Margret Thatcher an obituary

An octogenarian head of state has passed away, a former leader of a major economy who has divided opinion the world over, loved and hated, who instigated sweeping reforms and polarised a nation. Judging from recent headlines most people would expect the above to have been written about Nelson Mandela but in fact it was announced today that Margaret Thatcher has died of a stroke aged 87.

Divisive is the polite word the left leaning press and bloggers will use to describe Thatcher in an attempt to not speak ill of the dead. She was a leader who divided public opinion every step of the way. In recent years her request to have a state funeral became another contentious issue as the nation was once again divided over their opinion of Margaret Thatcher*. Throughout her life she sought conflict over consensus and drove deep permanent divides into the national psyche.

Right that’s the polite divisive bit out of the way…

Margaret Thatcher eviscerated this country’s manufacturing industry out of ideological zeal and a religious devotion to the free market. The resulting economy fallout devastated small towns that depended on manufacturing industry or coal mining. Some of these areas took years to recover (Liverpool’s dock yards is a good example) and some will never recover from their slide into urban decay after being forgotten about by successive generations of political leaders.

She passed laws deliberately designed to curtail the political power of her opponents, namely the trade union movement. Today’s trade unions are a shadow of their former selves and lack the influence not only to improve conditions but even to protect the rights workers already have which are bring eroded. In the 1980s she was content with making three million people who were unlikely to vote for her unemployed, something which would have been considered an economic disaster by previous Tory or Labour governments.

Thatcher expounded the idea that we would be better off if we all looked ourselves and the degree to which this idea has been taken on by the population is one of the reason we remain such a deeply divided and unequal society. Her government behaved appallingly to Ireland, attempted to levy taxes which fell disproportionately on the poor and passed laws forbidden teachers from telling students that homosexuality is natural. The swing away from manufacturing and towards financial industries lead and the aggressively corporate culture her policies encouraged lead to the financial crash and the banking crisis.

Thatcher’s greatest accomplishment (apart from becoming a one word political exclamation, an hour she shares with Tony Blair) is how she fundamentally changed British politics. Her emphasis of the free market over the state is now a universally accepted political truth. Thatcher successfully dragged the entire political spectrum to right, at least on economic issues, and her influence has been felt as profoundly on the Labour party as the Tories.

Labour leaders from the 1980s to today have accepted Thatcherite principals to a degree. In his statement following her death, Tony Blair commented that “some of the changes she made in Britain were, in certain respects at least, retained by the 1997 Labour Government” (full statement can be found here). The current Labour leader Ed Miliband summed her legacy up most effectively by writing “she will be remembered as a unique figure. She reshaped the politics of a whole generation” (same source as above). I find it hard to imagine Tory party leaders speaking so highly of recently departed icons of the left. In fact when I think of the death of Labour party leaders from the 1980s and how the right responded I think of this disgusting Daily Mail piece.

Thatcher won three electoral victories and led the country for 12 years. In that time she permanently redefined the political and economic landscape the Great Britain. By the time she was ousted by her own party in November 1990, the trade unions had been diminished, manufacturing industry was one the way out, financial services and tertiary industries were on the rise, nationalised industries were privatised and Nash’s enlightened self-interest was the prevailing view in both the private and public sector. In short the Britain of the early 1990s was entirely changed from that of 1979 and no one person has had such a singular impact on the country as Margaret Thatcher has.

Describing Thatcher as divisive is more than just a polite way to say that she is very unpopular in certain circles (or parts of the country) and that a lot people strongly disagree with her values and policies. Someone’s opinion on Thatcher cuts to the heart of where you stand in British politics. We have seen leftist leaders saying that they disagreed with her but respect who she was, which some would argue reflects how centrist the leftwing establishment has become in the post-Thatcher years. Her biggest champions are the leaders of the economic right; her biggest critics are the darlings of the old left (Ken Livingston described her as clinically insane in an interview with the New Statesmen magazine before 2012 London Mayoral elections).

Personally I feel her views on the merits of self-interest, especially the infamous ‘no such thing as society’ comment, are the most despicable of political opinions. I cannot disagree enough with this view and feel that society has been made a colder, darker and less compassionate place by the ruthless pursuit of money which her polices endorsed. It is because of the values she inspired that it is always acceptable to disregard human well-being when doing business. The worst excesses of private business from the banking crisis to third world sweat shops are legitimised by governments who refuse to involve themselves in market and by individuals who argue for enlightened self-interest. All of which Thatcher was an icon for.

