Tag: Rachel Reeves

Short termist policy is going to ruin the UK- when does it end?

I try to avoid bringing up Margaret Thatcher when I talk about politics, mostly because I have a physical dislike of the woman and the policies she typified. But it’s undeniable that her policies were revolutionary in the worst sense of the word: her fiscal policies were the start of a steepening wealth divide in the UK, her abiding dislike of U turning even when her policies caused a longer, deeper recession, and the fiscal squeezing to deal with inflation before the days of initiatives like quantitative easing, changed the face of the UK. No longer a nation of industry, we became part of the wealth and services sector. But her most insidious legacy is the continuation of short termist fiscal policy which hurts the already suffering. Anyone familiar with this type of fiscal policy groaned when the Tories kept winning elections over the last fourteen years- but are we set to see a continuation of this under Labour, with Reeves’ fiscal determinism set to repeat the mistakes of the past?

Quantitative easing was the strangest creation of the 2008 financial crash: banks creating money to buy bonds was meant to ease economic pressures and reduce the length of time we were in recession. 40% of quantitative easing funds created were taken up by the top 10% of wealthy Britons, though. Even though QE caused a surge in asset value like houses which benefited those who borrowed around the 2009 period, the true wealth was absorbed by those who didn’t need the easement of issues caused by recession. It seemed that this, again, was another monetary exercise which led to the rich of the UK benefiting from disaster capitalism- in some cases, no doubt from the irresponsibility of their own endorsement of loose banker rules.
In 2016, the brexit referendum caused a run on the pound with predatory British firms like those owned by Crispin Blunt and even our own government- Jacob Rees-Mogg prominent amongst them, benefiting from the financial slowdown as the world markets lost confidence in a nation determined to tear itself out of long established free trade agreements. One could argue that quantitative easing went on too long in both periods, actually causing its own set of problems. There’s also an overreliance on it as the new default method to solve market uncertainty.

Reeves seems to be gearing up to repeat an argument so well worn that pages are beginning to drop from the script: that the economic failure of the preceding government prevents investment, that fiscal austerity is the sensible choice.
Austerity was wrong in 2008 in response to a bankers’ crash and it’s the wrong choice now. Labour setting out this sensible framework of fiscal squeeze is another eyeroll inducing moment we should be striving to avoid even as we run headlong into it.

The UK has lagged behind other markets for years now, because in 2008 along with every other economy- hence the conveniently forgotten “global” in front of the crash- we faced a global financial catastrophe on the scale of a possible new depression. QE was the salve, with a package of financial cuts introduced by Osborne which felt and still feels like some sort of finger wagging punishment for ever moving away from Tories- more of a punishment for choosing Blair than a sensible method to ease the financial instabilities we faced.

We’re told constantly that the Tories are the party of fiscal responsibility. When I was born in 1987 I’d just managed to miss the damage of Thatcher’s commitment to fiscal austerity and adherence to policy which ballooned what could have been a milder recession. I dodged seeing the highest unemployment in decades, managed to swerve most of it though no doubt I’d have been happy to be taken to marches against the poll taxes…
I was born in a northern town, watching the reverberations of our once thriving industries being torn down as our locales fought for new identities without the long standing businesses that brought micro economies to much of the north which was lost without them. Even thriving businesses were sent into insolvency by Thatcherite fiscal policies- it wasn’t even about survival of the fittest, it was about throttling inflation out even at the cost of welfare, about shrinking the welfare state even as people relied on it.
We now stand at the cusp of yet another round of fiscal bullying meant to rip money away from public infrastructure investment and give the government more money to steady the illusory ship that is the UK.

All too often we’re given the ridiculous parity between country finance and household finance. The problem is, people are trained to take politicians words at face value. When Reeves tells us her mother taught her to balance the books at the kitchen table, she was talking about the home, where once you run out of money you are trapped so you must be smart with money to avoid this undesirable outcome. The UK is a sovereign currency- we cannot run out of money. Yes, overproduction can lead to runaway inflation, yes you can use QE to attack that, yes that can cause problems with interest rates. The point, though, is that this reductive nonsense parroted by anyone near the wheels of power is a misdirection- and all the parties with stakes in leadership do it. Reform’s fiscal policies would quite literally melt the UK’s economy down overnight: they promise to sever payment promises to foreign banks which would “free up” money, forgetting that if the UK refuse to pay its’ debts government borrowing would become impossible and foreign investment would drop off in a matter of days. The conservatives fiscal policy is explained simply: they want to shove every pound they can touch into their own pockets, those outside the elite circle be damned and damned more if we complain.

