Thursday, 4 February 2016
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
There's a whole heap of madness going on in most people's minds, most of the time, isn't there? Unlike everyone else, however, artist Simon Tyszko has the good sense to set it free, run with it, and allow his wildest thoughts to become touchable. Like the full-sized Dakota airplane wing installed in his flat, on the fifth floor of a Fulham council estate. Or his work in cocaine, Absolute Hypocrisy, that made a criminal of the buyer - the 'deal' taking place in a Parisian hotel room. His practice is an ode to what-if, a punk-prayer to the possible. His latest show, in the arch space at the Beaconsfield Gallery, is a cornucopia of his most recent explorations in tangibility – some of the best bits that have made it from mind to matter. So go play at The UnFunFair today.
Sunday, 23 June 2013
So that's what a People's Assembly looks like.
Of course, I agreed with a lot of what was said inside the hall yesterday afternoon; I sort of thought I might - I've been broadly agreeing with left rhetoric for the best part of a decade now.
For all the talk of left unity, however, there does still seem to be a divide between those inside and those that were - both physically and metaphorically - outside of Westminster's Central Methodist Hall yesterday. But it's ok, because inside the hall there was, more or less, unity – and for some, that's enough.
“For the sane and non-sectarian elements of the left, for the best of the left, this marks a new chapter in left renewal as well as a desperately needed lift for the whole anti-cuts movement. For the sectarians and naysayers, for the worst of the left, it represents a slide into even greater irrelevance.”
What if the people on the lawn outside central hall yesterday are not 'the worst of the left', but - perhaps even in equal measue to those inside - caring, dedicated and intelligent? To dismiss them and their disagreement is not only intellectually lazy, but actively self-defeating if seeking to build a truly inclusive movement. It's an old elitist trick to say: “Ignore these people, they're just trouble makers. They don't have any ideas of their own and they're trying to spoil the party for everyone else. They're merely malcontents, or mad.” Sound familiar?
Who are these ghouls that are not serious about building a stronger, bigger left, anyway? Doesn't it seem unlikely that the people who bothered to write blogs, or who came to Central Hall yesterday to put their point across with megaphones, want to remain on the sidelines - don't want a big movement capable of change? Wouldn't they just stay at home and cry into their Bakunin if that were the case? Does anyone seriously believe they're saboteurs, that they want the world to be a worse place? Or have they just got a different perspective on how to build a better one?
“People are fed up with the old sectarian, divisive and insular habits of so much of the left. Disagreement and debate are necessary and healthy. That is not the issue. The point is to establish common ground, build on it, and not get distracted by ancient grudges or trivial differences. You could feel the collective willing to make this a reality and marginalise those who make it more difficult.”
The prefix phrase 'disagreement and debate are healthy' gave me pause, and brought to mind the Met's 'Protest is an important part of democracy' – you know that there's a but coming. In the Met's case it's: we will stomp you into the ground if you try it; in the author's it's: you will be marginalised and ignored if you disagree - or branded un-sane. Isn't it dangerous to say, now, at this point, you have crossed a line (of my own imagining) and I don't have to listen to you anymore. You are dismissed. You are a non-person and your ideas are non-ideas.
Apart from the fact that marginalising people only ever makes them more angry, and almost never makes them just disappear like you want, saying 'we're not the sectarians: they are!' is sorta sectarian, isn't it? Isn't it a bit ironically divisive to talk of a best and a worst of the left, of marginalising people whose views are percieved to be 'difficult'. There was lots of agreement on the day, which was really heartening, but I heard a whole plethora of disagreement as well – ranging from concerns over a lack of consensus decision making to gripes about catering. To dimiss the whole gamut as 'naysaying' or irrelevant doesn't leave much room for nuance – it's all a bit black and white, a bit George Bush Junior.
At the meeting about cuts to disability welfare, for example, I heard one activist complain that the discussion had been sidelined to the marquee – that it was not only insensitive but also unkind to leave comrades with disabilities “twitching in the cold” all afternoon. She thought it was important that once the group got inside the hall, they made this particular concern heard. Is she a naysayer? Certainly. Does she, therefore, deserve to be marginalised or branded irrelevant? Certainly not.