I began by saying Thatcher was divisive, as is anything written about her. Most people’s response to this article will have already been determined before they started reading as their opinion on Thatcher is fixed deep within their political ideology. At the time of her death, we remain a deeply divided nation. Divided by class, region, wealth and how we response to the death of someone who will continue to cast a very long shadow over British politics.

*Contrary to her request she is receiving a ceremonial funeral with military honours, the level below a state funeral)

HS2: On the Right Track?

Fifty years ago, the infamous Beeching Report was published by the government, aimed at dealing with the spiralling losses incurred by British Railways. On Dr. Beeching’s recommendations, over 2,000 stations and around 5,000 miles of line would close down, leaving many towns and regions without any public transport at all. And even after all that, BR still ran at a loss. At the time, coinciding with a huge motorway building programme, it seemed to represent an epochal shift from public to private transport; from rail to road – as inevitable, it appeared, as the shift from canals and stagecoaches to railways one hundred years earlier.

Fast forward five decades, though, and investment in railways is once again on the political and economic agenda. Passenger numbers have increased hugely since the 1990s, and are now at their highest level since the 1920s. Any closures suggested nowadays would be political suicide, for any government. And there is even broad consensus on building a new high speed line, HS2, to connect London and the North. A lot has changed since the Beeching era. Or has it?

To begin with, I was a strong supporter of HS2. In a context of ever deeper cuts and austerity, the HS2 project looked like one decision the government had got right. Aside from improving public transport, it’s an example of using infrastructure investment to prime the pump of the economy – the sort of thing which the Tories are, elsewhere, ideologically opposed to. There is a wide range of opposition to the scheme – not just from the usual nimby brigade, but more concerningly from groups such as Greenpeace and the Campaign for Better Transport. In these quarters, it’s not so much a question of whether rail investment is a good idea or not, but whether the £30bn about to be spent on HS2 could be used better elsewhere on the network. This is the source of my own doubts about the scheme.

For a start, I would argue that ticket prices, not the speed of the trains, is the main change ripped-off passengers would like to see in intercity travel. At its best, public transport can be a great equaliser – whereas HS2 will be of the greatest benefit to a minority of business travellers who can afford to pay for high speed. At 125mph on many parts of the west coast main line, train speeds into the capital are already pretty good. Capacity on existing lines into London could be improved to some extent by laying more passing loops to prevent slower freight trains delaying expresses, and by improving signalling to get more trains onto the line at a time. As far as London goes, the rail scheme Londoners really need isn’t another main line terminus – it’s Crossrail. And then there’s the small matter of the rest of the country. Away from the glitz of the main lines, local services in many areas are still appalling (not to mention overpriced). A Northern Rail train I was on recently reminded me of the BR of my childhood – draughty, grimy, late, and for all the private sector branding everywhere, giving the sincere impression that the operator just didn’t give a damn.

So what could we invest in instead? The association of train operating companies (ATOC) has proposed 14 lines, closed by Beeching, that should be re-opened as a priority. I’d add a few more to the list too. The former line connecting Penrith on the west coast main line with Keswick and Cockermouth in the traffic-clogged Lake District looks like an obvious candidate, as does the Carlisle to Edinburgh Waverley Route, the closure of which left much of the Scottish Borders isolated from the rail network. But reopening these lines doesn’t just benefit the localities in question, it also strengthens the network as a whole with increased versatility. Similarly, several main lines (such as the Western and Midland main lines) are still diesel operated. Electrification does more than improve train speeds and reduce carbon emissions – it also ‘cascades’ down newer diesel trains to replace clapped out rolling stock in non-electrified areas (the hateful, cheap-ass 1980s ‘Pacer’ units favoured by Northern Rail in my part of the country being particularly prime candidates for scrapping). And that’s even before we get to more general improvements such as better station facilities, longer trains on busy routes and more services extending into the evening.

Of course, HS2 won’t be without its benefits – I’d rather have that than nothing – but the money could be used to give a much more evenly spread beneficial impact on the network as a whole. The much vaunted reduction in flights probably wouldn’t happen either – it would have to extend to Scotland, not just Manchester, to achieve that.