Labour will be the the UK’s next government. We’re told endlessly by Labour adherents that they must move into this pale ghost of Tories in order to win. And people accept these ridiculous, weak, visionless fiscal policies instead of demanding a revitalisation of the country’s infrastructure after sixteen years of continual spending aversion.

Part of the 28 billion pound initiative towards green policy labour has cut focuses on insulating millions of homes. Not only would this drive down bills for working people, allowing them to be more fiscally responsible by spending money elsewhere or saving, upsizing etc, it would ease the usage of climate change inducing services- refusing to do this, stalling it again is irresponsible not just because climate scientists are protesting about our actual mass deaths but because the continual abandonment of policy to directly help people spend less on utilities we need is a further capitulation to the idea that we can’t attack problems at their root source: not to mention these companies have had a longtime run on our pockets; minor windfall taxes haven’t prevented some energy companies from gaining fifty percent increases in revenue. When it comes to public ownership we’re told it’s too expensive- whilst being asked to pay increased bill costs to foot the costs of, for example, water companies building better water infrastructure. The same companies Thatcher privatised who took insane profit and gave it to rich foreign nationals want more of our money to fix the infrastructure they’ve been in charge of since the 80s… something just doesn’t seem right there.

We’re told that Reeves’ rules are non negotiable, and this of course is meant to be a throwback to the “strong and stable” governance line that signified May’s tumultuous primacy. I see it as a bullish overcommitment to outdated fiscal rules which imperil the welfare of people unlucky enough to be born working class in the wrong decade and prioritise the riches of those who already have more than most of us can accrue in a lifetime.

I see financial disaster on the cards again, whoever takes control of the country’s purse strings after the election this year.

When I started to learn about economy more in the middle of last year one of the first lessons I understood was that refusing to invest in public spending as Reeves threatens to continue is one way to ensure a country mires itself in its own mess, refusing to develop new methods of revenue. It’s such high irony that it’s not just the conservatives who claim to care about British people who have brought about these circumstances of marked wealth inequality, and a Labour who have picked up the discarded clown outfit of the Tory crime syndicate and begun to don it who threaten its continuation.

I’m tired of being negative about labour, forecasting doom like an uglier Cassandra but at this point, I’m tired of watching the UK continually gulp down a humble pie we never asked for. The population at large do not deserve to suffer punitive fiscal policy over and over and over because of some abiding commitment to the idea that suffering leads to greatness: this is labour resting on the confidence that the UK’s population will believe that we’re an irresponsible nation who must pay the price for things we often have no say in.

If we don’t enter a period where the UK can spend the incredibly high taxes we’re under on new methods of growing the economy, then leverage that into better services, incentives to help people grow their own personal wealth and income security, we will not drag ourselves from the mud we’re currently sinking into.

Most of all, though, it’s absolutely ridiculous that, everywhere we turn, be it the insane Tories, the obviously foolish radical Reform and the incumbents of labour, we’re told that fiscal policy that punishes us is good, responsible, the right thing to do. My kingdom for a government who doesn’t think that advertising it’s contempt for working people’s welfare and pitches our suffering as advancement.

My Fears

By Daviemoo

It’s completely baffling to be met with hostility when I’m critical of the Labour Party as it stands. First of all, The party itself only recently removed mention to the principles of socialism from its own charter. Secondly, the idea that a political party is inscrutable is absolutely insane: how does one make demands of a party, how does one suggest improvements to a party, if one cannot be critical of missteps?
And yet, there is a part of me that understands the wave of backlash to the change that I’ve experienced in terms of where my support lies. I acknowledge that Labour is our best option for tory destruction, and so I’ve adopted a position of stating that labour are not a party who seems welcoming to people with my views but I’m happy for people to support them if they will.

My fear, of course, is that the tories will snag another win. We’re a country pathologically welded to conservatism and conservatives themselves: a country who hears stories of Boris Johnson burning fifty pound notes in front of poor people for fun and thinks: I want him to lead us, and then when Johnson inevitably sold us out- more interested in writing a book about Shakespeare than governing an entire nation, woefully stupid during the worst crisis in living memory, gallingly self centred upon being seen as the monster he is- still making excuses and being handed the golden parachute of lying to the nation on a news channel now famous for complaints of inaccuracy and the Rubles he’s so often been accused of accepting.


