty, not for a moment seeming to consider that they, as women, also deserve that protection and yet face denial from it, not by the cruel trans activists but by a fellow cisgender woman.

Let’s say we create an island and tomorrow relocate every trans person to a trans only society. Do you genuinely think that would deal with the rampant misogyny in today’s world? Would men stop hitting their wives, would police stop joking about rape victims, calling them ugly or insinuating that they like being domestically abused: see the met police texting “give her a tap, she loves it”. Would the hot-button row about abortion rights magically evanesce into nothing? Would period poverty be solved?
What issue are gender critics fighting for, besides the othering and monstering of trans women? Again, you don’t have to accept that trans women are women if you don’t want to. Nobody can compel that thought in you, but to deny the commonality in experience between trans people who experience an enormous threat of sexual assault, violence in public spaces and whose rights are being debated- not as opposed to women’s rights but in conjunction with them- see the overturning of Roe V Wade at the same time as over 300 anti trans laws emerge: surely it’s a fools errand to deny that there are shared experiences here which are of vital import, and are more useful in drawing people together than driving them apart?

But the most terrifying aspect of gender critical thinking is that, and I mean this with my entire being, it drives women into the arms of their abusers.

Gender critical men are terrifying. Honestly? I’m scared of men anyway- I understand women’s fears towards men, having been put through hell by other men in my life. If identifying out of being a man was something you could choose to do I would, because rejecting the label of a group I’m in that’s routinely oppressed me with violence, sometimes sexual, always degrading, my entire life would be appealing: but I can’t, because I am a man- and so I want to out the men who tarnish us. I want them to face up to, and be deprogrammed from their evils, to make the world actually function and to melt down the misogyny that forms the bulwarks of society. The only way to do that is to listen and understand- and I do. I understand women’s fear of men- I do not understand gender critical women’s embracing of gender critical men.

Gender critical men regularly assert that the key tenets of gender criticality when it comes to men are correct- that men are all thoughtless, violent thugs led by their penises into committing vile acts of transgression against bodily autonomy, every man a sneaky sleeper agent just waiting to pounce once your walls are down.
It is, frankly, bollocks.
We live in a society that coddles men, telling them it’s ok to get angry and shout, smash up your TV, fight in the street, thoughtlessly lay hands on other people as a “joke”. We all imbibe this as we grow, and never, not once, do our forefathers even attempt to highlight it never mind decry it as a horror. It is our job to pick this apart and we must encourage this in younger boys and men.
But it’s also our job to talk about the arrant nonsense in ascribing male violence to some magical rage gene that all men have that is just simmering away, waiting to explode. There’s absolute potential for a biological link towards being male and an increased risk of violence- but as beings who overcame our urge to chase wildebeest with sticks and live in caves, I think we can also overcome some childish urge to act with violence at every turn- to do so, society needs to push for that change, and until it does it won’t happen. Does society push men to eschew violence over thought? No. From the knee boys are told it’s ok to pull girls’ hair if you like them, the old boys will be boys trope, as young men we’re never taught how to respect others bodily autonomy and why we should, mostly because rarely does ours become challenged- and when it does become challenged, when young men prank each other in weird ways, it’s put down to childish humour rather than aggressively dealt with. As men grow we’re enabled at every turn to behave like we’re told we are wired to- to be aggressive, thoughtless, we’re bombarded with imagery of manly men or shown videos of guys on social media acting like utter fools and being celebrated, and nowadays you can’t turn left without another typically masculine looking stranger brandishing a microphone talking about how women these days don’t know how to cook as if they don’t sleep under a pile of their own laundry because they don’t know how to change bedding.


Gender critical men scare me because they embrace the nonsense- they DO think men are violent, they DO think we’re wired for it, they state blithely that men are always thinking about how to get what they want sexually. Gender critical men confess to the crimes we’re all accused of, accepting that yes, they are that way and levelling the accusation at people like me that we’re the same basal creature as they. I am not in any way like the picture gender critical people paint of the typical man, and I am not the exception- gender critical men who openly acknowledge these accusations and agree with them? They are. And yet, rather than looking at gender critical men as the dangerous openly confessed predators they admit to being, gender critical women link arms with them, pointing at them as evidence of their convictions- it’s a very “leopards eating face” moment. Rather than turning away from those who admit to being dangerous to you, you embrace them because they affirm your fears.

But of course, many reading this will assume I’m just a lefty prone to flights of fancy, no real proof.

This is an avowed gender critical man, who, in response to an Australian doctor saying his mother is trans-positive, is threatening to… well, you can read it.
When confronted on the fine point that misogyny is probably more likely to be threatening to chin an old lady than to be friendly to trans people, he claimed it was an “experiment” to “out trans activists as enjoying violence against old ladies”- his point somewhat punctuated with failure as every single pro trans person who interacted did so with rage and disgust. The most terrifying part of this is- it’s happening. It’s less than a week since Pink News reported that an 83 year old woman with dementia was assaulted by a man then thrown in a bin because he suspected she was trans- she wasn’t, not the point.

But this is the world in which we live now, where men think threats of violence against women are OK if it “owns the trans”. Where acts of actual violence are committed against women and that’s seen as collateral damage, acceptable in the battle against trans inclusion.
Because these men, these gender critical men have absolutely no interest in looking at their behaviour. They’re fine with their violence towards women- and the fact that women are turning a blind eye to it in favour of seething rage at trans people is probably worthy of celebration to them, because whilst there is a united hatred of transgender people existing, they go unscrutinised.

I will never convince gender critical women that trans people are worthy of the respect they so often reference in regards to their belief, nor frankly do I care to- it’s not for men like me to convince women not to fear someone, and as a man I understand contextually that bearded me wandering into a conversation to “um, akshually” someone who has fears about their safety is probably not helpful. That’s not my aim. But if I can make anti trans women realise that they allow their own fears to walk blithely among them, I’d hope that would at least see a shifting of the lens of blame onto the people who deserve it- non trans men who embrace this movement so holistically. I see gender critical women cosying up to men who proudly threaten violence as the same kin as women married to preachers talking about what a woman’s place is, smiling blithely that surely they’re the exception though, they’re safe because they are behind the gun- not in front of it.

There’s no point talking about the big examples- Donald ‘just convicted of sexual assault grab them by the pussy’ Trump, Matt ‘I’m literally a theocratic fascist, girls should be getting married at 14 and have babies at 16’ Walsh, Rishi ‘standing up for women but refusing to make misogyny a hate crime or entertain menopause leave’ Sunak: gender critics know, and they’ll probably never meet those men. But what about the men who proudly make their way to your marches, the ones like this:

That is a white nationalist, on your side, at your marches, or as Adrian Comerford has shown in response to Joanne Rowling on twitter, when Posie Parker interviews an avowed Neo nazi and literal confessed wife beater.
And what’s Rowling, who posted a nearly 5000 word diatribe accusing trans people of attracting Neo Nazis to these rallies, done with this info? Ignored it. Ignored the fact that Parker, who says she is not a feminist and that she will “destroy any woman who stands in her way” has open links to the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti womens’ choice group. She has called her “a genius” though.

Some gender critics questioned why so many far right fools kept showing up at their rallies- apparently the simple explanation of “your beliefs mirror theirs” was lost on them. I for example, attended a rally last year- a drag queen was reading a book to some children at Leeds Library. On one side, a huge collection of LGBT+ people and allies- on the other side- the Patriotic Alternative, described as a “neo nazi, far right fascist organisation” on their own wikipedia.

A gender critic wrote an article the next day condemning… Both sides. Oh it was terrible that the nazis were there, yes, nobody likes a nazi. But how dare LGBT+ people get angry at fascists holding up signs saying that we’re perverts and paedophiles, how dare we stand in opposition to people who virulently hate us? I note the article didn’t mention that the other side, the PA, so desperate to protect children- decided to set off the fire alarm, terrifying the kids. So many people, concerned with womens’ rights and protecting children, ignorant of the white nationalists amongst them or… embracing them.

Yes- embracing- what happened to the women who confronted the budding allyship with far right entities? Jane Clare Jones was critical of their attendance, many other women lodged concern that their movement, supposedly built around elevating women, was being swollen by those who think women should adhere to bible scripture. So what happened?
They were holistically told that it didn’t matter by other gender critical people- that the threat is so dire that allyship against trans people supersedes their allies thoughts. But can we be surprised? Let’s not forget when Allison Bailey called for allyship with racists and homophobes:

The madness in this entire thing is that if you strip back any and all nuance, it’s absolutely reasonable for women to have concerns about men and about having spaces which are dedicated to their safety and refuge. But rather than dealing with the societal reasons that we have to have refuges and protect women, anti trans campaigners think erasing trans people will solve these problems. They won’t- and the longer this goes on, the more precarity women’s bodily autonomy heads towards.

If you weaken trans people’s access to gender affirming care, you weaken a group’s access to bodily autonomy- and those same arguments can be recycled against you.
Why should trans women get access to HRT just because of their feelings, right? Well, by that same vein, why should anyone have access to abortion rights just because of their feelings?
You either holistically stand for bodily autonomy for all, or you author your own eventual downfall from your own pulpit, used by the very men who terrify me.

Nothing will change from my writing this piece, but I would hope that the less radicalised amongst gender critical women or those flirting with the movement because they understandably fear men, will hear my entreaties- gender critical demagogues do not care about your access to spaces, only for the denial of others’ access. They do not care about protecting your status as a woman, or halting violence, only to denigrate others’ status and enact violence against them, both personally and on a state level. And you can pull out your well used examples of trans people being terse with you on the internet but if you ally with radical nazis, proud anti feminists, anti abortion activists and more, I still see you are more of a problem for womens’ rights than people being mean on twitter because your views are quite literally eroding their public safety. I don’t want women to feel unsafe, I don’t want trans people to feel unsafe and I don’t want anyone to face death or rape threats- I sure do want the radical men amongst you who regularly threaten violence, both misogynistic, transphobic and just generally violent, to shut the fuck up- and you should too.

There is, and I know it doesn’t seem like it, a way through all of this, and it’s for both sides to ally against the actual problem. And the irony is, I come from that group. I am a non trans man, telling you that I walk in the spaces of cis men, I listen to them, I hear their conversations, I’ve listened to their justifications of their mad misogynist thinking. Men like that are the imminent threat, and will continue to be whilst you flirt with this distraction, and whilst you do they will continue to capitalise on it. How you handle that is your call. I have no right to tell anyone how to handle it- but I do know that continuing to work with the very men who threaten violence against everyone just because everyone happens to include the people you don’t like, does not a successful movement nor a compelling argument make.

Lack of ethics equals lack of politics

By Daviemoo

Often, we hear people who speak about politics waxing lyrical about the good old days where there were no scandals rocketing out of politics- whilst this is not true, and scandal has always had its place in politics, there is something to be said about the new era of never ending salacious headlines- but we often miss the bigger, and more concerning picture of a lack of ethical bedrock in politics- it’s knock on effect.

In the UK right now, we’re facing an unprecedented cost of living crisis. Part of this cost of living crisis comes from the knock on effect of a pandemic which raged over the world for two years. Part of it is, undeniably, exacerbated by a poorly implemented brexit (I’m also a fervent believer that there was no good way to implement it but that is besides the point) which cost the economy twice the damage COVID did. Part of it is, naturally, caused by inept politicians- the irony of this piece is that it is to highlight how scandal and political inaction worsens our lives but we can also give a deferential nod to the fact that Truss’ behaviour during her short time in office certainly had an effect- not that of a stimulant to the economy but a corrosive, causing market meltdowns and long term instability which will worsen mortgage rates & basic prices for months, perhaps years. But a huge part of the horror of the cost of living crisis in the UK is that it is entirely manufactured- Conservative MPs are more dedicated to defending the honour of Boris Johnson than to fulfilling their election edict of helping the British people- myriad stories across the media in the last two weeks speaking of how they will “slow down” parliamentary processes in rebellion over Johnson’s supposed shopping to the police.
This inaction, and this utter fixation with the state of their party and those they personally like, is a huge and undeniable factor in dealing with the issues the British public face.

Key members of the Conservative Party plan to back Boris Johnson even now- and though I’ve made my distaste of Johnson quite clear, I truly cannot understand these conservative minions’ mindset.
The options here are clear: the government, in its own statute, clearly states that if criminality is suspected, those involved must be referred to the police- it is not for the government nor within its’ remit to determine criminality, that is the purview of the police. In Johnson’s case, criminality is (with previous evidence to go by, not to mention simply knowing the man) suspected.
There is every chance that no criminal findings will be brought against Johnson, and if so, we can move on and focus on the times he did provably breach the laws. But if he did breach the law repeatedly, it is for the public to know and scrutinise, because we pay his salary, we pay his legal costs (now to the alleged tune of over a million pounds) and because he is a politician, supposedly the best and most dedicated of us to the role of civil servant and should be expected to conform to high standards at all times- if he did not, we have a right to know.
But, dear reader- isn’t that the issue? We shouldn’t know- not because these failings of moral strength aren’t relevant to our decision making; because our prime minister, the most senior political figure in the UK, ostensibly the person with the most vital job should not breach the law.

The idea of a lawless government would never have occurred to most of us fifteen years ago- but Blair’s involvement in the Iraq war is, arguably, a breach of the law. An invasion of a country under blatantly false pretences, on the wing and prayer that dangerous WMD could be found- they weren’t, and our involvement hinged on that. You can blame this current iteration of the conservatives but any lawlessness in office is appalling- going back further even than Blair and his idiocy, to Thatcher and her ill advised Falklands actions and likely back even further.
The culmination of lawlessness in office started long before the never ending outpouring of scandal and leaks and infighting that we see daily now- those supposed paragons of each party, Thatcher and Blair both had their part to play in this post-truth governmental shutdown, and to argue that point is simple denialism.
But it is not the origins of this crisis we should give full focus to right now- our energy should be focused on how we avert further erosion of the last bastions of honesty, truthfulness and transparency in politics. We are where we are, many of us too young to have even voted many times before. We must meet the challenge as it is, and to do so, it is time for us to confront truths likely uncomfortable to us all.

Our political parties- yes, mainly the conservatives but most of our political parties today are rocked by scandal, infighting, factionalism, divided by culture war issues that have been falsely inflated to gargantuan proportions when a true reflection of the country would show its insignificance. We’re regularly expected to believe political lying is a rare beast, only spotted every so often flitting away from podia in other countries. Political lying is mainstreamed in the UK, and every prominent politician seems to be keen on partaking to some degree or other.
Holding politicians to their promises and being disappointed when those promises are reneged on is one thing- openly lying repeatedly, as Sunak has now taken to doing, as Johnson has long done and unfortunately as other party leaders will continue to do, is commonplace. Political lying in the UK is not rare- if we could harness it as energy, the bills crisis would be over.