As always, the elephant in the room is still the obscenely powerful road lobby (look how much fuss petrol duty causes, for example). It has more than anyone to lose from rail investment. But unlike road building, which only benefits those who can afford to use them, improving public transport benefits everyone, both by reducing carbon emissions from transport and increasing quality of life. Back in the Beeching era, the common complaint was that government shouldn’t subsidise BR, and that it must run at a profit – even though motorway building effectively subsidised haulage firms and car manufacturers.  But it isn’t the idea of HS2 that frightens the road lobby. Trains are already the quickest and most convenient way for most people to travel into London. What actually terrifies them is the idea of a net improvement in public transport across the UK – an efficient, accessible, systematically invested in railway system.

Hugo Chavez: An obituary

In 2008, I was standing between a garage and a storage bin in the DUBO area of New York, talking to a Venezuelan woman about her animation business. As I was on another continent and unlikely to ever see this woman again, I decided to ask her what could have been an awkward question: What did she think of Hugo Chavez as president? The woman, whose company was based in New York and Caracas, thought about this for a while before commenting that given the choice most Venezuelans would opt for Western liberal democracy, but given South American's history with dictators, they knew they were better off than a lot of other people.

This response is typical of the way the left view Chavez. To some, he was a hero of the people, nationalising oil reserves, standing up to America and reforming society for the benefit of the poorest and most disenfranchised. To others, he was the embodiment of overbearing authority, intolerant of criticism, restricting civil liberties and harbouring foreign criminals. Regardless of where you stand on the history of Venezuela under Chavez, most people have to admit (at least grudgingly) that Venezuelan was probably better off with him than without him.

Hugo Chavez was President of Venezuela for nearly 14 years and, in that time, survived international pressure to remove him, attempted coups and won four successive elections. He also changed the constitution to allow himself to keep running for successive terms of office. Chavez nationalised Venezuela’s oil industry and played a difficult game, balancing American and Chinese oil interests against each other so that he never become too indebted to either side. He invested money in education and improving the lives of the poorest members of society, amongst whom he was hugely popular. He founded workers co-operatives and implemented a program of land reform. He also once sent a judge to prison for being lenient in sentencing a political dissident.

Chavez was born in Sabaneta in 1954, and grew up to join the army. In 1992, he attempted to lead a military coup, which was unsuccessful and landed him in prison. Two years later, he founded the social democratic political party and was first elected president in 1998. During his time in office, he had to contend with numerous democratic and undemocratic attempts to remove him from power. Chavez also cultivated friendships with Fidel Castro and Ken Livingstone, with the latter he arranged a competitive petroleum export contract which allowed the then Mayor of London to prevent transport costs from rising.

Amongst those on the left, where Chavez really divides opinions is whether he is among the last of an old breed of authoritarian socialist dictators, who have faded away in the first part of the 21st Century, or the blueprint for a new type of popular socialism, rooted in alleviating poverty and traditional leftist polices. It is a testament to Chavez’s massive popularity that he was able to be as authoritarian as he was - in most other countries in the world he would have required a stronger grasp to hold onto power, or would have been voted out of office. But Chavez’s appeal was always to the poorest members of Venezuelan society, who saw real improvements in living conditions.

Chavez’s thinking was sound: nationalisation, workers’ co-operatives, wealth redistribution, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, public education, and all the other things we on the left want to see in our governments. Where he fell down was in his implementation. Venezuelan’s infrastructure suffers from chronic lack of investment, industry is underdeveloped and the country still heavily relies on its finite oil reserves. Chavez implemented a lot of important reforms but failed to build a modern prosperous socialist society. The real testament to his legacy will be whether the next election brings in someone of similar values or the complete opposite.

The eyes of the world will be watching very closely to see what happens next. Unlike North Korea where succession was guaranteed, the possible outcomes in Venezuela are much more varied. Doubtless opinions of Chavez’s legacy will be divided - what will be important is whether future generations of Venezuelans look back on the Chavez years and decide that they probably were better off with him than without him.

Reaching to the Converted: Creating safe spaces and activism

Everyone knows I am a lefty and a bit of an old-Labour type, and as such I enjoy a bit of Billy Bragg every now and then. A lot of my student days were passed to the sounds of the Bard of Barking, especially Brewing Up With Billy Bragg. It was the time in my life where I discovered the most about my musical and political opinions and Billy Bragg spanned them both. Other artists were important, from Phill Ochs to Anti-Flagg, but among my friends Billy Bragg way always the favourite. Not just the political songs, although To Have And To Have Not is a stirring tune, my favourite songs were Levi Stubb’s Tears and From A Vauxhall Velox.