“He had a hard time of it, bless him”, said many Johnsonites- as though anyone taking on the role of Prime Minister would find the role easy. I don’t feel sorry for a man who connived his way to the top seat in Downing Street only to realise he was too feckless, corrupt, stupid for the role.
The tories have been poor at governance for a lot longer than this considerably lengthy thirteen year spell: their own idol, Thatcher, precipitated rioting and the type of civil unrest I have expected to arise from tory governance in this recent iteration for quite literally years now. The corruption that the tories entrench behind Westminster and Whitehall doors is, in my humble view, a huge part of why many people simply do not trust politicians any more.
I have had conversations with utterly rational people, living normal lives, doing normal jobs, who think that Westminster is the seat of a demagogue-esque cult of people who purposely make our lives worse and in recent years I went from feeling vaguely disturbed by people’s gullibility to slowly wondering myself if this continual landslide of horrific governance is not intentional.

The point is that I don’t want the tories to win again. I’m genuinely bored of typing out an ever increasing laundry list of why I hate the tories, hate their politics, hate them as people- in recent days Braverman has castigated people calling for a ceasefire during a widely shown ethnic cleansing as “hate marches” and has tried to illegalise tent sales or donations to homeless people, describing homelessness as a “lifestyle”- Ms Braverman, if we are to deal with lifestyles which impact negatively upon the British people may I suggest criminalising politicians taking second jobs, lobbying for companies a la Michelle Mone or Owen Paterson? May I posit not wasting over a million pounds so far on fatuous schemes to send refugees to gulags in Rwanda (who is kindly sponsoring their own militia to slaughter innocents in the D R Congo): these are things that materially affect me and us, I’d be happy to see them go. I’d love to see the over fifty MP’s, tie or pin colour notwithstanding, who are under credible investigation for sexual misconduct, swiftly investigated and sacked if they are indeed using the power of high office to sexually coerce people.
But genuinely dear reader, it becomes exhausting to remind people over and over again just how bad the tories are – especially when the party so determinedly keeps doing it themselves. I shouldn’t need to continuously remind you that I hate the tories, that they’re bad, that I utterly, utterly fear them winning another election and continuing to wreak harm upon this country. I shouldn’t- and yet I have to, because I also complain about Labour.

Labour

Listen- let me put this right here so people don’t miss it:

I think labour will be better than the tories. I hope they win if it means removing the tories.

Now I have said this, allow me to give you some nuance:
However: “better than the tories” and “good” are two very distinct entities and my fear, a fear I believe in because of fact, not salacious theory, is that labour fall short of good and sit firmly in the first camp.

Why? Let me explain some of my reasons.

THE NHS
Streeting’s NHS plans are a silent disaster, precipitating greater infiltration of private entities into the NHS. The NHS does not need “temporary contracts” to private entities to fix its gaping holes. Fixing the NHS means huge changes to everything- education, immigration, taxation.
Firstly we need to reform the educational syllabuses all across the UK’s education spectrum: from primary school to uni, we need to cater to people’s learning styles using up to date information to ensure children, young adults- adults even- can study into high level jobs with less struggles than the current setup offers. We need to look at realistic ways to change the affordability of upper level studies, ways in which we reward people for taking up medical roles to provide long term benefits to attract people to study here, then work here and -crucially – stay here by also reforming the NHS’ treatment of staff (both medical and non medical- I was treated horrendously in my NHS role).
I’d posit that we need to devolve the tier two and tier four visa schemes to allow local authorities greater, quicker control over filling shortage roles. I’d suggest that people on medical visas whose role is to help the NHS are offered mid- term benefits to attract them here over elsewhere.

Streeting’s plans will simply weaken the NHS from within- once those short term contracts begin it’s a matter- and I know these companies will do this having worked within them and seen their stratagem- of simply doing well at first, getting the good headlines and the positive press then just falling short at the 11th hour- shame, you cant dump the companies off because they’ve taken on the caseloads of the backlog: guess you have to extend the contracts! And so it will continue, with those companies strategically failing targets but taking on enough work to continue to obtain the business they’re vampirically feeding off.