And isn’t that the rub? Rather than focusing on actual policy (with which we could easily demonstrate why the conservatives should not be in charge), we must spend days and weeks untangling the streams of lies spilling from the door of No.10.
Rather than deriding Sunak’s idea of capping the price on food, the price of which is still inflated because capping prices on food when the cost is up causes shortages, we’re discussing Boris Johnson’s legal defence- a topic that shouldn’t be in public discourse not because its irrelevant but because Johnson should have acted beyond reproach at all times. Rather than discussing means to avert Truss’ fiscal foolishness, we’re reading about James Cleverly chartering expensive flights. Rather than dissecting Jeremy Hunts’ fiscal plans to drive us towards recession rather than loosening his death grip on the Union Jack, we’re still debating whether it’s ok to wholesale scrap EU laws, a debate led by a man who wrote a book on disaster capitalism which follows the model of brexit to the letter.
Policy is the battleground we should be fighting the conservatives on- and why? Because we’ve had conservative policy for thirteen years, and in each of those years we’ve seen decline to standards of living, cleanliness, mortgage affordability, societal cohesion, energy pricing, health- if you want to debunk the efficacy of conservative politics, may I introduce you to that most ancient of inventions, the window.
But we aren’t. Rather than discussion of what changes politics must undergo to serve the people once more, we’re accustomed to watching our own live action political scandal show- one which closely mirrors shows created to parody UK politics only fifteen years ago.

And whilst we battle this never ending torrent of affairs and gaffes, the lies, the expense scandals, the misuse of property, the getting on trains whilst infected with COVID, the ignoring actual political duties to sit on twitter and decry minorities- so it continues. Not just the scandal and the slowing pulse of trust in politicians, but the actual tangible lack of assistance for British people.

Instead of sitting together to create cross party solutions to prices spiralling up and living standards crashing down, our politicians are happy to sit opposite each other, smirking wholesomely in complete ignorance of the damage their little Westminster war is causing.

Politics in the UK must be called to heel- decency, honesty, integrity must be injected back into the heart of our politics, because this flailing beast which serves as politics now, doesn’t serve the people- it only serves to create a stage for bad faith actors across all parties to continue to erode the standards by which we should expect politicians to live. And if politicians in the UK do not work to the betterment of society, the firmament of good standards of living- what is the point in them?

Mediocrity in British politics

By Daviemoo

The British political establishment continues to decline before our eyes, and though at the beginning of 2023 a national revolt or general strike seemed inevitable, confoundingly these rumbles of discontent have ebbed- but the steady stream of stories highlighting Westminster corruption continue, today with the news that ex Attorney General and now deportation enthusiast Suella Braverman has been breaking laws in a “limited and specific way” again.
One must begin to ask at what point we look at the decimation of political standards which, coincidentally, fits hand in glove with the erosion of our standards of life and question when we begin to fight back bodily for a country we know lies under the mire of corruption spilling from our political leaders.

I’ve already had pushback for mentioning the Braverman story. “There’s bigger issues going on than something like speeding” I’m told. But it’s not about that one incident- it’s never been about the one incident.
One thing like this would be enough to sink any other party’s minister: Diane Abbott had weeks of racial abuse for drinking a can on a train, Gordon Brown was decimated in the press for calling a woman bigoted on a hot mic. So the first bone of contention to note is the slavish attitude that terminally mediocre politicians like Braverman are given by the press and even their own party- the double standardisation of who is castigated and when we’re given the old eye rolling forbearance of our complaints. Let’s look to Boris Johnson who weathered the scandal of breaching laws he himself implemented to stop the spread of a virus which took the lives of hundreds of thousands of our countryfolk- Braverman went to bat for him, scoffing at the idea of his law breaching- much as she did during her defence of his “damn them all” Brexit strategy.
Secondly though, it’s not just about the hypocrisy which threads every damn thing the conservatives do- the “I can do it but not you” serfdom wound around their reign, because one instance of hypocrisy is, as the pathetic weasel that is Matt Hancock described of his own disgusting dereliction of duty, “only human”- it’s the never ending, always expanding patina of lawless indecent behaviour which has typified this radical, useless government.

The conservatives hold everyone else to standards they fail to meet. Johnson broke the law not just with Partygate but with PPE contracts, with an arguable churlish attitude over protecting British lives when he ignored a joint EU/UK ventilator scheme, he fell foul of the laws around his flat refurbishment paid for by a tory lobbyist- and what sank Johnson in the end? His flipping appointing of a man he knew was a sexual pervert to his closest aides, with the wink wink dismissal of the man’s propensity for sexually assaulting his colleagues. Then we had months of absolutely no leadership as the conservatives collectively decided to let the country falter under a cost of living and cost of heating crisis. After a juddering competition where even ex-“moderate” tories like Penny Mordaunt gleefully carved up any decency they had and threw it to the pyre of potential governance, Liz Truss inexplicably emerged on top, perhaps winning because of her repeated demonstrations of propensity for throwing her own beliefs in the sewage pipes formerly known as the British coast- an ex republican who paid cringeworthy deference to the royals, an ex remainer who sold out common sense for popularity like so many other awkward dolts, Truss’ time in power was underscored not by myriad small scandals but by the echoing shotgun blast she delivered to the throat of the UK economy.
Truss and Kwarteng’s blazing stupidity will echo across British bill payers’ lives for a generation, as she melted down our banks in one fell swoop. A decent political would have quietly resigned and gone to live somewhere far away. Truss is now attempting to restyle herself as a misunderstood genius, appointed at the wrong time- I personally get the same vibes from Truss’ redemption arc as I do every awkward tweet from Elon Musk from his large and no doubt echoingly empty home. There’s as much collective genius between Truss and Musk as there is sexual chemistry between me and fitness model Ken Bek- and he doesn’t even know I exist.

Finally Truss slunk awkwardly out of the job and the role- the top governance role in the entire UK I may add, the job reserved for the best politicians we have, the most able, brilliant minds we keep on shore- was handed perfunctorily to Rishi Sunak, a man who ostensibly played a role in the Bankers crash that necessitated austerity. Sunak was described as a “winner” by Sky’s Beth Rigby recently- an irony. Can you call it winning when you have every single thing handed to you whilst you lay prostrate, sticking your nose up at the idea of having working class friends?
Sunak fucked up his banking role in tandem with so many others that we had a world wide recession, he married someone else who is eye bogglingly wealthy, as chancellor he open handedly threw public finance into the sea and continues to float on the idea that he came up with the furlough scheme. Whilst the scheme was good, its no less than I’d expect from a mildly talented chancellor and I saw it with a pall of dread, knowing that it would lay the groundwork for more predictable tory gutting of an economy already threadbare since 2009. And what has the illustrious Sunak done with his time in office? Brexit prevarications, bending over for Braverman’s ERG racket, scandal after scandal from the front benches to the back- and of course, a second FPN for his casual lawbreaking in the back of a car, not to mention we’ve never heard the conclusion to his “oops I forgot to declare my actual domiciliary status correctly so my wife and I underpaid our taxes” saga.
It’s said that Sunak is a big fan of the Star Wars movies- one wonders whether he’s rooting for the plucky rebels or sees himself in the shiny bleak surfaces of the empire’s ships – I know which side I think he’s on.
It just seems ironic, doesn’t it: seems to me that the party of law and order has something of a problem in adhering to the law.

The problem with British politics is that we’ve normalised weak, average people in politics. We jeer at the corpse haired dilettantes like Fabricant, we mock the 3 IQ on a good day ruffians like Gullis, we mock 30p Lee and his ridiculous half a weetabix mixed with some dehydrated milk, poor person tears and Kleenex lunches- and the stumbling, stuttering and painfully insincere speeches that Sunak awkwardly meanders through: how sad, though, that these people are meant to be the brightest minds in the UK, the most talented and able of our political leaders. The woman currently in charge of women and equalities thinks women should grin and bear their menopause (lets see how quick your tune changes in a few years by the way Kemi), our current chancellor took an open kick at the backside of our NHS workers in 2015 and 2016, the chancellor before him neglected to pay his taxes- maybe it was this slip of millions of pounds in country revenue that endeared him to Sunak who pulled the same trick?

Our politicians aren’t mediocre. Mediocre would be a dream, a gift, a premium upgrade. We started with mediocre and over the recent years have paved way for establishment dilettantes, clinging to bygone eras where the working class was widely too focused on living to fight back- and they saw those heady days of political betterment on the backs of the workers as an aspiration, not an aberration.

Braverman, Gove, Baker, Dorries, Johnson, Truss, Kwarteng, Badenoch and more- all of these names sit in an ever growing pile of political scandal, every day they tip their hand more to the obvious, indefatigable truth that they cannot handle power because they seek to bend it against those they see as inferior or simply ignore it. The conservatives have had their time, been able to try to prove themselves to us over and over again, had facelifts, shiny new slogans, shuffles and reshuffles, they’ve changed their promises, broken the new ones… they are dead in the water, but still swimming: exactly when do we fish them out, discard them as a bad job and get some new guppies in?

Ultimately, the status quo of British politics is woeful across the board. But even mediocrity would be a huge improvement upon this bunch of collective charlatans. The question isn’t if, but when- and between the haemorrhaging of damning news from the front bench and the slow bleed of taxpayer money to projects like “helping the private companies improve infrastructure” (that’s why you were privatised in the first place?) one has to wonder exactly what the conservatives have to do short of collectively dressing like the hamburgler and going door to door to take our valuables, for us to make the move to oust them once and for all.

You don’t fight authoritarianism with dad jokes at the despatch box

By Daviemoo

Here we collectively sit, watching a christofascist radical wave sweep the US whilst in the UK, our politicians openly lie in the public sphere.
Political honesty is decimated, taken to ruination by those in charge over the last thirteen years in the UK- though one could argue that Blair’s later stances were more aligned with center right politics than any iteration of leftism: and in the US, Trump’s meagre four years has left the country torn asunder- guns deregulated, women’s rights assaulted, LGBT+ people being legally ring fenced from the public under threat of literal capital punishment.
And what are we being offered in the face of white supremacy, of Neo nazism mainstreamed to the point that literal white nationalists marched on DC with a police escort the other day? Who will come to save us from the radical right wing rhetoric of Braverman’s “down the boats” speeches or Sunak’s calls to strip back the equality act?
“Moderation.”
You don’t fight against radicalism with moderation, you don’t offer a return to “sane politics”. You crush fascism and extremism. Moderation is capitulation. So be radical- you’re our only hope.

Many folk think that Starmer’s efforts to shift labour towards what I gingerly refer to as “the centre” is a master stroke- a repeat of Blairism for the iPhone age, a brilliant stroke of political engineering that will shore up victory for those tired of tory rule for their bakers dozen of disastrous years.
And whilst I’ve no doubt that some iteration of labour can potentially wrest victory from the tories in 2024, one has to wonder what we’re replacing radical conservatism with. But the centre isn’t the centre any more- everyone’s heard the allusion to the shift in the Overton window meaning the UK’s politics is more right wing than it has been before- so the centre isn’t the centre of the political spectrum- it’s the centre between a party who eschewed any more radical leftism and a party who is lurching towards fascism so quickly that even former members are leaping on stage to warn of fascist leanings at conferences.

Starmer himself has stated recently that labour is now the party of true conservatism- he doesn’t I’m told by many a labour supporter- mean that he is now a tory, and I don’t believe that either – because I believe you can be not a tory and still have bad politics.

I don’t believe in the disgusting radical conservatism that spills from the Conservative Party- it’s politics built on a lack of thought and even conservative MP Danny Kruger has said that the party must no longer appeal to the “intelligentsia”, but must work with “the values of it’s people”: no doubt a difficult task as the conservatives thrust their values into the flames of brexit, promising to forge a new way forward for Britain and emerging as a smouldering ruin, thick with shards of scandal and burning with political mediocrity. The party has wrapped its hands around the neck of the UK and dragged us bodily into culture war cacophonic nonsense, blaming people of colour during the BLM uprising in 2020, blaming people from the EU during 2016, blaming trans people from 2021 to now, or migrants, or “the woke”- as if daubing the label of “not insensitive” upon someone is somehow offensive.
And as this shift in the Overton window has occurred, we note a distinct lack of meaningful policy: no assistance with the cost of living, the highest energy bills in Europe, the prevention of scabbing by landlords, a protection of runaway mortgage increases- no protections for coronavirus which is now tangibly proven to be causing long term health conditions (I know intimately, for I am mid diagnosis for a health condition which coincidentally only began post covid)- and all the while we’re told that this is what the people want: but which people, and how big that group is, seems to be lost in translation from lies to alternative fact as it’s broadcast across the face of the media by compliant presenters.

Equally, dear reader- I don’t believe in traditional conservatism. I have no doubt it has its place in certain aspects of political discourse- none that I’ve ever encountered- and frankly I just don’t believe it works. Conservatism is what the party espoused from 2009 to 2018, before their radical cliff dive- conservatism is in my eyes the defining shift in the later Blair years- not wholly, but enough to be of note. Traditional conservatism got us here– through throttling of the public finances under austerity, through cutting welfare programmes for disadvantaged young people, upping university fees, a reluctance to update a curriculum to prepare people for life after education- plus, endless deregulation of banking, despite Sunak and his fellows being the arbiters of the crash that ostensibly necessitated all these cuts. Then after years of dissatisfaction, it was traditional conservatism being corrupted by radical elements like Patel et all, that led to the referendum that saw us leave our space in the EU.

Ultimately, conservatism is a brand of politics that appeals to the post-imperial ghost lurking in the attics of British- mostly English- people’s brains, decrying that we can do better on our own, that we don’t need trade deals or regulations on fairness, that we must eschew workers rights that supposedly protect the lazy, that political correctness is the cause of all our woes even when the anti politically correct people have been in charge as we’ve declined. Now we can see Patel again rising to critique the “central” Conservative Party eschewing her radical wing, claiming they’d be better placed if they would embrace her hideous vision of politics. All the while Rees-Mogg is on stage declaring that their attempt at gerrymandering failed- openly admitting to voter suppression to the roaring silence of the UK press. So why is it that the UK’s opposition party in chief has sought to embrace the same ethos of politic that has brought us to ruination? Frustratingly, the people seem to be to blame. Many people enjoy this iteration of labour, believing that things will be magically healed under a Starmer primacy.

But will it?
No doubt Starmer will steady the ship, a phrase I’ve heard often and loathe. No doubt he will deal with some of the haemorrhaging wounds left behind by the Conservatives. But a quick look at the positions espoused by labour typify the lack of braveness that encompasses the traditional conservatism he has seemingly embraced.

Brexit and its fallout batters the UK economy, causing a deficit bigger than covid. Trade deals in place that the government has sought out create a negligible boost and in fact our trade deal with Australia benefits them so much that the news coverage of it’s announcement was thick with the type of “I cant believe they agreed to this” that speaks to political illiteracy which throngs the tories’ current iteration. Starmer’s stance? “We’ll make brexit work, we’ll take back control”. I don’t know about you, but the cut and paste repeat of the conservatives’ own line on brexit- all aspiration, no actual promise, no solid information, no promise to actually deal with the issues which may or may not encompass a partial or wholesale about face- is entirely unhelpful.