Like any good fan, I saw him in concert. The first time was on the night when Boris Johnson was originally elected mayor of London and the tide started to turn in favour of the Conservatives. Throughout the evening Billy Bragg had kind words of encouragement and hope. He reassured us that all was not lost and that a better world could be won through action locally and nationally. It was exactly what we needed to hear. At times he was emotional and at times logical about the state of the left today. As well as a concert and a political talk, the man gave us hope and solidarity. I would urge any lefty to go and see Billy Bragg in concert as what he has to say today is as relevant as it was in 1984 when Brewing Up was first released.

But therein lies a problem. I said I would urge any lefty to go and see Billy Bragg in concert. I doubt there was anyone in the audience who was not already sympathetic to the values Billy Bragg stands for. There might have been a few music journalists or fans of the singer-songwriter genre there who were not lefties, but by and large I think everyone there broadly identified as left wing either then or at that time or at some point in their lives. No one’s opinion was changed that night. No one started to support left wing principles who did not believe in those principles already. Some people who were armchair lefties might have been galvanised into action, but no sweeping changes in views were made.

This is a problem with the left in general. A lot of events organised with the best intentions end up preaching to the choir. Arguments beautifully laid out and thoughtfully composed fall on the ears of those who already agree with what is being passionately argued for. The support base is not expanding through readings at a Marxist book group. The masses are not being converted through a night of protest music attended only by fans of protest music.

Billy Bragg’s message did reach a wider audience when he was more popular in the 1980s. It is slightly unfair to focus solely on Billy Bragg as it is difficult to stay consistently popular for such a long time as well as staying relevant and keeping to the ideals one originally set out with. Billy Bragg has balanced all this very well but the underlying point remains that there is a strong tendency on the left to preach to the converted.

Events such as the aforementioned night of protest music do not convert the undecided to the cause. They create a safe space for likeminded individuals to express themselves in the knowledge that they are among their peers. Bold expressions of left wing values can be met with ridicule in the public sphere and it is important to create spaces where people can be themselves. The same is true of gay or trans-gender events which also create a safe refuge for those in a minority against the harshness of the outside world. This work is very important but it should not be confused with activism.

Activism is something different. It involves talking to people who may not necessary agree with everything you have to say. It involves going out and finding these people to engage with. Not in an aggressive way but it does involve stepping outside of your comfort zone. Activism is a painful and at times boring process which takes up a lot of time, produces little visible results and receives little praise. At times it is even met with brutal repression and the costs can be dear. All this is less than appealing to a lot people and so there is a tendency not to want to leave the safe space or worse, to rebrand the safe space as activism. Gathering a lot of likeminded people together in one location who all generally agree with each other can look a lot like activism but that can be misleading. Unless there is an engagement with the opposite opinion or the establishment then an event or piece of art is not activism.

Organising safe spaces for likeminded people to express themselves is important. It is the necessary flip side to activism. Where activism breaks down resolve due to the slow pace of progress, the safe space steps in to remind people what we are fighting for and why our work is important - however creating a safe space must not be confused with activism.

Different causes require different mixes of safe spaces to activism. LFBT causes require more safe spaces to be established because the harsher responses society has to identifying as gay compared to identifying as broadly left wing. Similarly traditional left wing causes would benefit from more activism and less of an emphasis on safe spaces because of the privilege most white, middle class, straight lefties have. From a traditional left wing point of view more direction action would be better for two reasons, firstly to counter the general culture of self-congratulation around organising events which only create safe spaces. Secondly to break down the bubble that some lefties live in where they believe everyone agrees with their values.

I left the Billy Bragg concert with a renewed sense of purpose which the best safe spaces bring to activists. It encouraged me to keep fighting the good fight and not to lose faith through lack of success or the election of Boris Johnson. This is something I clung to even when Boris was elected a second time.

Reaching to the Converted is an album Billy Bragg released in 1999 and it is my preferred expression to describe the left wing tendency to create safe spaces which at its worse can be preaching to the choir masquerading as genuine activism. Safe spaces have an important part to play in being a modern lefty but let us not forget the need for direct action to defend left wing values and to grow the movement.