Why do you think Streeting presented these plans for the NHS to right wing think tanks? Because therein are the very people who approve of such coercive models. Will it go some way towards addressing the crisis? Yes- will it cause further crises down the line as we realise we cannot untangle these companies from the NHS without its’ collapse? Make your own judgement, but understand this isn’t conspiracism- I used to work for companies whose lifeblood is NHS private contracting through large healthcare contracting entities.

TAX, GREEN DEALS & INFRASTRUCTURE
Rachel Reeves used to have a much more progressive outlook on economy and taxation, a view she has moderated under Starmer to the point that some of her policies are a worrying echo of, in some ways, Cameronian era taxation & investment. I’m still studying economics to allow me to write with some semblance of authority on it- but the idea that we had to enter austerity to fix things when everything is even worse than austerity years now is obscene when we had the chance to invest massively into the country- transport, public utility etc- is madness.
Understand this: from every economics expert I’ve spoken to about the austerity years one quote has emerged clear:

We could have spent our way out of a black hole, but instead fed it the bodies of now over 330,000 poor people.

Reeves herself was called out on LBC by one of my favourite political commentators, No Justice- who fed Reeves her own words on economics and Reeves blithely stated that she now believes that growing the economy is the way to fix inequalities. Let me explain in layman’s terms (which I sorely needed until recently) to understand the lie here.

Firstly, the economy has grown- albeit poorly- under the tories. 1 to 2% growth a year is woeful and should be enough to show the tories as the rudderless ship they are.
But growing an economy does not fix inequality on its own- it is the subsequent investment of the economy’s growth that matters. What will you sink that growth into? Funding schemes to address at source the inequalities we worry over, from food insecurity to economic stagnation of an area with poor travel infrastructure. There are so many ways to actually tackle inequality and it starts not just with economic growth but with progressive outlooks on taxation- which Reeves seems to have either surrendered or never have truly believed in.
This, paired with the- forgive me for the candour but- fucking ridiculous– outlook on the country’s budget as equivalent to a household budget is prohibitive from looking at more useful forms of addressing inequality. Let us be clear: the UK is not a house. We are an economy- and sometimes to grow an economy, to fix a forecast in dire straits isn’t to spend less- paradoxically it’s to spend more to create opportunities for more growth to lift the burden.

Reeves embracing this embarrassingly simplistic way of speaking about UK economics belies labour as a party who is treating us with a similar distain to the tories- thinking we’re foolish enough to think that how the tories have steered the economy was ever good, it’s just the party that was bad. Even recently we’re seeing further signs of economic instability in the market as wholesale gas prices rise again- and as this was one of the key metrics which reduced inflation we may see Sunak’s promise to half it broken. Additionally Sunak is very transparent in hiding the truly impactful types of inflation, ignoring things like food inflation which is still affecting us daily.
Conservative outlooks on economics has caused the mess we’re in, and it should never be anathema to say “this is not a good way to do things, so do something else”.

UPPER LEADERSHIP
Starmer himself has been a source of frustration for me. The most damage he’s done is instilling in labour loyalists the idea that doing absolutely anything to win is on the table. Winning is vital- sacrificing your morals and embracing the type of politics which has been steamrolling us for years means the changes you’ll bring are limited and likely to continue the prison of dissatisfaction we’re welding ourselves into by not asking for different moves from Labour.
It’s been so confusing to watch Labour embrace policies not too distinct from the people we hate and watch people celebrate- and it shows me how superficial the battle is to some, that it’s based on the optics of being on the winning team even if the politics underneath is similar.

Even still, I support people who want to vote Labour yet I’ve found myself rebuffed, belittled and insulted, called a tory enabler for months now because I personally do not wish to stand with this iteration of Labour- on one hand I’m told I’m a nobody and then begged to vote for a party I feel offers me little beyond not being the worst guys, told my views don’t matter then urged to vote because other people will benefit, ignoring the swaths of friends, loved ones, acquaintances I have made who Labour, frankly, scorn and often with the full support of those who are feeding me these two lines.
I’ve never been a party loyalist anyway because, like anyone, my politics changes over time, as has the outlook of the party and we’ve diverged from each other. But regardless, Labour don’t own my unbending loyalty. For some reason the legions of cis-het people I have this conversation with love to utterly disregard my experiences but I tell you now, Labour’s treatment of my community throughout the years has always been lacklustre- long predating Starmer but, in my direct experience, exacerbated under his hand. I notice that many people who tout themselves allies give me mumbled words or thready promises on how they’ll make sure the party does better in the future- but not now.
“Vote for this party who disregards you and your loved ones and maybe we’ll fix that later” is genuinely quite a funny line until you realise they’re serious, and to those saying it I have to ask you, if Labour were making statements clarifying they don’t intend to assist your groups- be it women facing misogyny, men facing mental health crises- pick your own group and think of your problems… would you vote for them in the face of that fear?