How about NHS privatisation? Streeting states that there will be no NHS privatisation- as he promises to “temporarily outsource struggling areas to private companies on limited term contracts to deal with backlogs”. As someone whose entire career was built on maintaining the compliance of those private entities I can tell you that calling privatisation “temporary outsourcing” doesn’t prevent it from being, in fact, privatisation.

Worst of all, the draconian laws the tories have given concerted effort to implementing must be given time to “bed in”, says Starmer, that they have other priorities than simply removing legislation like the ID gerrymandering that Rees-Mogg spoke of, that repealing harsh anti strike laws don’t matter as labour is now the party of working people – seemingly forgetting that strikers are the working people.

Now, I must again reiterate that I’ve no doubt that things would be better under Starmer and Labour than the conservatives. Starmer offers some broad reforms I welcome- the implementation of EU citizenry voting, the offering of voting to 16+, an economic plan which seems dedicated to shoring up fair business practice and a step far away from deregulation meaning that instability in the markets would minimise, promises to offer out more aid to the young- I know that things will be better for the broad swathe of the public under Starmer- even a stop to the haemorrhage of political honesty would be good, someone preventing the conservatives from driving us down a very dark path paralleling that of the US’ brush with theocratic fascism- these are good things, labour does offer some hope and i’ve no doubt that things will be better.

But my issue links back to that phrase so oft repeated above- steadying the ship.

We have been dragged part way down a dangerous path by the tories, a path that over half of voters didn’t and do not want. We don’t need to steady the ship, to stop where we are, to drop anchor- we must move away from conservatism wholesale- not the least because, dropping anchor where we are still means we’re mired in populist right wing vapidry that continues to affect our life. Labour must make broad brave moves to drag us AWAY from this, we must strike out in the very opposite direction the conservatives continue to drag us towards every day of their tenancy in Westminster. Anything less is a failure to deal with the emerging radicalism that permeates the individual in the UK.

Without a clear departure offered by labour and its environs the worsening wave of hatred towards LGBTQ+ people will continue- our economic and social issues of worker shortages and xenophobia will continue unless common sense is spelled out in the brexit debate- promises to fix NHS shortages by offering fancy temporary privatisation will fail- educational reform to deal with new issues, and to educate the country’s young in politics will go some way towards enhancing our political literacy- offering a vote without perspective on its’ weight is unhelpful.

So whilst I understand that Labour offer some hope to those who feel escaping tory rule is key, it’s also vital to remember that labour must offer a distinction in their politics from what we’ve seen for over 13 years. If they do not, understand that conservative politics appeal to and improve the lives only of those who commit to it so political victory under conservatism, espoused by whoever, is a confirmation that the only politics you seek to support are politics that uplift you, and damn those who fall behind.

Labour has a chance to appeal to those disenfranchised: simple promises made to leftists who understand the broader cut & thrust of UK politics under the lens of hostile media and FPTP and consumed by knee jerk one issue voters. But if we continue to see our own political disabusement in favour of appealing to those very knee jerk voters, we cannot be blamed for losing hope in ever climbing out from under the weighty shroud of conservatism, the brand of politics that got us to where we are.

The clunky and unwieldy truth is that as radicalism has hidden in the dark, licking its wounds, we’ve become complacent and genuinely seem to believe that moderating away from radicalism is the salve we need- when what we need is to attack, to destroy radicalism in its entirety. Leftists are in for a difficult time as we fight back against the violently burning but nevertheless dying embers of a type of politics that has only harmed us as we’ve grown. Watching conservatism warp into right wing demagoguery is proof that its vital supply of ignorance is drying up at source- but we don’t deal with fascism or authoritarianism simply by lining up to vote every few years. Radicalism is dealt with by terrifying those who espouse it into silence, by breaking their chains of support, by wresting them from the positions of power they nepotised into. We don’t defeat fascism or authoritarian governments by asking them nicely, nor can we appease their environs by appealing to logic, because logic and radicalism are not in the same room. And my concern, dear reader, is that under the likes of Biden, under the guidance of Starmer, we won’t root out these issues and destroy them at source, we won’t shine a torch into the deepest, darkest corners of corruption- we’ll ignore it. And under that ignorance it will continue to gather the momentum that has led us to here and to now- to a place where the US is mandating the Ten Commandments on the wall instead of dealing with daily mass shootings, where the UK is giving voter disenfranchisement time to “bed in”, where groups of radicals like the Patriotic Alternative or the Proud Boys can line up in the street unafraid, unmolested- and taking solace from a grudging acceptance of their presence. Tolerating fascism in the street should be a stain of shame upon the tories and Biden’s presidency- and if that behaviour is to continue under yet another supposedly common sense branch of moderate conservatism, whoever espouses it, it is another death knell for progress.

Ultimately, I understand the political climate of the UK. There is a very clear chance that my politics may never be represented in parliament, because the country doesn’t have the appetite for it- and whilst some may find that amusing, that I cling to a branch of politics that others would let go in favour of power, I feel clear in my decision that I’d rather cling to politics that promises to do better for everyone, politics that wants to move us forward instead of “steadying the ship”, than sacrifice my aspirations to attain a power I use to please those who want what I do not. And overall, beyond anything, my final message on this: nobody wants to tolerate nazis right? What happened to the good old days of kicking their asses.

Idiocy in modern politics

By Daviemoo

I find myself wondering of late, how truly stupid people are finding their way into comfortable political jobs, and how these stupid people are somehow associated with the class they continue to betray. Figures linked closely to family businesses are touted as titans of the working class who broke into politics against the odds when the simple truth is: between nepotism and money, you may not be able to buy happiness but you appear to be able to buy your way into political seats.

Utterly foolish people like Jonathan Gullis, Nadine Dorries or, to take an American example, Marjorie Taylor-Greene are all unsuited to politics.
Many see these appointments as a win for the working class, finally represented by people who talk like them: those people are fools. Gullis and Dorries are paid huge sums and reportedly do nothing to help their constituencies: Dorries has all but abandoned politics for a vacuous media role. Taylor-Greene was handed a business that failed and somehow managed to bully her way into her seat.

I read an account recently from a conservative man who said he felt “represented” by Gullis. When I asked what aspects of himself Gullis represented, he said “he says it like it is”. I asked him exactly what he feels he can’t say that Gullis does, to which he responded “stuff about immigration”. With this, I asked why he feels immigration is the only problem in the UK, and was told “ethnic replacement is a big issue”. I queried this: what is ethnic replacement, and how does it work?
Apparently, foreign people coming to the UK, and I quote, “dilutes the blood of the population”.

I did try to explain to this man that we aren’t Ribena and surely if someone comes to the UK and has children with an English person then that person’s children are English. He said no: that the foreign blood somehow devours the British, like some sort of insidious virus.
I then replied that if it was that easy to wipe out British blood maybe we aren’t that powerful, and that considering we invaded every single continent at one time or another in history isn’t all blood technically British because our ancestors pillaged almost every place they could? He then, unsurprisingly, got rude and wouldn’t continue to talk with me.

The problem I have with discussing… well, anything, with people who feel represented by this current iteration of the Conservative Party is that, so often, I have the same responses. “I’d never vote labour; they’re terrible”. When I inquire as to why, they talk about socialism: I ask them which policies are socialist and they fail to respond with a real answer. There is no socialist option in the UK because British people have a true aversion to socialism in any form despite our health system being fundamentally socialist at its core. But I want, genuinely, to understand in good faith what these people feel is represented of them by people like Gullis, Fabricant, Dorries, even Johnson. How has this vast intake of politicians who have utterly decimated our political discourse somehow come to represent the working class to people who ARE the working class?

There is a dangerous argument to make about representation: that those who really do the jobs of medical professionals: doctors, nurses, AHPs, should have direct oversight of political jobs relating to health. If you specialised into medicine you know well how the NHS works, but do you know how the levers of politics do? But this pales into the larger issue of politics in the UK currently being driven by those who don’t even understand honesty and decency. When it comes to actual stakeholders, oversight committees are long overdue for the British government, bodies who advise them directly on the real on the ground issues and have the ability to direct policy, whose actual roles are built into their normal day jobs. But this issue comes secondary to having government figures who simply cant be honest or who are incapable of political jobs.

A worse aspect of British politics is the ironic appointment of scum figures whose entire ethos is the opposite of what their role entails.
Kemi Badenoch is a horrendous appointment to any position in government. Her work as brexit opportunities minister or whatever other ridiculous title obfuscates her true role as prevaricating damage hider is proof enough: but look deeper at her appointment to women and equalities: Badenoch is hubristic enough to have ignored multiple studies that show that granting women time off to deal with severe periods or menopause is beneficial and gives equity, considering men would no doubt take time away from work if they suffered some of the same symptoms: not all, but some. Badenoch also praised the statements from SNP hopeful Kate Forbes around gay marriage, stating she was “proud” Forbes stood by her convictions: Badenoch fails to realise the obvious: that holding these beliefs is protected in law but using them as a driver for votes or as a stick to beat others with is not, nor should it be.
And if we want further proof of the appointment of awful figures who stand in opposition to the letter of their job description, look at the very role of prime minister! Rishi Sunak, one of the richest men in the country is now in the top job. But why? What’s his area of expertise. The man was a banker, right around the time the banks melted down the world’s economy and sent us into recession. He’s so dishonest he kept he and his wife’s immigration status marked wrongly so they paid less tax. His fortune comes from his wife’s company, a company that still operates in Russia as they illegally invade and wage war on Ukraine. Now twice issued FPN’s he is a prime minister who doesn’t follow the law, and a man who seems to feel he can commit crimes that come with a price tag specifically because he can afford it.

Politics as a whole is a swirling mass of confusion, from the discourse itself to its figures. Immigration into the UK isn’t a huge problem as it’s claimed. I read yesterday an armchair immigration expert saying that immigration isn’t the problem, crime is. How does one debate that? Should all immigration be stopped because of the chance of crime? What about the net benefits of immigration: No worker shortages, more hands on deck?

If you want to pivot to “they take money out of the economy” I quickly direct you to the oft hated billionaire businessmen who specifically remove money from the British economy and stash it in accounts overseas to avoid paying into our systems.
So I ask myself: is the issue confusing, are the people who claim to be represented by unrepentant thugs like Gullis and 30p Lee really more complex: or are they also reaching for the base issue, the wrong issue we all know is there and they’re angry they’ve been called out on it? With a media which so deeply represents right wing interests, excuses are often handed to them as to why they “really” support the conservatives.

the biggest issue I find, is that people like MTG who were handed money and influence on a plate by relatives are somehow seen as key representatives of the working class when she is anything but and, like her ridiculous predecessor Trump, had money thrown at her and still failed and yet still worked her way up. She doesn’t represent or care about working class issues any more than Braverman or any of the other British figures whose entire pathos is to point the finger of blame at others for the erosion of our ways of life, as they hold a blowtorch to it.

I wish I could help the people who claim so fervently to be represented by these people understand that half of them would light their cigars off of our smouldering bodies: but I can’t connect on any level to people who think spewing mindless nonsense about immigration or gender or mathematics in school are the issue when the true issue is: shitty politicians.

The tangible stupidity of right wing pundits, Monarchism and the mindset of the misery machine

By Daviemoo

Even in my current bubble, avoiding the nonsense shrilling of politics and culture as I look after myself, I still wax lyrical about politics and culture. It’s been my bedrock for many years and it feels good to deconstruct arguments, to pick apart the fallacies of those with whom I heartily disagree. So imagine my surprise this morning when another bleating klaxon of idiocy scraped together their offal into another unintentionally hilarious article about monarchism which highlighted the eternal duality of stupidity and right wing demagogues.

Petronella Wyatt is probably one of the more ignorant amongst our “political writers”. I can’t bring myself to call her a journalist, because reading offcuts of right leaning papers in the UK and then vomiting up another nonsense piece bemoaning your own personal distaste that you don’t fit in to a world that’s kinder than you is to journalism what pouring coffee granules into milk and water is to chemistry- everyone can do it and it’s hardly the most groundbreaking event.

She wrote an article today in The Times, a paper who I’ve never aligned with politically but who I respected once. That respect now lies in a shallow grave, pleading with me to reconsider as I cheerfully shovel clods of dirt upon it, and her missive today is yet more proof that this is the correct move.


Wyatt has decided she is a royal, that she deserves recompense for her family being stopped from ascension, not seeming to realise that… that’s actually how it works, really. If your family were prevented from ascension to the throne, that would be the lord high God, or the people, or politics’ way of saying your family shouldn’t be perched upon one of those gilt chairs I loathe so deeply. She has also decided that she is what she calls an “instinctive monarchist”. Yet in the same article, she decries the man I am loathe to call King Charles. I won’t use the wording she does because reading the W word makes me want to go to sleep for hours at a time. But suffice it to say that she doesn’t like him because he is so very, achingly, deeply politically correct. She finds it offensive, you see, as an “instinctive monarchist”.
No small irony in Wyatt writing an article where she calls for the king she claims to follow so instinctively to be dethroned for her comfort, and no hint of sarcasm in declaring yourself an adherent of monarchism then, without even taking a fresh lungful, complaining about your monarch. Seems your instincts are off somewhere, Petronella.

The equivocation of the right is that you must follow the government, the sensible tory government, you must follow the king because god said so- unless those things displease you, then what?
It seems today that the bulwarks of adherence to right wing echo chambers are louder proponents of anarchism than those lefty wefties they decry so often… for if you demand fealty to a king you also dislike, if you vote in a government laughing at the other option and yet that leads to the NHS collapsing, a financial crisis, cost of living issues and a power vacuum in Westminster as Sunak is led around on a leash by shadowy cabals of conservative MPs, what do you truly stand for?
People like Wyatt are almost satirically confident in their version of how the world should be, and yet it’s no coincidence that as they continue to get exactly what they want- they aren’t happy about it.

The idea of right

Right wing pundits will tell you to vote for Conservatives because they’re sensible, and isn’t it odd how these sensible vote choices lead to corruption, corrosion of public standards, an economy mid-seppuku. Isn’t it odd that they cry out for less political correctness yet scream misogyny at those who declare their war on the LGBT+ hateful.
The right in the UK has lost identity, previously falling behind an adherence to the state, a desperate fight to maintain, with the idea that progress begets degradation. But the right has had the reins for thirteen years- longer, if you look at Blair’s positions on strike legislation, on economic shoreing, on the threads of an unravelling housing market. And yet they will continue to look around, at a world they’ve been in charge of for over ten years, and bemoan it’s state.

Tell me, dear reader. When do you think it will occur to the Petronella Wyatts, to the Liz Trusses, to the Sunaks, the Piers Morgans, the Hartley-Brewers and the Dan Hodges, that they dislike a world which they control. Will it ever occur to them? And should this thunder-crack of realisation ever peal across the empty sky of their collective minds, do you think, dear reader, that there will come the realisation that consistently holding up hypocrisy as a roughly hewn trophy is not the victory that so many of the right wingers we are reluctantly bombarded by claim it to be?