But when we did finally get back inside the hall, there was no opportunity to raise that concern – only to swoon at Tony Benn again and clap along to the speeches that seemed well-rehersed rather than a reaction to the day's events. One person approached the stage to pass a note to the table, but he was awkwardly ignored until Francesca Martinez ackowledged at least his presence, if not his note. Sorry fella, like those outside with megaphones, you are not part of the script – you were not in the programme.
And the jubilation wasn't even universal inside the hall: chair Vicki Barrs had to ask people to stop heckling on a couple of occasions. It's not fair to heckle, she said, it doesn't give people the chance to say what they want to say; if people are heckling, might it be that they haven't been given the chance to say what they wanted to say? If there are hecklers, isn't it because they don't agree with what's being said? And if they don't agree, you haven't got consensus – you just haven't, and no amount of applause or congratulatory sentiment can hide that.
Is there an absolute truth towards which we are all working? Is there a point at which those outside the Central Methodist Hall have crossed the line, have put their own needs and wants above those of their comrades? Maybe, but you can bet your life that those outside think exactly the same of those inside. In fact, you don't need to place such a high stakes bet: you could just go and ask them, talk with them, meet them halfway. But it's pretty difficult to meet anyone halfway when you're sitting on a stage.
Consensus is not about dismissing all of the arguments you disagree with until you're left with applause; it's about hearing the whole range of opinion and then finding a way forward that's acceptable to all. Of course, you may think that your ideas are just better, more correct, than other people's – you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But don't then accuse others of sectarianism.
And not only because it's a self-defeating waste of energy: it just sounds so silly. Before this week I'd only heard the word sectarian used in connection with religious conflicts, or where atrocities have been committed. It is at best absurd and at worst intellectually authoritarian to describe these disagreements as sectarian – I can see neither John Rees nor Ian Bone calling for their opponents to be knee-capped, can you?
Actually, I'd like a movement that included both Ian Bone and John Rees – but I'd like to be sat at the same level as them, discussing ideas and coming to, if not agreement, then consensus. I don't want to be patronised by handsomely paid trade unionists plying well-worn phrases about workers' solidarity (seriously, if you're that solid, take a pay cut?). I'd like something that looked a bit more like an Occupy style general assembly - I'd rather be waving my jazz-hands in agreement with something I contributed to than applauding the same people I've been applauding for the past ten years. I'd like a movement that convinces rather than condemns.
Let's not forget that 'the left' (big or small L, as you please) should be merely a transitory classification on the way towards a world without any...
Let's not forget that 'the left' (big or small L, as you please) should be merely a transitory classification on the way towards a world without any...
Ken Loach told he couldn't speak in plenary as too anti-Labour. "This means it's not a real people's assembly" says Loach to loud cheers.
— Luke Cooper (@lukecooper100) June 22, 2013
*If you disagree with anything in this blog post, fear not: I'm probably just a nutter. Feel free to go ahead and marginalise me - but don't then be surprised if that makes me angry, and more likely, not less, to disagree with you in future.
Friday, 26 April 2013
"It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, who is poor." - Seneca
"I want my leaders to be the best people for the job", said a friend to me recently, over a Jamaican lager on one of the first sunny evenings of Spring, in another friend's back yard. On the kind of evening that can't help but fill you with optimism, a cloud suddenly formed in my mind.
Not because of the deep-seated, unquestioned, desire for a leader; not even for the denial of our own worth, the insidious idea that some people are just better; but because he believed that only by paying them lots of money would we attract these 'best people', these ubermensch, and that our politicians weren't actually paid enough.
Perhaps it's based on a fair premise - that, in a fair world, those who worked the hardest would be best rewarded (and another, distinctly dodgy, premise: that wealth is the best reward). Perhaps, as a teacher himself, that's just an idea he desperately needs to cling to, to stay optimistic as those poor underpaid politicians keep piling up work at outside his classroom door - his own mental light at the end of the tunnel. One day, Lord, one day. But it's denial; in George Monbiot's phrase, "if wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire."
And even in that imaginary fair world, the more money for better people premise only works if you want to be led, rather than represented - if you want politicians to look up to, someone to adore, rather than representatives who know how you feel. Fuck sympathy, I want my politicians to have truly empathetic understanding of the dread fear caused by an unexpected bill landing on the doormat - and then work hard to eliminate that fear for everyone.