I’ve done many videos now explaining to Labour loyalists that I don’t want to sabotage Labour, I wan’t them to win but also be good – and by voicing dissatisfaction in great enough numbers, perhaps labour can be moved into more favourable outlooks on key issues.
But this has never been so sorely needed as right now, and it’s the reason I write this article, even though it’s frustrating to write it through the self indulgent lens of British politics from the horrific viewpoint of war crimes against Palestinians.

Palestine- and the echoing silence of politicians

What’s happening in Palestine is evil- again, I’ll speed run you through my responses to the usual questions.
Yes I do condemn Hamas– they are terrorists; not just to Israel but to the innocents of Palestine, 73% of whom want new leadership and 51% of whom were children when the atrocities began. I’d love to see Palestine liberated from armed occupation – which includes the theocratic forced “leadership” from Hamas who I see as antithetical to the needs of on-the-street Palestinians.
I don’t care much that Palestinians think I deserve whatever for being queer- firstly queer Palestinians exist and don’t deserve my scorn or indifference because of their fellows. And secondly I don’t want to condone genocide against people who hate me, I just want them to be less ignorant- but it’s interesting to see that people on the other side think death is the way to make the LGBT+ more accepted in the world, or that if people don’t like you they deserve to be bombed… is that your message..?
Finally, if you’re so interested in liberating queer people why don’t you donate to Rainbow Railroad who help people out of adverse situations abroad if they are queer- I mean, if you care so much about queer people? And if you’re not queer yourself I look forward to seeing you at all the rallies to protect LGBT+ rights in the UK I’ll be attending over the coming year… Unless, of course, you think our mistreatment at the hands of the government is ok but Palestinian queer peoples mistreatment is ok…?
On a more ominous note, if you think bombing people who hate LGBT+ people is acceptable, look carefully at how our government is operating at present and consider the danger of that statement to a community of people who feel under increasing threat. And yes, I mean you to feel the tug of fear these words prompt, because whilst I don’t condone violence, I also understand that there comes a point where it is inevitable for the oppressed and we may be far from it now- but not the miles we once were in the UK and the US.

Finally, if I can condemn Hamas why can’t you condemn the state of Israel? Israel is land, it’s not religion – it’s ground, buildings, rivers, beaches, oceans. The state is not its people, the state is currently the right wing cadre of individuals Netanyahu has gathered together to create protection for his imperialist dreams.
I am not critiquing Jewish people by calling out a state for disgusting violence- I am calling out a corrupt state who has shown blatant disregard for innocents on its’ own side, for international law and the basic truth, in it’s current campaign against Gaza.

But I’ve been witness to truly inappropriate talk in recent weeks, seen Jewish people accused of creating “re-education camps” for other Jewish people because open talks were set up to help Jewish people discuss Zionism as a concept in a Jewish only space, without fear of judgement from other groups.
I’ve seen people weighing the lives of Israeli citizens against the lives of Palestinian citizens as if one group bears more sympathy or scrutiny than the other. This wilful ignorance of State representatives and the conflation of innocents underneath is utterly odious and is the precise mechanism the Israeli state uses to conduct horrors, using the- using their own phrase- “human shields” of Jewish people who are subjected to horrific antisemitism by fools who cannot separate state action from human being. I’d argue that Netanyahu is genuinely pleased by the rising tide of antisemitism, because prompting further Jewish people to seek shelter in the theocratic state of Israel only bolsters the case for its existence.

And from our politicians? Absolutely unquestioning, uncritical loyalty to the state of Israel. From the tories, no doubt because arms sales will be filling up the pockets they’ve studiously emptied over years. From Labour- let’s be honest, we’re all seeing the ghost of the antisemitism scandal, aren’t we?
I’m utterly uninterested in invoking the ghost of Corbyn- I leave that for you to make your own assessments.