The long and the short of this article is to highlight a point I feel is overdue in addressing by the right wing punditry of the UK: when will you notice that the world you so claim to loathe is one you control?
I am tired of reading the brexiters, furious at the results of their vote, the conservative voters aghast at the conservatives doing what conservatives do best, and most of all I am tired of people who vote, time after time, for the status quo only to find out that keeping things the same means they’ll be just as miserable as they were before. I would entreat these right wing columnists to search the vast gaps between their firing neurones to find some lost thought, long ago discarded, that perhaps if they do not like the world they are in, they step back from control and allow those more aspiration among us to have a go- what’s the worst that can happen after a collapsed relationship with Europe, gutted GDP, 250,000 dead Britons, an NHS that’s being read it’s last rites, an economy with a £100,000 cartoon cutout hole of Liz Truss in it, a law breaking duo of male PMs… We did it your way, you had your shot and to nobody’s surprise, you failed.

Feel free to write your nonsense drudgery about whose head the crown should rest atop- just step away from the controls and let someone with the faintest idea of how to steer take over, because I for one am utterly exhausted with listening to the boring whines of the right, as they sit in a mess they authored.

The Flatlined Economy & The Betrayal of Britain’s Youth

By Daviemoo

We’re trapped in a death spiral of poor economy in the UK. Inflation continues to be manipulated by the Bank of England, the Conservatives continue to waste British taxpayer money on dealing with piffling issues like illegalising the inhalation of laughing gas or million pound schemes to deport innocents- but this is only half the problem. A fiscally irresponsible government is detrimental to the foundations of a country’s wealth- but a politically ignorant nation adds to the problem, and this is the perfect storm we’re weathering across the UK. People simply do not understand how an economy functions and are fed by those who may understand but who toe the line of those in charge- and it’s time to debunk the nonsense.

Economics of a country is not like household economics. Many similar terms are used but these terms exist in their own vacuum. Talking about national debt as though it is the same as an unpaid credit card is ridiculous: National debt in normal times exists because governments sink wealth into key areas of infrastructure, investing into the nation to allow for future growth- is it better public transport to allow people to travel further and cheaper for work? Is it more robust means of education to help everyone gain higher qualifications or pursue niche roles? It doesn’t matter- the people of the UK are glibly swallowing nonsensicalities spat out by tories and their enablers when it comes to national debt. National debt is a positive, it shows governments trying to improve, rather than hoard gold like Smaug in a top-hat.

Additionally, the almost inconceivably vast number of articles written by middle class middle aged well to do pundits, slating “this generation”, talking about overpriced coffees and avocado toast… There’s a perception that the “next” generation is wasteful, that we don’t invest, that we’re irresponsible and we’d rather buy frivolous nonsense than get a mortgage.

You just know I could pull out any number of graphs that show how house pricing hasn’t kept up with property prices, that people live in houses bought in 1987, my year of birth which have quadrupled or more in price. Yes, salaries were lower- but parity was closer than anything we’ve ever experienced in our adolescence. The never ending cycle of blaming us for not being able to buy property is so tedious I could cry whenever I read it, wanting to shake some sense into those who wrote it. People used to be able to have a house and a car on a single wage- now I work two jobs and still cant afford a mortgage, because my rent goes up annually, council tax does, electricity is 5 times the price of the EU’s wholesaling- But this leads on to another demonstration of the easy ignorance displayed by so many of the “we had it hard in our day too!” Crowd.

“The average house in the UK currently costs almost nine times the UK’s average earnings, based on data as at 30 November 2022. The last time house prices were this expensive relative to average earnings was in the year 1876, nearly 150 years ago.”

Research on the terrifying truth of house price and salary disconnection

You want people to stop spending frivolously, as if that £3 every Tuesday and Thursday on a medium coffee from Costa is what’s holding us back from mortgages- what do you see these frivolous purchases as? Let’s say everyone, every single adolescent wholesale stopped buying our coffees or our Tesco meal deals. How would that affect the economy?
People all too easily forget that economy runs on interaction. No it’s not, of course, at the same scale as a house purchase- the mere act of inquiring about a mortgage creates more wealth in the economy. But economies function on many levels, and I doubt all of us no longer making purchases with what we earn would positively affect the economy!

The issue that so many of these article spitting vipers and their faithful adherents miss, is that we are a generation who grew up on lies and fairytales. We were told the UK was a huge successful country, all whilst being told it wasn’t actually ours as anything but symbols and iconography.
You come from the greatest country in the world – but unless it’s shaking a St. George’s Cross in the face of someone who just lost to our football team, what does that mean for us? Since 2009 we’ve been under austerity, austerity 2.0, austerity 3, revenge of the austerity. Then they offered the masses another trove of lies wrapped up in a cheap hope costume: brexit. “Do you want things to stay like this, or do you want change? Do you want to try and go back to the halcyon days of being a superpower or do you want to be like… this” they said after beginning the Y incision into public services and investment. Hardly a mystery as to why everything went the way it did.

But what was our reward? Are we a world renowned superpower again?
Here’s some things which have happened since that vote.

*A prime minister caught lying to the public, throwing parties and shirking his vital duties during a deadly pandemic which took 250,000 of our fellows away
*An economic pummelling with our exports up but the economy flatlining because the real terms cost of export has become prohibitive for businesses
*A government paralysed by the venom of scandal: Lies, blackmail, sexual assault, infighting and more

*Brexit decimating the British economy even worse than coronavirus- which also hit the economy
*Another prime minister who only knows how to write 80087355 on a calculator and who blew a £1`00,000,000,000 hole in the economy through fiscal ignorance
*A Health Secretary who hired his friend with public money then proceeded to damply grope her on camera when his role was to prevent us from being killed
*An education secretary who was so stupid that he was knighted for keeping his mouth shut about the first prime minister’s dodgy behaviour
*PPE VIP Lanes ruled illegal and dealt with illegally
*The vital app that would keep us all safe during the pandemic being handed over to a woman whose nickname was Dido “Dataloss” Harding, who could not be removed because her husband is the person who you report nepotism in governmental appointments to!
*The app losing thousands of peoples data as predicted
*A scandal about lobbying where a government minister was paid vast sums on his already huge salary to promote a company not fit to handle contracts, which ended up worsening the pandemic
*An “eat out to help out” scheme that spread the virus made by our current prime minister who was too distracted hiding he and his wife’s immigration status so they could save on taxation on their £731 million fortune


This isn’t even an exhaustive list- it just rolled off the tongue.
The problem isn’t young people buying Starbucks, the problem is complete fiscal idiocy from the top down and the seeding of ignorant ideas about frittering money on takeaways instead of an economy in free-fall, ridiculous ignorance of monetary crises and ignorant decisions and inaction leading to the irreconcilable divorce of the “next generation’s” normal life with the idea of being able to save enough money to be able to live well.

As the cost of living continues, as the government continues to slurp lazily at the toes of the tycoons who own big business across the UK- and now further afield as many have fled the disastrous consequences of a brexit they pushed for- we will continue to be tarred with the brush of lazy and feckless, when the simple truth is half of the blame lies with a government wholly incapable of doing the job they slithered into on untruths, and a nation of those who raped our generation’s wealth and laugh at us from behind their Scrooge McDuck bank vault doors, telling us to buy cheaper coffee and we’ll have a nice 2 up 2 down in six months.


One day soon this generation will begin to expire, and a generation of those trapped in dire straits will begin to wrap their hands around the controls of an economy in free-fall. One only hopes that they are not exhausted by the long fight to get there, and can wrest this wreckage into some form of control. In the mean time, before you offer solicitation on what we can give up to achieve the heady dream of property ownership, ask yourself how you got there, and wonder why you aren’t extending the hand of help to those who so sorely need it.

Ignorance is not a political standpoint you should be proud to wear

By Daviemoo

Recently the Communist Party of Britain came out with a scribe against trans inclusion, wrapped as all transphobia is in a shroud of moral concerns: Gender, they say, allows for the “super exploitation of women”. But inclusion of trans people isn’t the reason for women’s mistreatment over the course of hundreds, thousands of years- merely brushing past a history book would belie this statement: Trans people are not a recent phenomenon but their constant spotlighting by a hostile media has allowed their uplift into a shibboleth for “bad men who do bad things”, much like the word “woke” has had it’s original meaning replaced with “anything I don’t like” by our illustrious commentators. And as this ridiculous moral panic continues to spread and infiltrate every political faction, it’s time to stop using transphobia or lack thereof as a political standpoint.

Trans people weren’t visible when women were legally barred from voting, when women weren’t allowed to have their own bank accounts, trans people aren’t responsible for the male violence epidemic or spiralling rates of domestic violence. Sundry cisgender people will queue up to declare everything from anti trans screeds to tweets about pronouns as “not transphobic”. Why everyone who isn’t trans feels they can be the moral arbiters of what transphobia is, I don’t know but it smacks of a white person telling a room of people of colour that their racially insensitive jokes aren’t racist.

Trans people aren’t responsible for the rise of lunatics like Andrew Tate, a dangerous misogynist who, even if he is innocent of the crimes of which he stands accused (he is not), is still guilty of spewing the most single celled idiocies against womenkind I have ever heard. Women, he says, are men’s property. I don’t feel like women belong to me and if I was straight I wouldn’t spend hours on the net listening to men with shiny heads and shinier six packs telling me how to trick women into letting me fuck them- I’d just ask women. The incel movement has grown microphones and spotlights, desperate to figure out how to manipulate women into sex as if men need to play some sort of crystal maze game to find out what women want when one can assume that what women want is not to be tricked into bed. The men who believe the unassailable nonsense that these podcast microphone devouring fools spout are the biggest of mugs, desperate to throw money at manipulative men, unaware that they are the manipulated, not the illusory women spoken of. These men, and their unwitting idiot followers, are a true danger to women -and yet a recent twitter poll conducted by a prominent transphobe put trans people as a higher danger to women then incels…

Time and time again I’m told that anti trans people have “reasonable talking points” about trans inclusion. I’m yet to hear a coherent one that can’t be rebutted with “that’s literally your problem, not trans people’s”.
“I don’t want penises in my changing room”. Why someone else’s genitalia is your issue if it’s not being waved in your face is a question I never get an answer to. I don’t want to see other people naked in changing rooms, it’s weird. And if a guy started waving his genitals at me in a changing room I’d also feel disgusted- not because he’s a man and has a penis, but because that’s weird behaviour indicative of something potentially malign.

It doesn’t matter where you sit in politics at the moment: everyone from communist to hardcore capitalist seems to have developed a stance on trans people, usually an unflattering one. It is exhausting. It takes knowing precisely one trans person to realise that trans people aren’t some lurking bathroom dwelling crowd, desperate to either witness your nudity or show you theirs: the self indulgence of the women and men who think other peoples’ gender identity revolves around their existence would be comical, were it not such a staggering reality. And the laughability of communists declaring that they want a classless, stateless world but want to reinforce sex based segregation is the worst comedy. Even worse than hardcore capitalists who claim that “the trans agenda” is fuelled by big Pharma… surely you’d be thrilled if big Pharma was making big bucks off of…. oh let’s see, 265,000 British people?

There is no place to stand stolidly in the UK right now without the cancer of ignorance metastasising to someone with your views; no matter how people can deconstruct law, capitalism, immigration, racial bias, sexuality, there is always someone whose views are aggrieved against trans people. How many of these people who gulp down pints of confected media outrage against trans people have ever met a trans person and had a conversation with them about something benign like movies, food, shopping, holiday destinations… I have a solid guess on the answer.

The irony of the sex based rights crowd is simple: If you want to be defined by your genitals then you have that right, you’re perfectly allowed to think you’re only a man because you were born with testicles. As it happens I think manhood runs deeper and is more complex than how my DNA expresses, and it’s why I have no issue with gender as a concept. If I lost my testicles for whatever reason, be it accident, surgery, sickness, I would still be a man. If I wanted gender reassignment because I felt in my being that I was not a man, that is different in a way that is too nuanced to explain to those who do not see it.

People often retort that gender is a harmful construct that damages women, and that isn’t an untrue statement. Gender stereotypes are sometimes harmful to everyone: In fact I blame male gender stereotypes for society continuing to raise men who cannot behave with decency to others; ironic then that when a trans person who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes emerges, they’re “not trying to even pretend”. Trans people are held up to immeasurable standards where if they conform, they are trying to “deceive” and if they don’t try to conform they aren’t “really trans”. And trans people as a group are demonised right now in ways we’d never do to other groups: one trans person’s crime is (quite literally, I am quoting from a transphobic person’s twitter account here) held to the equivalent of hundreds of others. Even recently you see the hypocrisy of the overrepresentation of trans crime: a trans person walks into a school and commits an act of mass violence and there is outcry: front page news, hour long specials, a forensic dissection of motive… Odd how we need a larger response to this than the usual anaemic thoughts and prayers of all the other mass shootings in America. Odd how one trans person committing a crime is indicative of the end of society and needs swift rebuke to the entire community yet cis straight men have been committing mass shootings for years with warnings of more violence slipping out of the ears of those hearing them.

Lets say that gender is a harmful construct: it’s odd how trans people upholding these constructs for their own comfort and identity are looked upon as committing unspeakable transgressions against women and girls, yet women and girls who uphold them are perfectly allowed to express their gender that way should they so choose. If gender is a harmful construct, then abolition woudld be the answer- but those who preach for gender abolition are usually adherents of gender presentation themselves, people who want to abolish others’ rights to gender presentation, but retain their own “correct” way in which to exist.
I also grant you an explanation of my gender and gender identity. As a gay man I often look in bemusement at my community who hold being “masc” in high regard. I didn’t choose not to be masc. I’m just not. I can pretend, I can pose in photos, shave my head, grow my muscles and talk in a deeper register- but if that’s not how I feel comfortable and who I am, isn’t that deception? I have to wonder how many overly masculine men who refer to themselves as “alpha” and storm around decrying soy boys are secretly holding up a performance 24 hours a day, and that is where their anger comes from- because they know they aren’t what they want to be. And it brings in another question: if they’re only performing their masculine gender role for the sake of others, why is a trans person’s performance of a gender role less valid than theirs?

Trans people can’t help being transgender. They don’t do something to become trans and whilst they could sit on their identity, hide it away it would only serve to make themselves miserable. This, of course, is the desirous outcome of most anti trans individuals. Imagine asking another person to hide their identity for your comfort. “I know you’re gay but can you just be alone forever or get into a sham marriage for my comfort”. I have quite literally been asked to hide my sexuality or to “try” not to be gay. It’s offensive; it’s more arrant nonsense from people incapable of putting themselves into other peoples shoes, or people so addled by years of collusion in this escalating campaign of hatred that they have lost touch with some simple realities: trans people exist, and their existence does not harm you and if you foam yourself into paroxysmal rage about the idea that someone three cubicles away has a penis you can’t see, they are certainly not the creepy one, because as they’re trying to finish using the bathroom you’re getting angry fantasising about their genitalia.