The left and the EU

“Vote for us and we’ll give you an in/out EU referendum.” This was the message David Cameron was sending to the euro-skeptic wing of the Tory party during his recent speech on Britain’s role in the EU. Many have characterised this move as a desperate attempt to win back support from the right wing of his party, currently being seduced by UKIP. The fact of the matter is that the wheels have started turning in a process which may eventually bring Britain out of the EU, something the euro-skeptics have wanted for years.

How should those of us on the left respond to this - beyond a knee-jerk dismissal of any idea put forward by a Tory government? The country as a whole remains deeply divided on the issue of Europe. Many people want out. Still more want a change in the relationship between Westminster and Brussels. The right seem to have made up their minds on Europe but the left remain deeply divided on this crucial issue.

Of course there are plenty of pro-EU lefties. A lot of us see the European Parliament as to the left of our own and see EU laws as important protections against aggressive neo-liberalism. Restrictions on working hours prevent British firms from forcing employees to work twelve-hour days at minimum wage, which they would certainly do if possible. All of this was recently underlined by TUC leader Frances O'Grady when she claimed that the Tories’ EU policy woulderode workers’ rights. There are also a lot us on the left who value our relationship with our European neighbours and believe that British culture has become enriched by the flow of migration across Europe that the EU allows.

However some lefties are certainly very much against the EU. Some are suspicious of its origins as a free trade agreement. It has been labeled as a “capitalist club”, an organisation that seeks to make life easier for multinational corporations. The EU has also been blamed for the decline in the British manufacturing industry as more firms relocate to Eastern Europe where wage costs are much lower.

Economics aside, there is also a tendency amongst some members of the left (usually from the working class left but by no means always) to want to protect British culture. These are the lefties who want restrictions on immigration, a viewpoint that is extremely divisive on the left, as illustrated by the reaction to Maurice Glasman and Blue Labour. It also worth noting that the right-leaning Blue Labour also want to withdraw from the EU.

Strangely enough the debate on the EU was not always framed the way it is now. In the 1980s, it was the left who opposed membership to the European Economic Community as it was then and the right who supported it. Granted, back then it was much more a business agreement aimed at growing the economies of Europe and less of social venture. A key strand of the Labour party’s 1983 election manifesto was Britain’s withdrawal from the EEC. This manifesto, dubbed “the longest suicide note in history”, has long since stood as an example of Labour at its most left wing. Many euro-skeptic Labour supporters see the policy of leaving the EU as a descendent from the old Labour policy of leaving the EEC.

The Labour party’s relationship with Europe has come to be seen by many as emblematic of how the party has changed for the worst since the early 1980s, especially under Blair. There are lefties who believe that the Labour Party has turned its back on its roots of protecting the indigenous working class from exploitation and fighting for socialism, in favour of supporting immigration, European integration and liberalism. These supporters seek a return to working class old-Labour values - although they are by no means all working class themselves.

Clearly the Labour party has turned its back on socialism in favour of liberalism but the rest of the point I do not concede. However, significant working class social conservative support has moved from Labour to the Tories (and in some cases the BNP) since the early 1980s, partly due to the left’s response to the issues of immigration and the EU. There are many who argue that a return to working class old-Labour values can bring back some of the support Labour lost under Blair and Brown.

This leaves the Labour party in a quandary. The country is divided on the EU, as is the party. There is no clear route to popularity and electoral success and neither is there a clear ideological line to follow. This partly explains why Labour’s response to Cameron’s pledge has been decidedly lackluster. The Labour Party does not want to be caught on the wrong side of the debate and choosing either side would alienate a large pool of potential votes.

There is no escaping the fact that the country and the left remain deeply divided on this key issue which is coming to define modern politics. There are good arguments either way from a left wing point of view but I must reject the argument that the EU is against the best interests of the working class and that the left has turned their back on the poor. EU labour laws mentioned above are a clear example of how the EU protects against the exploitation of the poor and the working class. This is especially true now that the power of the trade unions has been diminished so much. In the 21^st Century, the definition of the poor and the working class needs to be expanded to include immigrants (from the EU and otherwise) who are typically the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. It is for the benefit of all poor people that the left should fight, and I feel that the EU is a key part of this fight as it allows us to rise above the opposition of our domestic Conservative government.