Hear me clearly- antisemitism is cancer. This war is exacerbating antisemitism baselessly. There were- and no doubt still are- antisemites in Labour, in all parties, who do not deserve to be there because of their sick hatred of Jewish people- the same way I’ve watched politicians all across the span of politics say horrifically Islamophobic nonsense in the last few weeks, all with seeming impunity. In the US I watched a GOP member refer to turning Gaza into a “parking lot”.
Imagine if someone said they wanted to bomb a district of London into “a parking lot” and ask yourself why that is ok?

Is it because the citizens of Palestine are Muslim, or because they are heavily brown or black- is it both? I will say that I don’t know if its one or the other- but I do know it is not because it is neither.


But if fear of being characterised as antisemitic means our politicians- people who will make huge decisions about legislation that affects our daily lives- cannot speak out against blatant war crimes, terrorism, ethnic cleansing- tell me why we should vote for them in earnest? Are we really to accept that our politicians are so unskilled at public speaking that they can’t threat the arguably large needle between criticising the overreach of a state who has committed war crimes repeatedly on camera, and speaking hatefully about members of, or about, a religion?
We’ve all seen the clip of Starmer saying it’s not right to ask politicians to jump to statements about countries committing war crimes, juxtaposed with the one of him immediately and categorically stating that Russia is committing war crimes and that a special council should be created to address it. But let us be somewhat understanding: Labour’s position is dangerous- the right wing press will take absolutely any opportunity, especially taking lead from the government, to reopen the “is Labour antisemitic” case file. But in that void is a huge opportunity for Labour to present the countercase that innocent Palestinians mean nothing to the sitting government, that our government is in fact exacerbating the crisis purposefully for their own ends and out of their own bigotries.

Has there even been a whisper of this from Labour, or is it truly, honestly more important to win an election than to speak out against indiscriminate bombing, of the use of illegal white phosphorus, the blatant, very clear method of collective punishment being used (we even saw an Israeli general explain on international news that it’s not collective punishment- we’re saying all of Hamas come out without weapons and then we’ll give Gazans water, food, electricity – which neatly fits into the very definition of “do what we want or we torture you” otherwise known as collective punishment)- and risk losing support or even losing?

Why people can’t see the truth – that I don’t want labour not to win, I just want a good labour to win- I don’t know. It should be obvious. When I had my homework marked at school, I didn’t think the teacher was trying to ruin my chances of graduation. I assumed the terse remarks in red were to guide me on the right path.
Dear labour loyalists, my red scrawls in the margins of their policy and position are not to sink their ship- it is to steer it away from the path of the Titanic: to stop them running into their own iceberg made of a reluctance to speak out against atrocities.

I also get told often that you can’t make change from outside power. What nonsense. Nigel Farage has never touched power and yet has steered it from the outside. The ERG, the IEA, all of these shadowy orgs, think tanks, individuals- they steer power from the shadows and reap its rewards. Are their methods unsavoury? Probably. Are they adaptable for leftists to push our own parties in better directions? What do you think?

Part of this is selfish practicality. Labour’s pig headedness will crystallise into a manifesto and at that point, any changes we want are almost impossible to get, and the only way we will pressure them into changing what they are already doing is collective pressure now. Part of it is distaste for the idea of sitting under another government who wants to profit off the blood-marked pounds collected by selling arms to Israel.
Israel does, should, have a right to defend itself and as a nation of Jewish people they should be armed well: the tidal wave of antisemitism speaks to something more malignant and malevolent in collective society. But seeing those arms turned upon innocents because they are collectively ruled over by extremists with no say is against even the most fundamental of my ideas.

Finally, my fear is that Labour will continue to embody the type of watery politics we already have and have had for many years- politics that protects corporations, rich individuals and the status quo that means more will suffer, more will be miserable, more will miss out on opportunities for betterment and that distaste will allow the tories to do as always- change their face, reword their lies- and sweep back in in five years time with another huge majority to wreak more suffering upon us, or that more will be radicalised by the metronomic Labour-Tories-Labour-Tories-Labour-Tories click clack swing that they will chase the talentless Tory extremists that pad the halls of extremist clowns, Reform UK.

Call me a conspiracist, call me a fool- I don’t care. My terror for a future where we don’t depart from this dark chapter, we extend it- makes me more terrified than the immediacy of an election.
I don’t want the tories to win ever again: but I do want politics that is more pluralistic and representative. And that’s a goal worth fighting for, even if it means alienation by people who know I speak the truth and who bury that deep under the shining fraudulence that labour winning will fix everything and are perfect, instead of the emaciated shadow of what we deserve.