The irony is that these people are the blockers of their own remedy. Letting trans people have quicker, better mediated access to the care they need would allow them to get on in their lives and participate in society in ways they currently cannot. The anti trans crowd are the ones making their own suffering inevitable as trans people can’t access the care they need. Anti trans people are the ones fanning the flames in the media that rail against trans people. They stir it up and continue to drink deep from the poison chalice. This, I could abide, if the inevitable casualties were not the trans people they rail against, people who cannot help their identities and shouldn’t have to.
Who do you truly think benefits from the anti trans screeds writ large across the media? Does it magically stop trans people existing? Does it ratify your beliefs to know it’s shared by Joan whoever at the Daily Mail? The men who sexually assault women in the media during job interviews are probably laughing themselves sick over the world’s ridiculous preoccupation with demonising trans people, because whilst everyone is raging against trans inclusion, they continue to rip their colleague’s blouses with impunity.

Look, scientifically, at humanity. We are a species with huge, vast divergencies in our species. Skin colour, height, bone density, some born with genetic conditions that affect the number of colours they can see, some born with divergencies from “the norm” so coveted by many: If you deny flatly that in the seething ocean of human genetic divergencies, some could be born with a different gender than they were assigned you are denying simple factual reality. Ironic that trans people are often accused of trying to deny reality: their reality IS their gender. Denial of that is denial of fact so laughable it could take away ones breath. And you don’t have to believe trans people are trans. You just don’t have to volunteer that information, not just because it makes you look ignorant but because it doesn’t help anyone… call it colluding, lying, whatever you want. If you knew how many instant judgements about people I’ve held back for their own comfort over the years you’d probably understand that this fits into “just being polite”. It’s not some vast conspiracy to indoctrinate you- be ignorant. Have your bigotries and biases, just don’t make them someone else’s problem.

But this argument has filtered up from the mire in which it was born to the highest levels of government: Rishi Sunak, prime minister claims that he is on the side of women and girls even as his government votes down legislation to illegalise misogyny. Home Secretary Suella Braverman claims trans people shouldn’t be treated like they’re special- ironic from a woman who allegedly changed her own name to avoid association with a Buddhist sex cult. And on the opposing benches, a ringing silence from the mouth of Kier Starmer, leader of Labour as Rosie Duffield slates his party’s stance on women and girls, claiming she doesn’t feel safe on labour benches even as she promises that “many labour MPs feel the same as I”. Starmer wrote recently in an article in the times (a paywalled article designed to tell those still clinging pointlessly to the shreds of Corbynism) that his party was “the party of equality”… in the pages of a newspaper that had misgendered and deadnamed a transgender 16 year old who had been stabbed to death that very weekend.

There is no party or political alignment in the UK free of the scourge of transphobia. That doesn’t mean we must not partake- it means it’s time to adopt our own policy of infiltration like the disgusting bigots have implemented so successfully, to swarm the ranks of the opposition and force out transphobia, to name and shame the people quietly partaking in it from within, to shine a light brightly into every corner- for if transphobes want to have their bigotries, let them have it publicly. We must ensure that those who claim to represent us know where our hearts and minds lie, and without that- if the UK’s political establishment is determined to allow this wound to fester- we must sow chaos and discord, because a country whose political parties allow themselves to be subsumed in bigotry are not worth our support. If transphobia is to be the hill on which British decency and politics dies, then let it die screaming in chaos. Not just the two main parties, but the entirety of British politics. Let it be dragged to ashes from which something better can be born.

Many people will argue that there can be respectful debate: I disagree. Firstly, there is abashing levels of hatred on both sides, transphobic people wishing heinous fates on trans people and trans people doing much the same in return. The difference, the key one so often forgotten by those witnessing from the sidelines is: one side wishes misery on the other because of how they were born, the other wishes misery on those who wish them harm.
I have, yes, seen disgusting sentiment espoused by trans people on the internet towards transphobes. It might not be right to say those things but I also understand where it comes from. I spent my younger years in chatrooms trying to find like minded people to discuss sexuality with and there’s only so many times you can have someone tell you you’re sick and evil before you rebuke them as cruelly as you can. If you don’t want trans people to be cruel towards you, imagine why they are doing so, the level of ridicule and distain with which they’re treated. It might not be perfect behaviour: nor is that which has pushed them to that level. It’s half the reason I used to have sympathy for the women who were on the fringes of the ” debate”. A society headed up by men determined to keep women down is going to raise women who feel aggrieved and angered. But to aim that ire at trans people instead of the men who propagate it is, frankly, a level of foolish I am stupefied by: trans people don’t benefit from this misogynistic society because misogyny isn’t it’s only transgression.

People so often describe this “debate” as toxic. It is. Not because it cannot be fjorded, but because if you simply do not believe a person who tells you their gender identity, you will never be able to discuss any issues at all. Those like Graham Linehan and Posie Parker, who deny trans people’s fundamental identities, are unworthy of acknowledgement much like the anonymous accounts who wish harm on all cis people. There are outliers on both sides because trans people are not a monolith, but most trans people don’t wish harm on all cis people in the way most transphobes wish harm, whether openly or through simple ignorance, on trans folk.
Nuance should be pushed back into this topic- not because there are worthy points on anti trans peoples’ ledgers, but because you cannot rationally debate those who are off the deep end of the discussion in the first place. Parker thinks feminism is poison and has intrinsic links to anti abortion groups. Linehan’s wife took his children from him because of his creeping obsession with trans people. Hardly the poster people for your movement.

Perhaps there are questions that need to be asked, as a cis man who am I to arbitrate- but the best people to answer them are trans people, not interlopers like me and certainly not people like Joanne Rowling who sits in a castle in Scotland telling working class women that trans people are their worst enemy rather than billionaires who sit on the internet complaining about people they don’t know all day, clouded in surety of their opinion because they wrote a well liked series of books about magical children. Rowling even defended her views by saying she thought she might be trans when she was younger- and yet here she is, cisgender: therefore not trans. She’s said she doesn’t wish harm on trans people yet presents absolutely no solution to benefit both sides. She promised to march with trans people if they were in danger and yet hasn’t left her home to do anything but have lunches with her fellow illustrious anti gender warriors or trade lukewarm sentiments with Matt Walsh, a man who has described himself as a literal fascist.
Rowling receives regular abuse online from pro trans people and she wears this as her sainted cross, something she must do for women and girls. Lest we forget that the people now cheering her on as they pass anti trans legislation across America were condemning her as a devil worshipper a decade ago for writing books about magic. Odd how Rowling and her fellows can shed morals like snakeskin, provided their agenda is satisfied.

The anti trans culture war is a broader reflection of how we as a society treat marginalised people and we’re overdue for our crux point. Do we rationally discuss including marginalised people and how, or do we give in to our bestial fears, our lizard brain bigotries that tell us that just because we aren’t trans, just because we don’t experience what trans people do, it is less valid, worthy of suspicion, correct to question? If you look to a tiny community of people whose lives are being consistently made worse by media noise to the benefit of the very men who hurt us all, I can only pity you- and hate you- because it is you who has fallen for the wax figure of the demonic trans menace as the society you claim to wish to topple wraps another sinuous tendril around your neck, and drags you deeper into its mire of cruelty.

How the fuck are you meant to survive?!

By Daviemoo

A month ago in the span of a week I was told my rent was going up, the same day I was told my council tax was going up. then 3 days later I was sent a letter by my energy company telling me that “green energy is expensive 😦 so we need to move you onto a different, more expensive green energy tariff because you love nature so much UwU”.
Today I got a letter telling me that wholesale energy is going up so- SO ARE MY ENERGY PRICES.
All of this is bad enough but last week the Bank of England had to step in to control inflation, again, because Rishi Sunak’s government is about as capable of handling economic crises as they are of being honest- AKA if it happens its only by bloody accident.
Food is ridiculously expensive, rent has ballooned, bills up, utilities up. So it all begs the question, how the shit is one meant to live in this day and age!

I’m 35. The reason I don’t have a mortgage is that I was in a relationship with an absolute arsehole for nearly six years, the type of person that keeps you on an £80 a month stipend then complains when you ask for your own money. We saved up a ton but because he was such an awful human, when I left, I left behind a huge pot of money that he’s no doubt used to get his own mortgage, hopefully in a house with a built in serial killer in the attic.
I’ve sort of given up on the idea of ever having a mortgage, and I’d be fine with that if rent didn’t just keep ballooning. But these days it’s not even rent that’s the problem. We’re told on high from politicians earning over £100,000 that we should be cooking meals for 30p a turn. Maybe squeeze a lemon over your half an instant noodle pack so you dont get scurvy though!

I mean really, why is everything so pathetic here. Half the populace will turn round and tell you to put up with the dire straits we find ourselves in, to just crack on as the country sinks into ruin. Who cares if your savings account is emptier than Suella Braverman’s pea head, we’re all giving up on luxuries right?

The other half of the populace is doing the equivalent of rolling up their sleeves and shaking them gently at the conservatives marching up and down the street.
What are we doing?

People are moving to smaller houses to afford to live, giving up on saving money, no longer spending money on things like the gym or move nights just to try and scrape that extra money back all to spend it on bills or rent or mortgage or, fuck, maybe just a block of cheese that’s now seven pounds. And all the while we’re told this is how it has to be, that you have to give up on spending frivolously during a cost of living crisis… of course, the people who glibly state that with smug looks on their dead eyed faces seem not to realise something crucial- you cant stimulate an economy you cant spend money in.
The government’s intellectual paralysis over this issue means we’re sinking deeper into a mire we had a year’s warning about, but the tories are more bothered about banning laughing gas. Outlawing laughter, welcome to tory Britain I suppose.

I don’t give a solitary shit if some teenagers are huffing laughing gas down an alley near my flat, I care about the fact that I can’t afford to live here. If the tories actually wanted to make a material difference in the UK, they might consider addressing one single actual tangible problem that we face, and doing so in a way that won’t cost us more in the long run.

Here’s the other branching issue. I’ve been talking about my mental health with my friends a lot recently, because, shockingly, it’s bad. But what’s to be done. The actual NHS is in tatters as it is, but let me be honest here- the NHS, in fact world wide healthcare, is SHIT at dealing with mental health. You can spend an hour on the phone ready to snap, only to be told to take a deep breath in a warm bath whilst drinking a cup of tea and I wish that was a joke. The NHS isn’t built on the prevention of mental health crises, it’s built on trying to minimise the nuclear blast from their inevitable happenings. There is preventative treatment available- priced so high that only the wealthy can afford it. But no doubt it would be a frivolous misspending to seek therapy to ensure you don’t snap…
Try getting diagnosed with ADHD. I sent my referral form in to my GP on 31/08/2022.
It’s April in 2 days and I’ve heard nothing, for a problem that has had an increasingly negative impact on my life.

The point of this rant is that the UK is ridiculous to live in right now, and I have to wonder if the populace plans to shake off its lassitude at any point. We’re having Rees-Mogg looking at snatching away our workers rights, reducing the quality of goods we buy, Raab and Braverman further destabilising your rights and status and all the while the government talking about getting on with what the people are concerned about… whilst doing nothing.

The crispy crispy touch of burnout

By Daviemoo

I’ve shut down. I’ve been off social media for over a week now. I can’t even look at the news- every time I walk past the big screen outside my gym that plays sky news and I see the tories I feel panic in my chest. I’m not even being (purposefully) dramatic.
I don’t really know what’s under my skin, but it’s hardly a shock. Every time I’m on social media I see stories of governmental lies, migrant detestation, anti gay laws, hate crime rises, the government endorsing horrific ideas of dehumanisation. Today I saw clips of the effulgent pisspipe that is Boris Johnson waffling semantics at the privileges committee and- I am absolutely done at the moment.

I know I’ll get back to a healthy place mentally at some point, but it’s bigger even than my all consuming obsession with politics and the unfairness of it all.

You needn’t worry, I’m not scribing tear filled farewells or anything. I’m just feeling particularly fragile. It’s not just politics but politics is part of it.

I’m pretty honest about what’s going on with me so, here’s the other parts.

This weekend was mothers day, the third one without my mother. Monday was 3 years to the day since I watched her die. The horror of seeing that absolutely haunts me to this day and whilst I can get reprieves from it sometimes, at the moment it’s a constant movie playing in the back of my mind again.

I mean, I also have depression. I’ve done very well I think at safeguarding against it, managed to find coping mechanisms for when I sink. They’re not working. Right now I cannot pull myself out of the mental mire I’ve drifted under.

I don’t want to give up on activism- it feels like a part of who I am, like not flexing a limb I have. But right now I am absolutely shattered. My mental health always sucks because I’m me and my brain doesn’t do chemicals right. Added to that the images my brain is repeating then sprinkling liberally with “the government is super fashy” and you can understand why I am where I am, I’d hope.

I’m writing this to say please give me time and let me heal up. My head is all over’t shop as we northerners say. I will get back to it but for the moment I need to take my head entirely out of the game because it’s deep fried.

I don’t know why all the food references here, maybe I’m hungry.

Please keep fighting the good fight. I’ll be back.

“Acceptable humans”- the modern fascist movement and the UK’s role.

By Daviemoo

Today I read the first few chapters of Judith Butler’s “Notes Toward a Performative Theory Of Assembly”. This book was written by Butler in 2015 and served as a stark warning to those listening that the removal of the lens of humanity was all too easy under the state & in the public sphere, using the dual tools of governmental discourse and the media.
One sentence which grasped my consciousness was the idea of the dehumanisation of humans, and served as a splinter of cognisance of what would transpire and lead to the events of the myriad moral panics of 2023 Britain and the US- and from this paragraph I felt the need to expand on the collective dangers of the UK government’s quest to enforce a hierarchy of humanity.

Think about the people in your life.
Are you better than them, or worse? Do you deserve more rights than them? Is it acceptable that, due to their gender, sex, age, race, sexuality, they need different rights in order to exist in parity with you in our society? Would it be fair if we all had the same basic rights and nothing more, or is equity a cornerstone of a society which has fostered the type of inclusion which gives everyone a fair chance at betterment?

These should not be difficult questions, and yet our existence is currently limited to a society which seeks to obfuscate that simplicity, smokescreening the neon bright answers behind the idea that “just asking questions” about basic rights and equity is not a dangerous path down which to tread.

Some look at rights like specific anti discrimination legislation or protection from misogyny as entitlement and not a grim indictment of modern British society- because in a truly equal society one would not need anti discrimination legislation as protection from bodily harm, workplace harassment or mental duress.

The ECHR was established on the 4th November 1950, in response to the atrocities of World War 2- a solemn promise to the countries involved that the very fundamentals of human rights would, should and must be upheld- that it is anathema to human existence to allow these rights to fall into question. The UK government’s narrative that the ECHR meddles in its decisions should be a death knell for their leadership- for if a court dedicated to protecting and enshrining the basics of human rights protections is interfering in your decisions, this follows that your decisions run counter to the respect of human rights.
There is no “hierarchy of human rights”. If you are human, your rights as a human should be respected. These do not give favour, they do not elevate you above others. They are rights universally agreed upon- and opening questions on whether all humans should have access to these rights is the first, and most troubling sign of danger- but one could argue that it is not a step but a slippery slope.