When asked if he has enough to live on, Mujica's response is straight-forward:
"I do fine with that amount; I have to do fine, because there are many Uruguayans who live with much less"
Life dominates thought and determines will; if your life is one of privilege, how often will your thoughts be with the poor? How likely will reducing inequality be your will?
Monday, 22 April 2013
Be the inferior to no one, nor of any one be the superior’
Lots of people say, ‘oh, leave off the royal family, they do a lot for charity, y’know?’. If I was an unemployed multi-millionaire, I’d do a lot for charity, too. Many fine people do work for charities; most manage to get there everyday without the aid of a chauffeur. That the royal family are themselves a charity should negate any charitable work they do; why not cut out the middle man and give the cash straight to those in need? This might avoid parties, palaces and peacocks being skimmed off the top.
‘Yes, but what about the tourism, man? Don’t forget the tourism!’ It is as patronising as it is insulting to the entire nation to suggest that people would not visit our green and pleasant land without the Windsors – that the entire sum of our cultural worth resides in the crown and its cronies. France doesn’t have a monarchy, but plenty of people go to Paris to see the Louvre. I hear the food’s half-decent, too.
We Brits love democracy. We’re mired in misadventure all around the globe, obliterating foreigners and putting our own sons and daughters in danger in its name. Yet, in our own country, we’re happy with the hypocrisy of having a picture of a lady on our stamps and sterling who believes she deserves to be there by divine right – because God said so. And simply because, for as long as we care to remember, it has always been so. Doesn’t democracy deserve better? Are we so unimaginative?
Sunday, 21 April 2013
...is the most valuable argument in politics today." - Emeline Pankhurst.
Letter to Dame Joan Ruddock, Labour MP for Lewisham Deptford:
RE: Early Day Motion to repeal s.144
It has to be said, at the outset, that I have very little faith left in the parliamentary process in general, and the paliamentary Labour party in particular. Is Liam Byrne a Tory in disguise, or what? Does wearing red have any meaning for him, or merely salve his conscience? Abstaining from the vote that will force people to work for free is an out and out betrayal of the working class in this country – all it takes for evil to prevail, and all that. I notice that you never rebel against your party – are they always right?
So I'm wondering if you can help to restore a little bit of faith – to prove that there are still good people left in parliament. I'm writing to ask you to support John McDonnel's Early Day Motion to repeal the odious section 144 of the Legal Aid Sentancing and Punishment of Offenders Act.
I was one of the 2000+ respondants to the Ministry of Justice's euphemistically titled consultation, Options for Dealing with Squatting, that were against criminalisation; along with people like the Law Society, The Metropolitan Police Force and homelessness charities Crisis and Shelter, a full 96% of respondants were against criminalisation. All were ignored, in favour of the seven landlords that took the time to respond. What is more important to you as a politician, protecting property or protecting people?
Of the 33 arrests made since section 144 came in, not a single person was found to be displacing a homeowner. Indeed, ministers and the media alike deliberately misled the public over this issue, and constantly conflate homeowners with empty property. Are you on the side of those desperately seeking shelter, or are you on the side of the super rich? As Alter, a lib dem think tank, explained in its response to the consultation:
“This change is contrary to the interests of UK taxpayers. It would provide a valuable state funded benefit to wealthy tax avoiders. This influential lobby has the ear of Conservative Justice Minister Crispin Blunt. If he were concerned about ordinary property owners who actually pay tax in the UK, there are far cheaper ways of protecting them from squatters.”
Here is an article I recently wrote on the subject, for the New Internationalist. It explains why I think the law has caused more harm than it might have prevented. Why I think that Alex Haigh, an apprentice brick layer searching for work in our capital (a striver, to use your own devisive parliamentary language), did not deserve a custodial sentence and accompanying criminal record for seeking shelter in a property that had been empty for over a year. And why I think L&Q property are the real criminals in this scenario.
One of my friends has recently been toying with the dangerous idea of joining the Labour party. After your most recent betrayal, I told him he'd be better off hurling a brick through his local Labour party's HQ wndows (a la Emeline) than walking through its doors and signing up. I do hope you can go some way to prove me wrong.
ps. Everywhere I go I hear people talking of alternatives to the Labour party. If you want to stop people fighting against you, you only have to start fighting for them. The only apathy I'm aware of is from those in power towards the needs of those who are not...