It is clear that the EU is changing in the wake of the sovereign debt crisis. Becoming more integrated socially and fiscally seems to be the desired course of action. Britain needs to know whether we support this process and how to shape and develop its implementation, or whether we want nothing to do with it. During the course of the debate to come on EU membership the left needs to find a clear point of view to support ideologically and politically. We need to do better than giving people simply what they want, as this might not be the best course of action. As lefties we need to stop being divided on the issue of the EU and clearly stand for something.

Leveson and the left: confusion and anger

What next for journalists after the Leveson report? This was the question being debated last Thursday evening by SohoSkeptics when they hosted a discussion on the Leveson report into media ethics. The panel featured distinguished left wing writers and journalists. It was hosted by Helen Lewis, deputy editor of the New Statesman magazine, and also included the Observer’s Nick Cohen and the Guardian’s Suzanne Moore on the anti-Leveson side. The pro-Leveson side was made up of Dr Natalie Fenton, Professor of Media and Communications at Goldsmith’s University and Dr Evan Harris, former Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford and prominent member of the Hacked Off campaign.

My own view on the Leveson report, one which is popular among the left leaning people I know, is that Leveson should be used as a stick to beat the right wing newspapers with - especially those owned by Murdoch. At the same time we must protect Private Eye’s freedom to expose the dirty secrets of prominent members of the government. What I found most interesting about Thursday night’s debate was the reaction of the audience to the arguments being made and what that told me about the left’s reaction to Leveson in general.

A left wing panel usually means a left wing audience, especially at a meeting of a skeptics group. At one point a member of the panel asked if there were any Conservatives in the audience and one solitary man raised his voice from the gallery.

As I listened to the debate and the audience’s reaction it became apparent that this group of lefties had different ideas to mine. The first indication of this came from the big cheer that Moore received despite making thoughtless comments about transgender people in a recent Guardian article. Complaints were made about this on Twitter and she refused to apologise. The situation exploded when Julie Burchill at the Observer wrote a defence of Moore which contained language widely dubbed as hate speech. With this controversy on my mind and this being a left wing audience I had expected booing and heckling when Moore appeared, so cheers and applause came as something of a surprise.

Clearly this audience’s supported what Moore later described as ‘complete freedom of expression’, which she painted as the enemy of Leveson. Personally I want to emphasise the responsibilities associated with the right to freedom of speech. Namely not writing hate speech.

Some have sought to frame the debate around the Leveson inquiry into one of free speech against totalitarian press restriction and that was definitely on the audience’s mind. At one point I overheard one member of a group sitting behind me say 'it is a debate between freedom and not freedom', and although ineloquent this summed up the concerns of many present.

During the intermission I listened to what people around me were saying and aside from the general support for press freedom I also detected a distinct anti-regulation, support for small business sentiment. There was a distinct feeling that Leveson would make life more difficult for smaller news organisations and start-ups, perhaps playing into the hands of the established news providers and Murdoch.

I had started very much in favour of press regulation, mainly as a means to diminish the power of the right-wing press. By the end I felt very differently after hearing the passionate arguments from the panel, especially from Cohen.

I did not find myself completely agreeing with the anti-Leveson side. I felt that Cohen was naive in suggesting that print media would vanish completely. It is likely that the large newspapers will become major brands in the online news market. Any flaws in the ethics or practices of print journalists will be carried over as the newspapers move increasingly online and online news start-ups will look to the large players to see what standard of ethics is acceptable.

I also felt that Moore was wrong to defend unrestricted freedom of expression, especially when she comes from a position of cisgendered privilege. I agree that press freedom is important but she has a responsibility as a figure with a national platform. She made good points about the lack of working class journalists but it is wrong to use her social class as an excuse to defend attacks on other disadvantaged groups. It was also wrong of her to imply that she was the victim of those opposed to free speech. This is the same defence used by Peter Hitchens and Frankie Boyle when they say something hateful. They use freedom of speech to attack the idea of political correctness but political correctness is part of the mechanism which protects the weak from the strong in society. Moore has responsibilities which comes from having a position of privilege and having a position of importance at a national newspaper. It is wrong for straight, white, able-bodied men to use free speech as an excuse for unexamined privilege and it is wrong for Moore to use it as well.