Once you begin questioning human rights and who deserves them, it is a simple matter to widen the discourse.
Only the most heinous, unforgivable human beings do not deserve to lose their human rights: But who decides what is heinous and unforgivable- we live in a world where Daesh believe that grooming and raping girls is part of a holy mission, where women and girls in Afghanistan are beaten with sticks if they go outside without men or boys as guardians, where in America the right to bear arms is sacrosanct and yet if I saw a person with a gun on their belt in my city I would flee and call the police for fear of the danger they could bring with them. The reason human rights are iron clad and unquestionable is that the very act of questioning them, weakens them. All and sundry, no matter how evil, deserve human rights and if we decide a threshold, we begin the process of collapse.

Additionally, are we not inhuman if we then wreak horrors upon a human who we have decided is not deserving of these rights? Another question for another time, but an eye for an eye is a wise proverb in a sea of theological nonsense.

The government’s determination to demonise certain minorities is a key substrate in a wider movement towards enforcing “acceptable humans”. By placing terms and conditions on what a “good” human is and even moving towards rhetoric that removes humanity entirely, the government is eminently capable of disenfranchising individuals amongst the collectives.


Look at Shamima Begum. A fifteen year old girl was groomed on the internet by Daesh, because of failures of state security- meaning the state let her down and could possibly let down others. Rather than face blame for their poor handling of Begum’s radicalisation, the state designated her the root issue. Begum’s behaviour was objectively bad- and happened to a British born citizen, indicating that it was not merely the groomers nor Begum who had the issue- the state under which she was raised contained fundamental lapses of protection. She was a product of a state not equipped to prevent her radicalisation- not only should the state face censure for their failures to safeguard her and others, but she is a product of a flawed UK state and therefore our problem, and should have been brought here to face questions over it. By the government refusing to allow this & making her stateless this is a visible refusal to accept blame for their failures- but also serves a troubling double purpose of driving home a message that compliance with good, state endorsed behaviour brings the reward of citizenship. This also raises the idea of citizenship as supremacy- those who have it are superior to those who do not. You don’t have to like Begum or her actions to understand that there are lines of questioning that must be verboten, about when and if we lose basic rights.

The most troubling and yet overlooked aspect of Begum’s treatment by the state and media, is that it begins the process mentioned above. There is now a threshold, a precedent set at which you can act which will prompt the state to remove your innate right to citizenship. Something which we have always declared a sovereign, basic right is no longer- and a worrying proportion of the UK’s population celebrate this as a win, whilst others hesitate to point out that those rights are rights we also hold- and the question now falls from “will it happen” to “how low is the bar for the enforcement”: Will people like I who openly question the state and its methodology one day be stripped of citizenship for querying their implementation of this legislation? Who knows- we have far to fall, but are moving at disturbing speed.

One must also note the involvement of the British (and American) media in the enabling of this discourse. Academics warned repeatedly that the British press’ foray into open, daily transphobia would lead to danger- why even Judith Butler wrote a piece for the Guardian which laid bare the links between the far right and the TERF movement across the U.K., and the piece was surreptitiously edited to strip this paragraph despite its objective basis in truth- and if journalists strip out truth to protect the feelings of fascists one should find grave concern in its operation- and if someone like Butler warns of fascism, one does not stop up their ears.

To return, though, to the “small boat” moral panic that has swept the UK, one must find it almost comical to watch the UK subsumed again by a government narrative. The Conservatives are almost comedically unpopular, reviled by everyone from the supposed libertarian sect of political adversaries we hear regularly espousing their views from behind England flag shirts, to those who call ourselves true patriots because we question the country and ask for it’s improvement rather than accepting it’s gathering descent into mediocrity. Yes, the number of small boat crossings has ramped up in recent years. Has the government explained to the peoples of the UK why? Have they admitted to their own roles in destabilising countries which people are fleeing from by leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, by working to arm anti government forces in other countries to enable cheaper sales of fossil fuels? Have they worked to re-stabilise countries blighted by damaging regimes or demagogues? And can they truly fall behind the “not our job” defence whilst we arm Ukraine- a noble, important requirement which brings the question of when the state should intervene into sharp relief. The UK should be cautioned on its intervention in some places -for it is our dark past of western imperialism that has caused a dizzying number of the issues for which the world is paying now.
The key language of Sunak and Braverman is “stop the boats” where they refer to “small boats crossings”, completely failing at any point to acknowledge the people involved, the humans within those vessels. The people arriving here in small boats are people. People with fears, wants, goals, dreams, biases- fully, achingly human. Are all of them good? Of course not. When large numbers of people are in a group, the likelihood that they are all good people is not going to be high- unless you group them by your very subjective definition of good. There are those who would fail to line me up in the “good people” group simply because I am a gay man, would refuse to add women who believe in feminism. Good, bad- these are abstract and personal and the U.K. has fallen victim to allowing the subjective morals of objectively bad politicians (who hide lies by prime ministers, funnel money from the public to private individuals, who strip back rights like protest, like striking, like voting) to be used as a public yardstick for lawmaking.

Just because bad people may exist amongst a demographic of people does not mean that all of them should be treated like the worst. To hate, fear and punish an entire group of people for their membership of a group is to give in to bigotry and that is an iron strong fact. If British citizens allow all migrants to be punished for the worst amongst them, British citizens are the group sprinting fastest towards inhuman behaviour- not those being punished.
Look at it this way: as a gay man I am painfully aware that bad persons exist amongst my demographic- those who do not respect bodily autonomy, those who are misogynist, even those who are cruel to others based on their subjective appearance. Does the existence of these bad elements mean that all of my demographic should be subject to censure?

Worse still is an insistence that the government’s methods are “tough but fair” and will “break the funding model of smugglers”. This sort of thinking is both cognitively dissonant (tough, yes, fair to deport those who have arrived via supposedly illegal methods because there does not exist a legal method? No.)

Break the funding model of people smugglers by allowing them to smuggle people then punishing the people they smuggle? It is equivalent to arresting the victim of a mugging to disincentivise the mugger because less people are on the street to mug!

Braverman, Sunak et al are firmly entrenched in fascist behaviours. The UK believes fascism to be waving swastikas daubed on big red flags- and part of the danger is that people do not see the obvious. Fascism and Nazism are different- Fascism can strip the clothes of Nazism and dress itself up as something else- Christian Nationalism, small statehood, the silencing of any dissent towards your thinking. When you see a government draped in Union Jacks enforcing laws which rip away your right to protest, your right to strike, your right to vote, when they dress up their failure to hold the NHS together or their manipulation of contract tendering to enrich their friends and family, when you watch them mock and revile transgender people, migrants, “lefty lawyers”- you are looking at fascism under a new dress code. And so many British people fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy this government condones. Sunak and Braverman speak with open hatred of the “lawbreakers” arriving in small boats yet Sunak has broken the law twice, Braverman supported breaking the law in a “limited and specific” way… the lawbreaking is only a problem when it isn’t the conservatives doing it.

The dehumanising rhetoric will continue, and more will fall prey to its fervour. I have no doubt that corners will turn in future, that down the line, should I be lucky enough to make it to my later years I will watch documentaries of people tearfully apologising for being radicalised into the demagogues of TERF beliefs or believing that migrants on boats are the root cause of their poverty. But right now, as we live and breathe this slow immersion into rhetoric that becomes more deadly by the day one must wonder how far the British public is willing to go in ignoring the construction of a hierarchy of behaviour to which we are all subject- and when the thumbscrews we’re all forced to wear are tightened, how long until the bulk of us cry out in the pain we’re forced into… and will it be too late to extricate ourselves from being subject to the question: are you an acceptable human?

None of us needed leaked WhatsApps between a right wing hack and a woeful government minister: zoom out.

By Daviemoo

The Lockdown Files are important- nobody would deny that. Equally, we cannot lose sight of a broader, more terrifying picture in the swell of information from Hancock’s phone. The government continues to attack trans rights, demonise “small boat migrants”, platform ignorance and sow deeper division over Brexit. By all means pay attention to this story- but don’t forget about the rest.

No information in the “lockdown files” has shocked me. So Hancock leaned on the press not to report an influx of cases due to Sunak’s “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme- is anybody shocked that “people mingling during pandemic spread the virus” was a thing? Hancock should be arrested for industrial manslaughter- so should Sunak. Families who lost loved ones due to their hare brained schemes and self indulgent idiocy should be allowed to sue them. They should be castigated, reviled from high to low, never allowed to forget.
But these are not shocking revelations that I don’t think anybody ever expected: I mean, really, dear reader- is it absolutely mind blowing to you that Matt Hancock, a man shallower than a Wilco’s spoon pushed to look after his public image? I already knew the man was a seething moron because I had to listen to his waffling prestiges on the news every day. Are you particularly surprised that our Prime Minister Sunak would watch your nan choke on her pleural fluid if it meant an extra £12 in taxes collected? It’s about as surprising as finding out that, shock horror, Boris Johnson likes to shag a lot of people he’s not married to.

But the government’s behaviour prior to and during this pandemic has demonstrated exactly who they were, are- and will continue to be.

Rather than knuckle down, they buckle- refusing to review economic models that have been thrown into abject chaos with the double fisted throat punch of brexit and the pandemic. Instead of focusing on how to protect and enlighten the British public, to combat disinformation, to improve British lives- they sow culture war seeds then use the sweat of red faced nationalists to water them. If it’s not small boat migrants or trans people or “THE GAYS” it’s people of colour or women, all bothering everyone with our polite requests to be treated with a modicum of respect. The government and a compliant media relentlessly feed us with the idea that we need to pull ourselves up with our bootstraps, that it’s nobody’s fault but ours – unless its migrants or LGBT+ people or our mothers, sisters and daughters.

The most frustrating part of the Lockdown Files is that it’s predictably being used by the media to justify a narrative that we were forced to abide by inhumane conditions. Perhaps we were- but what alternative was there? Should we have all taken the risk, never followed any restrictions and just hoped that getting infected with covid multiple times wouldn’t kill or disable us or our loved ones?

Lockdowns were awful. I grieved for my mother in total isolation, couldn’t even hug my father or touch her coffin to say goodbye to her. I didn’t do it lightly. I did it because my mother’s death from cancer was not a simple passing into the afterlife- her body was failing and, much like covid, her lungs filled up with pleural fluid and she drowned in front of me. And if I knew that there was a one in a million chance of suffering that fate, much less passing it on to someone else, someone with a wife and kids, I’d never have done it. I don’t know how much the government misled us- I’d like to. But I don’t regret being in lockdown if it meant that I didn’t get covid more (I’ve had it twice and am currently trying to find out if I have permanent lung damage from last time) and that I didn’t play a part in making more deaths inevitable.

The tories are scum. I’ve no doubt they manipulated us- because that is the essence of the tories. But they didn’t need to do it by enforcing lockdowns… The sleepwalking public in the UK has allowed them to decimate our protest and strike rights, made barely a peep as they enforced harsh new voting laws which currently have an estimated 2 million people without ID, they have unleashed a hurricane of hatred towards minorities and vulnerable people. All of this in plain sight, all of this widely spoken about.

As the tories continue to firm up on their nonsense plans to “stop” the small boats “crisis” one has to roll their eyes. Today, Braverman was quoted as stating that she hopes to “break the business model of people smugglers” with harsh new directives aimed at punishing… the people they smuggle?
Firstly, if you aren’t going to do anything to the people smugglers one would assume they won’t care. Secondly- people smugglers. Not known to be the nicest of folk. They don’t and won’t care what happens to the people who get here- because they got paid already.
Thirdly- there are ways to easily deal with people crossing on small boats. Opening processing centres in key countries would mean that those seeking asylum could do so from abroad and be retrieved should they be successful.
But the government does not want to solve the “small boats” issue. Because if they did, who would they blame for their uselessness?
The moment the government actually makes a depreciation in small boat crossings it will be hailed as a victory but they will never actually try to solve the root issue- because these crossings make a convenient scapegoat.
The same with every other minority with whom the government is playing chess right now.

From transgender rights and equalities being the subject of casual debate now, to Badenoch, our “women and equalities” minister who ignores myriad studies about benefit schemes for those suffering menopause, who cheers the bravery of a woman who says she would vote against equality for lesbian, gay and bi people- this government is utterly bereft of policy, they are without direction and vision and rather than any attempt to do better, to help the British people – they unfurl new banners to rally behind in culture war after culture war. The conservatives themselves are the rot at the center of our society- Boris Johnson was the first prime minister found guilty of breaking the law in office, Sunak has now broken the law twice. Braverman has been warned her rhetoric is akin to that of Adolf Hitler and she “refuses to apologise for it”. Hancock mocked the British public, saying we needed to be ‘scared into compliance’- treating us as cattle, rather than human beings with whom he could reason.

The conservatives are not good for the British public- they are malignant, a stain on our country. They help nobody, stand for nobody, stand for nothing. They should rightly be punished for every scrap of information leaked in the lockdown files- but this is not their only transgression, their only crime. They have spent years letting us down, severing our ties to a better economy, a brighter future, deepening our immersion in fake news. They play to the basest crowd, ignoring the majority of the UK who are decent people wanting for better. So if we are to hoist them by their own petard, let that petard weigh heavy with the shrapnel of the tories in totality- not a mere sliver of their crimes, neglect and abuse.

Brittania, Chained: What else must be taken from us before we rise up?

By Daviemoo

Striking and protesting are not primary actions. One does not ask to finish half an hour early then strike when told “no” any more than one immediately takes to the streets when bills begin to rocket up in price. These are desperate actions, taken as a last resort to call heed to the wider powers of the country that a problem unsolvable by workers, or the public as a whole, exists.

For too long now, the British public has been misled by the twin arms of an utterly ineffectual  government and a media machine desperate to spin a gaudy narrative of lazy workers wanting more for less. Glaring headlines shared by Conservative MPs declare that Britain has become a “something for nothing” state- and yet an anonymous healthcare worker striking outside Leeds General Infirmary recently told me “some days it’s like coming in to a hospital in the trenches- I’m not striking because I enjoy it, I’m striking because- whether we’re there or not- it’s not safe for patients OR for staff”. When I spoke to a striking rail worker outside Leeds train station a few weeks ago I was told “my life is practically over. My mortgage went up, my electric and gas went up, my food bills are up, my wife is sick- Whether I strike or not I cant afford to live”.

Striking has long been a fundamental right of workers, but this right has been restricted and squeezed continuously since the dark days of the winter of discontent. In 1980 Thatcher passed anti “sympathy strikes” legislation, halting any wider spread of striking. Balloting was enforced, and the time between ballot and response was decreased from seven days to five whilst postal balloting was also introduced- not only did this involve increased cost, but it also meant determined organisation was required in order to even question adequately the workforce involved in the ballot and even these subversive moves were only the quieter actions laid by Thatcher to suppress strike action.

Unfortunately, the previous labour administration did little to remove restrictions on protest. Blair was reportedly focused more on drilling down on the economy and bringing in results, believing it was unnecessary to scrap the anti protest legislation in favour of simply working constructively to address issues which would prompt strikes.

Prime Minister Sunak’s desperation to enforce legislation around striking which guarantees a “minimum service level” is wholly ironic: minimum service levels are not being met at present, even on non-strike days. When I was thirteen I broke my wrist, and I thought the four hour wait in A&E before I was given a cast was exorbitant: now, 36 hour waits in A&E are the norm: people die waiting for ambulances to arrive or inside of them as they queue for triage outside departments crowded to bursting and understaffed.
These issues long predate the pandemic- an NHS staffing crisis has been ongoing for so long that I do not believe we’ve seen normal staffing levels since 2010 at best.  

Having worked as a recruiter for the NHS directly for two years, I remember being given the amended pay scale one day and being agog: a fully trained, fully qualified consultant earned just over £100,000 at the time. People will, of course, say this is a high salary- and yet I am willing to bet that those complaining do not have to pay hundreds of pounds for indemnity insurance a year, hundreds of pounds for GMC registration, for parking, for a mortgage within an appropriate distance from the hospital in case they are summoned for an emergency. Those who quickly complain that NHS staff salaries are high too often fail to factor in the huge amount of money doctors and nurses must spend in order to simply progress in their careers. 

That pay scale has barely changed since 2016 when I left the NHS’ employ and yet, due to governmental mediocrity we have seen an unprecedented rise in everything we are required to spend on: mortgage and rent have spiralled, uncontrolled bill growth continues, in Labour run councils council tax is the only means of funding as it is widely suggested that the conservatives throttle funding, so council tax bills rise and, of course, the very goods we buy- food, clothing, sanitary products- have continued to grow exponentially in prices.
The malfeasance of Truss and Kwarteng led to a fiscal black hole, into which fell the dreams of many- home ownership, reasonable rental prices and more back breaking fiscal requirements fell like lead weights on the shoulders of the British public. 

How does the government respond to this shocking burden to taxpayers? By passing legislation preventing us from complaining about it. 

But it is not merely workers rights being throttled by the hand of a malfeasant government- the very public’s voice is being smothered under a legislative deluge started by ex Home Secretary, Priti Patel and continued by her contemporary, Suella Braverman. 

Patel passed the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill, which was given Royal Assent on 28th April 2022. The bill focused on ensuring the police were given further powers through robust expanse of the “unacceptable protests” clause: a deeply problematic clause which was questioned by many a “lefty lawyer”- for what is an “unacceptable” protest?
The act also endowed the Home Secretary with the power to make regulations without having to defer to parliament, essentially widening the scope for prosecution, criminalisation and eschewing responsibility that usually sits in hand with the person in the Home Secretary chair. 

Under the PCCSB, you could be charged as a “public nuisance” if your protests were “noisy or disruptive”- unlike those very useful quiet and non disruptive protests we hear of so often in the history books.

As the bill moved through the house of lords, huge sections were excised, deemed too extreme and draconian. Braverman, unable perhaps to create and implement her own legislation, swept the offcuts of this bill up, waited for the PCCSB to pass royal assent, took over from Patel then (ignoring the brief period where she stepped down in disgrace for leaking confidential information), used the new powers included in the primary bill to pass the offcuts unopposed under the Public Order bill.

The Public Order bill essentially criminalises the act of even attending protests- those who have attended protests within five years can be compelled legally to “check in” their nonattendance at subsequent protests and can even be legally barred from referencing or speaking about protests which others may attend on social media, thereby disrupting the possibility of encouraging active participation in protest. Braverman also has the power to give injunctions to those “likely” to protest- and yet the regular crowd of free speech advocates who go to pains to defend peoples’ rights to speak out are suspiciously quiet on this. 

Garden Court North chambers had this to say on the Public Order bill:

The right to protest is at the heart of all of the hard-won rights that we enjoy in our democratic society. The Public Order Bill 2022 presents a grave threat to that right and would mark a regressive shift of power away from ordinary people and towards the State.

Not content with stripping protest rights back to the bare sinew, Sunak is now passing legislation so restrictive it even prevents “slow march” protests, where protestors walk slowly in the streets to disrupt traffic.

The overarching question which the wider public should be asking is this: would a government interested in solving problems also actively garrotte the publics’ methods of speaking out about them?

A well run country does not need to pass anti protest and anti strike legislation, because governments which drive results and correct issues are curing the diseases of which strikes and protests are a symptom. One begins to suspect that the disease from which these symptoms emanate is, in fact, a government embroiled in scandal after scandal- from Sunak’s second FPN of his public tenure to Braverman’s lazy dismissal of a holocaust survivor’s warning of her rhetoric, on to Zahawi’s tax affairs which saw him removed in shame- ironic, given Sunak’s taxation snafu over non-do status, or even to the fresh sleaze revelations of Johnson’s securing up to £800,000 loan by a friend he then appointed to a key BBC position and a distant cousin at the bank. We sometimes do not know where to turn in the U.K. because at every juncture lies further injustice, further malfeasance and stricter repercussions for not simply “making the best of a bad situation”.

The normalisation of “suffering for Britishness” is an odd phenomenon, reminiscent of the frog in the slowly heating pan. The citizens of the United Kingdom do not realise that we are, or deserve to, slowly boil in the swamp of corruption pouring steadily from Westminster, subsuming the country and winding us inextricably into the corruption the tories have solidified- and until the British and in particular the English become aware of the steady heat rising around us, we will continue to be scalded by the bad actors who stack the cabinet.

Additionally one must take into account a third arm of state machinery- the police force.
The police are an arm of control the government has been all too willing to use at their discretion, creating the bills mentioned above under Patel and Braverman to restrict our rights. The police force continues to be assailed daily by the excoriating light of truth- police are outed as rapists, racists and bigots, all leading to more state protection through watery statements from Braverman and other officials, or by promises of reform which still does not improve the ramshackle-state of either trust in the police, or the actions of them.
The police are the physical clenched fist of the state, the government it’s rotting brains, the media it’s fork tongued mouth and with these three pillars in place, we fail to be the country we can be, we fail to keep the rights we deserve and we continue to be pinned supine under the conservatives.
A government who takes these radical actions is not a government who will address the root causes- so one must then ask whether a cabinet uninterested in fixing the issues of a divided, exhausted country is a cabinet rotten to the core… and in need of replacement. 

Dear Labour…

By Daviemoo

Politics in the UK is in tatters.
Everyone- from the people I hear discuss it in the streets, to Lord Heseltine on TalkTV, can see that. It’s hardly a controversy to point this out, the intellectual equivalent of leaving an apple on your desk for weeks, watching its skin dry, pucker, rot- then, one day, for no particular reason suddenly jumping up & exclaiming “my goodness, this apple is mouldy!” It’s played out in full view. Amongst many problems including the deep and intrinsic winding of the far right around key positions like Home Secretary, that rot has pushed people who used to be more radical in their leftism- when it was easy, in full swing in the political sphere- into centricism.
When you number amongst the dreaded far left who are demonised across the board, what is one to do when the leader of the Labour Party says “like it or lump it”.

Firstly let’s start with a disclaimer. Yes there are idiots amongst the far left. There are also total muppets amongst the center left, dicks aplenty amongst centrists, wankers galore amongst the centre right- and I dont think we need to go into the far right do we. No, I don’t condone the actions of twitter incels who call themselves far left but act like misogynistic weirdos, who spam people’s comment sections, who slurp at the shaft of weird totalitarian figures of communist atrocities past and present. It’s weird behaviour that I don’t understand and I don’t associate with my politics. If you want to think that because I call myself far left I’m lumped in with them I will not lose one iota of sleep over it.

The article Starmer wrote in the Times is misrepresented in several places- but it’s hard to know that considering it’s insultingly behind a paywall. It’s all well and good saying “if you dislike how I run my party you can leave” then monetising that behind a screen that stops you reading it, hardly a brave callout to clear off if you have to pay the Times of all people for the pleasure.

The times journos and pundits sell it as a kiss off in its entirety to the far left. It’s not that, the article itself is a celebration in strides made against antisemitism in the Labour Party. Whilst I’m happy to hear moves have been made to deal with antisemitism, which is disgusting and must be rooted out in the most aggressive terms, I can’t speak to that- I’m not jewish, nor am I a member of any political party and I prefer to take my notes about how to respond to antisemitism from Jewish people.
The only way to find out if antisemitism has improved in labour is to listen to jewish voices. Some are happy, some are not and that’s entirely their verdict to make.
What I found consternating on a personal level is the self congratulatory tone of a job well done in making strides forward, and yet the complete ignorance of other burgeoning equality issues in the party- and terming yourself the party of equality rankles me deeply.
Firstly, to be a true party of equality you may consider writing for a newspaper other than The Times who, upon the murder of trans teen Brianna Ghey on the weekend, went to pains to deadname Brianna, deny that her murder was linked to her status as a trans individual and who has also played an integral part in the anti-trans culture war- which an ex advisor of the Conservatives has resigned over, claiming that Sunak will fight the next election over culture war nonsense.
I’m not a stupid man. I know that Rosie Duffield is untouchable. If Starmer did give her the boot, the newspapers would practically gum up with front page stories: “SILENCED AND CANCELLED DUFFIELD- KICKED OUT FOR KNOWING WHAT A WOMAN IS”. She’s untouchable because any move to step her down would ratify her deranged movement in their eternally misplaced idea that they are the victims of their perpetual hate movement against trans people.

Nobody who is sane, least of all trans people, deny that women’s lives are awful- especially with the rise and rise of pindick incels like Andrew Tate, though it goes back further than that. Focusing all your anti misogyny energy on excluding trans people instead of men who quite literally want to subjugate women as sex slaves is something I’ll never understand and yet it seems to be the way of things- and lets be honest, who am I to tell women how to deal with misogyny. I just find it weird that the people saying “we’re literally women lets fight misogyny together” are often described as the biggest threat to women over the radicalisation of a huge swath of young men, the rise of date rape culture which has worsened dramatically in the last 4 years and the all but abolishment of rape punishment under a government who refused to make misogyny a hate crime. It’s entirely possible to stand up for women regardless of their gender. How about we do that- because I don’t see that as radical in any way, I see it as the bare fucking minimum.

That’s enough of a dividing line for me. My support of trans people and women in particular is a hard-line and I’m quite literally happy to end friendships and change my political alignment over it. But if that’s not enough for me to be constantly chewing my nails over labour, how about more?

Brexit. Fucking brexit.
Secret upper crust nonpartisan meetings of political leaders discussing how much brexit has decimated our lives.
Do you know how offensive that is- that British politicians retire for a couple of days to chat over just how much of a fuckup our lives are, all whilst turning their collective back to the public eye between reciting “get brexit done, unleash Brexit’s successes, turn on the brexit bonuses levelling up vaccine rollout siren”. It’s so insulting.
Am I saying this little tete a tete shouldn’t have happened? No, I’m saying we should be INVOLVED. If the UK government knows brexit is a failure and they’re happy to discuss that amongst themselves, just remind me who endowed them with the power to do it? The people they’re currently ignoring in favour of chatting to each bloody other!
Even the Times, again, a paper so steeped in the mythology of Brittania being unfettered by leaving the EU has reneged and called Brexit’s time of death. So for British political parties to completely cut out the PEOPLE in this discussion is an egregious betrayal.
Did Starmer know about this summit? Did Lammy get his say- so to attend? And why, why were the British people, especially those of us whose voices are hoarse from shouting about the brexit failures, completely circumvented in consultation? Starmer’s labour continues to promise that upon election they’ll make brexit work- by taking advantage of it, but not by reunifying in any way. This line of edict is just as undemocratic as the Tories tearing us out after harrying us into a yes or no then ignoring any indication of what had come before.
The very leavers who promised we’d stay in the single market and customs union now tell us it’s good we left them too, as the British economy writhes on the floor turning a disturbing shade of purple.
I feel like I’m being gaslit and not just by the ineffable liars in power- but by those I’m supposed to cheerfully vote to replace them. And when I raise that concern, when I say “ah, I dont know how much I like this”, I’m immediately shouted down- Starmer has a plan, Starmer has an ace up his sleeve. I can only go off the words he says- brexit was voted through by people who wanted to vote for a dream and now I’m being told to vote for a dream to undo it! That way lies folly. I just want to vote for reality- is that wrong?

Brexit is an issue we’ve been fighting on for a long time due to its intangibility right? Okay, how about the other culture war bollocks heaped on us by the shovelful every day: Immi-fucking-gration.

“There’s not much between labour and conservatives on immigration”.

Do you know which far left operative said that provocative, dangerous line?

Keir Starmer. On LBC. If that’s the truth, if we have another iteration of labour who are willing to -as Angela Rayner said on TV recently- tag asylum seekers for the crime of COMING HERE TO SEEK ASYLUM then I don’t know, I feel pretty good about not being okay with that. Treating every immigrant and refugee like a criminal when we don’t give them legal recompense to come or assign enough people to help their paperwork process in decent time is not “hard headed common sense” as Sunak calls it, it’s barbaric, a failure ridden system that needs abolishment and replacement with something that does work, is humane, that considers the world that we’re in and that is still suffering from the reverberations of the British empire and our ridiculous colonialist aspirations- people are being displaced from countries WE started wars in then we have the cheek to get mad when they turn up on our shore!

I sit in myriad group chats now on twitter, on WhatsApp, on instagram and I listen to people disparage me, my politics, people like me and my rage continues to grow. Ah yes, I’m the problem, silly little airhead me thinking that we might be able to forge a way forward that pleases reasonable people, that we don’t have to continually appeal to centricism – and I hasten to add that whilst I don’t personally dislike centrists because they are centrists, I eschew the idea that moderation is important when so many bulwarks of society, politics and culture are haemorrhaging simultaneously- we need radical reform and it may mean uncomfortable changes and far reaching reform- but for those who suffer under the status quo, I’m willing to bear discomfort as they have for so long: And anyway how much more discomfort do you need than skyrocketing bills and mortgages, stagnated wages, debilitating viral spread, people forced to strike and disrupt national services, an NHS in its agonal breaths and political lying utterly normalised?
Now I need to clarify, yes I understand that in this ridiculous broken system in the UK, we DO have to appeal to a broad range of voters. But if that means appealing to the xenophobes, the anti trans, the “acceptable” culture war nonsense then I am also allowed to lodge a very-big-bloody-problem with it.

To my friends who continually slate the hard left- hi, I’m the hard left. Am I a bad person? Do I seem mean? Do my politics terrify you? Or am I similar to you in a lot of ways but no longer knee jerk react to every person who lodges a complaint with labour’s slide away from radical reform with “OH WELL SEE HOW YOU LIKE THE TORIES THEN”. This tired narrative of “get on board and make changes later” never works- because you somehow never actually make the changes. So many people who claim deep rooted interest in politics want things to change- unless they are affected. I can see it now- “He’s only just been elected, he needs time, that would upset people, oh he’s trying, he can’t rock the boat” or, my favourite one: “it’s not the time”. When is the time to fight for our beliefs and aspirations.
It’s a tale as old as time and the people you’re so angry at, AKA the far left, AKA me, are people who have been asking for change for as long as you have and go from being utterly ignored to ridiculed to being told we have no choice but to vote for those who will not enact our will- the difference I see between myself and you is that I haven’t abandoned my more radical views, even if I’ve delayed them to match the crawl of UK political progression. Yes, you will win the next election- and keeping stuff exactly the same is the grossest betrayal of everyone suffering under the mire right now that I can imagine.