I left the Soho Skeptics meeting feeling that my knowledge had expanded but that I had more questions than answers. This reflected what I heard from the audience and what the left feels in general. There was outrage at what the right leaning tabloids had done, about the lives they had ruined, the laws they had broken and the shame they had brought on journalists. There was no consensus on how to progress. State regulation and statuary underpinning appeared to be an unpopular course of action but it was naïve to assume that if nothing was done the problems would resolve themselves. Clearly the culture of tabloid papers needs to be addressed, as self-regulation by newspapers has not worked. However, no method was clear to achieve this without threatening the essential freedoms on which good journalism relies.

I left unable to reach any important conclusions, I only had more questions. Where do we go from here? How do we change the tide in our favour? For now the main comforting fact about the Leveson debate and the audience’s reaction was that at least we are all asking the right questions.

They are winning

This is a new year and we all need to work harder. The economy is faltering and, although employment is expected to grow this year, millions will still be left jobless. Inflation may have fallen back, but there has been little growth in wages and many are still trapped in poverty. Essential government services and health care are still being chipped away at by the Tory party and their coalition partners. Now is not the time to be complacent. Now is the time for action.

All of the above is true but another more painful truth dawned on me recently. This is that the right is winning. They sit in government, they dominate our press and business community, their views form the basis of our political dialogue. In short, they are winning.

Many people believe that benefits are too high and that the unemployed are undeserving of help. Many feel that the NHS is wasteful and needs the incentives of private business to become efficient. It is often said that the government is too large and needs to be reined in, and that public sector spending is bad for the economy and should be cut. The subtle language of this is that the debt should be brought down regardless of whose backs the government’s cheque books are balanced on.

A lot of people who do not consider themselves to be political, or who consider themselves to have centrist opinions, actually use right wing rhetoric. This can be seen plainly in the debate of Britain’s continual membership of the EU. The right has walked into the dominant position in this debate because the left have let them.

The prevalence of right wing opinions does not simply extend to the economy. Many people believe that immigration is bad and is destroying our way of life, that political correctness is oppressive to our culture, that women deserve to be raped because of how they dress or behave, that the disabled are nothing but scroungers, and that the legalization of gay marriage would somehow undermine the millions of straight marriages across the country.

A lot of the dominance of right wing opinions comes from spinelessness of our left wing leadership. In the words of journalist Laurie Penny, “the Labour party still cannot find its ideology with both hands”. The TUC seems unable to find a means by which to oppose the government’s austerity program beyond politely marching from A to B, which will be completely ignored. Other left wing leaders stay silent in the face of right wing rhetoric from fear of being labelled as either Socialists or unrealistic dreamers.

I am not afraid of either of these labels. In fact, I wear them with pride. I do not think it is unreasonable to dream that we can be better off and live in a more equal society – and if the word for this is Socialist, then pass me the red flag. Now is not the time to be silently left leaning. Now is the time to be loud, angry and visible. Now is the time to tell the right that they cannot write off whole sections of society and that they cannot spread brutish ignorance and prejudice because it suits their political agenda.

There is hope. People are still willing to march and take demonstrations to knew heights. UK Uncut have performed high profile demonstrations that have hit tax-dodging businesses where it really hurts, in their wallets. Ordinary people have turned out huge numbers to oppose EDL marches across the country and successfully drowned out the racist street movement. People still scream in the streets and on the internet about how unjust a society we are becoming – have a read of this passionate argument for protecting the dignity of the disabled. The Everyday Sexism project publicly catalogues the abuse women face on a daily basis so that it cannot be ignored.

The right have always been good at dividing us, but together, with our heads held high and hope in our hearts, we are stronger than they are. The belief that we are all deserving, that we should all be equal and entitled to a decent standard of living, will win out over the idea of coldly tipping of the scales of society in the favour of the rich and privileged.

This is why I am redoubling my efforts this year and retasking my blog to focus more specifically on the left as a movement and what we can do to become stronger, better organized and more visible. I shall celebrate our successes and lament in our failures, but always remain watchful of the needs of a movement as diverse as ours.

We have to be better. We have to start winning. I am become very frightened of what we are becoming as a society – less sympathetic, less tolerant, less equal. The right might intend to drag us into a dark world where your birth determines your lot in life. Where being a rich, white, straight man is glorious and those people look down on others who are unlucky enough to be anything else. A world where money is the only thing that matters and society is bent to serve those who have wealth.

They are winning and we are slowly falling into darkness. But together we can change all of this, and it starts today.