Do I think a labour government would do better for many people than the tories? Yes- but that’s not a glowing endorsement of labour and their actions. I have a Donald Trump toilet brush I trust to do a better job than the tories. They are parodies of politics, besuited shills set on benches in parliament to say empty lines about the jobs they’re getting on with and how levelled up we all are, whilst their back pockets positively strain to hold illicit cash. Preferring labour to that isn’t a ringing endorsement- it’s the least one can do.
Do I think some of the moves labour are offering to make are good? Yes, of course. I know things will be better in many ways under labour, but being better than disaster isn’t a ringing endorsement. I have to ask, how many sacrifices of things we dearly want and need are people like me going to be asked to make? How far will you go to demonise us and our aspirations rather than facing the literal hard right who are in power now?
I see so much garbage about the hard left from people who spend their time on twitter. Apparently its anathema to insult capitalism… How’s that capitalism workin’ out for ya though? Yes there are horrible examples of socialism throughout history, terrible crimes committed by those who espouse communism and absolute fools willing to enact authoritarian communist state politics. I also read a story the other day about an American man who now can’t bend his leg at any joint from hip to ankle because it was crushed at work and he’s too poor to have it fixed, or about an American housewife who died because she couldn’t afford to have the chemo needed to treat her cancer so it just grew inside her. Look at the state of the UK- as people turn their literal power off in their houses because they can’t afford their bills you decry those who lodge their issues with living in heavy capitalism?
You want to talk moderation? How about moderating between positive socialist ideals and positive capitalist ideals and finding your moderation there.

I don’t care about Corbyn very much. I know that’ll upset other people who have agreed up to this point. Yes he was monstered in the press, yes I wanted him as PM, some of his actions frustrated me then and they frustrate me now. I don’t think he’s the devil he’s been painted out to be but I don’t think he’s the only hope for leftist discourse and unity in the UK. In fact, I actively refuse to pin my hopes and aspirations on just one person, just one politician because my leftist politics hangs between the hands of every person who believes in it. We are the change, not anyone who sits in parliament.
I’d hope he’d agree with that along with anyone who believes in leftist reform. I believe we need broad, brave change across the UK. I believe we need to confront problems both archaic and new. We need to reform education, resuscitate our public health system and not look to privatisation as a fix considering we’ve seen how that works for energy, water and the public travel systems- we need to confront the sinuous twisting of the far right amongst our highest offices & to dispel the hate of LGBT+ individuals and migrants, we need to build in a societal buffer for women to ensure that men who practice vile misogyny face the harshest stricture.
I believe we can do it. But that involves change- not maintenance. The system is not fit for purpose. I am willing to watch it be chipped at, provided help is given to those suffering under it now purely because I do not believe blowing it up will be any more helpful than holding it in place as it crumbles.
If you ask for me to vote to keep things the same, you’re asking for me to vote for the mire into which we sink- is that what you want? Because It’s not what I want.

I am tired of trying to appease people who do nothing but disparage my politics. Tried of hearing “if the far left don’t like it they can leave”. Fine! This must be the epitome of the abusive political relationship where I’m told to leave my ideas at the door then I can come in and have the obvious stuff everyone wants but nothing else, the bare minimum stuff it shouldn’t even be a thought to ask for.
“But you’re tory enabling if you don’t vote labour”- a huge indictment of our voting system; but how far is labour allowed to stray from my ideals before it’s not my reluctance to vote for them with enthusiasm that’s the issue? I don’t like it, I’m told to leave, but then I’m told leaving is tory enabling so a genuine question: What do you want from me?! You keep asking me to go if I don’t like it then telling me that going makes things worse. Exactly what choices are you offering? Now we’re told “if you don’t like my vision, leave”. And go where? Vote for another party who will never see power? I’m stuck- it’s not for me to change my politics, it’s for you to represent them!

To those who read this and react with rage, I want you to understand that your knee jerk reaction to anyone questioning labour comes from fear of the tories winning and I understand it, but if labour win, and if labour maintain this horrendous status quo in ways that benefit you but not the oppressed who have lodged complaints- do you want change that helps everyone, or do you just want to win and make sure that you’re ok, at the expense of the rest.

It is also not radical to point out the failure of capitalism. Look at how our bills and rent and goods continue to escalate. It is hardly a shocking standpoint to rationally ask if this system that ties us to debt works- does that mean socialism is the answer? No. But it means discussion of alternatives that do work should not be anathema.

I am tired of pretending to be more moderate than I am. My politics make sense to me even if they aren’t perfect, even if they are “airy fairy”. I do not want labour to lose, I am not trying to work against them- rather I am trying to force a confrontation between the front bench and reality. Voters do not want to hear the same tory line about brexit and minorities do not want to see how truly disposable we are in the face of voter shares and polling. And those desperate people who flee the war zones our meddling creates do not deserve to be demonised by every party. Unfortunately these stances alone seem to be radical. A shame and an indictment on the British political status quo, and calling that out is not meant to be a defection against labour. It’s a cry to the wider voting public to ask why we accept these as the terms of engagement for voting- because to me they are all adding up to be a bridge too far. I don’t want to not vote for labour, I don’t want to vote for them through gritted teeth. I want to stand behind the party proudly and vote for better- I want them to win my vote, not take it through lack of options. That is not radical. 

In his article, Kier Starmer clearly states “we are not going back”. Good, I don’t want you to. But I do want you to move forward. This is not about going back to the halcyon days of the Corbyn manifesto, it’s about moving through the socio-political quagmire into better days.
We need PR, we need broad reform to politics and we need political leaders who stand for bold progress- not establishment. If it’s a crime to think that, lock me up.

If I’m wrong, you’re embarrassed. If you’re wrong, we might die

By Daviemoo

The rise and rise of polarisation has been a theme of everything I’ve been speaking about for a great many years now. From politics to consumption to the increase of moral panics, and then into the responses to the coronavirus pandemic, humans are being confronted by issues that pose great danger to us. So why are huge proportions of the human race determined to go with outlooks that may damage- or quite literally destroy- us?

There are two main arguments that absolutely flummox me every time they come up- and they do come up, every day. Climate change, and coronavirus.

Studies going back decades show that climate change is a huge threat. Sea levels could rise, the earth could heat up enough to disrupt sea currents which would cause mass death of marine life, the weather could be so destructive that we’d see mass death as crops wither in the fields.
The main contributors to this emerging disaster are big businesses who refuse to do anything that may damage their profits- the main enablers are governments, who accept what we can probably call “legal bribes” to legislate protections into law for these businesses to continue. But behind the scenes, those businesses have also sunk money they could have used to change their models for something more green, to flood the internet with disinformation about climate change- and for some reason, a huge subsection of human beings- not big business owners or the politicians they pay for, but just everyday people have taken this information and fashioned it into a fight.

Climate change is not something you can deny if you believe in science. It’s happening. You might not be able to see it every day, but it is happening. It’s like denying the existence of the sea floor- you may have only seen it on documentaries but it is there…
Yet these individuals are convinced that it’s all a scam, designed to tell us how to live!
The core thinking that seems to revolve around this type of mindset is, as I’ll lay out here, rooted to the idea that essentially these people are extremist libertarians who don’t want to be told how to live. Oddly they’re fine with the laws that say they can’t be gunned down or robbed, that they legally own their own home and so on- just the suggestions they could throw paper and plastic in different bags are the ones they don’t like.

We see the exact same mindset with the coronavirus deniers- because yes, in 2023 people still exist who think coronavirus is a scam, made up. Having caught it in November and still having lung problems now, I can assure you it’s quite real and though my second brush with COVID-19 didn’t kill me, having lung problems 3 months later and having been forced to lie in bed for a solid week, death isn’t the only way viral illness can affect your life. But still, if they don’t deny covid they refuse to imagine a world where we’d continued on as normal and likely almost a billion people would have died.
A survival rate of 97% sounds good until you realise that that means if everyone on earth was infected once, 240,000,000 deaths would have occurred just from viral infection. I, though, have been infected twice, some people multiple times. Three and a half United Kingdom’s worth of people would have died just from COVID, then those who needed healthcare outside of viral infection would have died due to overwhelmed hospitals. Supply chains would have completely fractured, goods would have ceased production. Famine, death en masse, long term health issues. All a worthy price to the people who think covid is a scam though!

The prevalence of these mindsets seem to revolve intimately around one thing- a cocksure attitude that you’re so right that it doesn’t matter about the possibility of being wrong because you aren’t, so these heinous scenarios could never occur.

Frustration buds from two main points here: if I’m wrong about climate change, we sink a lot of money into new energy solutions that hasten technological development and we harshly tax businesses for refusing to update their business model. I’ve no doubt a harsh pursuit of green solutions would cause societal change that would cause issues to the populace but we already have issues causing the populace problems -floods in Pakistan that wipe out whole villages, days so hot in the UK that asphalt melts, crop failures in vast patches of eastern Europe due to abrupt weather changes. Complaining about problems when there are problems is reminiscent of those who took pictures of empty shelves during early 2020 and posted them to social media saying “this is what Corbyn’s England would have looked like”, failing to see the irony of posting photos of Johnson’s England looking like their apparent idea of a worst case scenario. No, there is no easy way to pursue green solutions- but when the cost of not doing so is a smouldering crater for a planet perhaps it’s worth doing so.

You, when raising this, will predictably be met with people who will scoff: It won’t happen at all, it won’t happen for a long time or it won’t be that bad.
The same absolutist confidence that I see as one of the main reasons humankind is doomed.

The world doesn’t have to follow the worst case scenarios for it to be a disaster. We don’t have to face ecological wipeout for climate change to ruin millions, tens of millions of peoples lives. If the seas currents do change it will affect those whose living relies on the sea not doing so. If the sea levels rise it will affect coastal living. If the climate stays the same as now the horrific flooding and storms and weather irregularities will continue- and that is a disaster already occurring. But the possibility of worse to come is still not enough- because the people who push the oppositional thinking aren’t directly affected; or are, but are not invested enough to care.

Looking at covid- this is not a virus that is simply going to vanish. Thousands of people a week are still dying. “What would you have us do” they will reply, “another lockdown that ruins peoples mental health and does nothing”.
I don’t actually know how we could ever tackle coronavirus, but the issue is- there’s a gulf between “doing nothing” and “zero covid” and people refuse to budge one inch, refuse to wear a mask because “they aren’t effective” (I just finished reading my third study that shows they are). I asked an anti masker once, why do they bother you so much and after cornering her enough she confessed the truth. “I just don’t like being told what to do”.
The terror I feel, being surrounded by a not insignificant number of people who will risk becoming a vector for a virus that’s ruined my lung capacity because they get offended at not being asked politely if they don’t mind very much to cover their face for five minutes is immeasurable. I can’t not go into this without mentioning how ridiculously obvious it is that these people are wrong. I keep seeing people posting about “adverse reactions to vaccines”. Yes, there were always going to be adverse reactions to vaccines; it’s been a known side effect since vaccines were created, and when you scale that up to billions of doses, shockingly those side effects that we already knew about- happen. You know what didn’t happen? The explosion of severely autistic people you were all talking about 5 years ago. If vaccines caused autism I suspect giving out over 16 billion vaccines might have caused a spike in people with autism… and yet here we are.

When it comes to covid and our thinking- if we’re wrong, you look a bit stupid because you’re wearing a mask when you don’t need to. Masks don’t cause any of the nonsensical rubbish people talk about, if they did, doctors and cleaners and builders would all be sick constantly. The worst that happens if we’re wrong is that you look weird in public. If you’re wrong, you are spreading a disease that can be as bad as a nasty cold and having had a few it’s rude and gross to spread that anyway, it can cause illness severe enough to take a 34 year old off his feet for a week and give him long term health issues, or it can mean someone ends up choking to death as their lungs fill up with pleural fluid. Is it worth that risk? Still, for many of these people, yes- hence my semi withdrawal from a society I was, until now, unaware was absolutely filled with people ranging from deluded to frighteningly callous.

The reason we’re told masks cause disease is because they can’t just rely on “I don’t want to” as an argument on an international scale. The reason we’re told that green solutions would decimate industry is because they think those industries won’t be decimated by an earth that becomes close to uninhabitable. And when it comes to other arguments- about marginalised groups etc, you will often find that it’s not enough to simply dislike others, no- people of colour are causing a “white genocide” just by existing, gay people are corrupting your children with drag, trans people are trying to sneak into spaces not for them… I often wonder if the people who fall into these utterly ridiculous ways of thinking genuinely believe them or they know that “I just don’t like them and I don’t want to change my mind because being wrong equals losing” is a stupid mindset.

Being wrong is not a sin

People seem determined to conflate incorrectness with losing. Being corrected on something you’re wrong about is not losing. Rejecting correct information and clinging to bias, bigotry or abject nonsense because you cant possibly be seen to be wrong is.
Being wrong is usually a huge part of how we learn. We study at school and we write our sentences out and the teacher corrects our spelling and grammar and we learn. We make errors in our calculations and we’re shown where we make a mistake and we do better. Why does the idea of being corrected suddenly go from par for the course to equivalent to “losing” as soon as we leave mandated education.

The reason culture wars are such lucrative social currency is that the world has decided collectively that it’s better to fall into a tunnel of disinformation that backs up a lie than to bend to the acknowledgement of the objective truth. And many people without morals exist who are all too happy to partake- from Tucker Carlson whose show is so wildly unreliable that he has had to declare that he does not tell news but is a fictional show, to pundits in the UK like Jeremy Clarkson who is so blithely unaware of his radical hatred of women he writes columns about flogging and sexually assaulting women he doesn’t like.

Hartley-Brewer, Oakeshott, Coren, Johnson- these people’s careers are built on spinning the idea that the objective truth- of good relations with the EU, of climate change, of viral mitigations- are all bad. That we should be able to do exactly what we want, where and when we want because it is our right- and yet when your rights conflict with others physical safety, when your simple wish to display your face to the world consists of an unbalanced risk of viral disease, why is it suddenly feeling over fact, for the people whose moniker has always been, fact over feeling?
Fact, climate change is real, you can see it happen in real time. Fact, masks work, vaccines work and covid kills. But we live now in the world of alternative facts, of fake news, a whole deep pool of comforting mistruths that people can dive into if simple reality is too much.

Ultimately, I wish I could say I didn’t care. I wish it was as simple as letting people get on with it. If you want to end up choking to death because of covid or going hungry because you set the world alight, I wish I could let you get on with it.
But you’re dragging us down with you. The stupidest most selfish humans in existence are using the rest of us as collateral. And I am sick of it.
If you want to die- die. I won’t stop you. But stop wrapping the noose around my neck too, and telling me to stop complaining about it.