21st Century Professional Privation

I haven't written a blog for a long time. I was briefly affiliated to and writing for a group who are now doing quite well but I abandoned that project when they embraced a rather prominent character whose online activity has often excused racism and even caused Twitter pile-ons of the victims.

Preface

As I often do, I'm starting this piece with a heavy caveat: throughout the experience I'm going to be writing about, I've constantly reminded myself that there are people in far worse situations. There are definitely a lot of people who would swap circumstances with me in a heartbeat. For what it's worth, I will always vote - and campaign, should there be someone worth campaigning for - for a party who will first look after the most vulnerable before looking after more fortunate people like myself.

This piece is something of an update to this one I wrote in the midst of what I'll mostly be referring back to. Reading that back, I think I did a good job: I'm not sure this one will read quite as well! And I'm sorry but it's very very long.

---

Panic and precarity

I work for one of the top Universities in the country. Higher Education administration has been my career since 2010, after my previous career in Graphic Design was effectively ended by the financial crash. There are positives to working in HE although only when compared to other types of organisation and when you realise that, you realise that we're all caught in a race to the bottom. 

Due to the way HE is funded, there are very few permanent contracts. Even roles which are not tied directly to research grants are effectively tied to income from fees or central government (and of course the latter is reviewed regularly and is significantly reduced these days). This being the case, a very large number of staff have uncertain futures and that can't be good for morale. 

For a number of years, the University has seemed fearful that, someday soon, fee income will take a severe dip. This is probably true: an extraordinary amount of fees come from Chinese students and, unlike our own, the Chinese government is actually investing heavily in higher education. So to allay these concerns, the University has been running a healthy budget surplus. 

When, in spring 2020, it became clear that COVID was a big problem and *might* affect fee income, the University could have used that budget surplus to keep the University functioning while things became clear. Instead, the University rolled out a large voluntary severance scheme and froze all recruitment and contract extensions: you know, just in case. At that time, my contract extension was being processed. As a member of the department's management team, I had seen my role accounted for in the department budget for a number of years into the future: so understandably, I had thought that the extension was pretty much a formality.

A couple of years earlier, a review being initiated by a new Faculty Vice-Dean (it's worth mentioning that this particular Vice Dean is a Professor of Strategic Management) was raising questions about a number of roles. People in and around those roles were concerned that the Faculty wanted to reduce staff numbers in that area, despite senior Professors insisting that the roles were crucial and on top of that, were making up for lack of resources in other teams. That review was keeping everyone guessing - adding to anxieties of the staff working in those roles - however when news of the HR freeze reached me, I knew that my role was finished. 

When the University launched 'Operation: Pandemic Panic' (I've just made that up), the Vice-Dean must have thought all of their capitalist Christmases had come at once. I suppose it makes sense that a Professor of Late Capitalist Strategic Management (I've added the Late Capitalist bit) would be disinclined to confirm their victims' fate. I had six months left on my previous contract when it occurred to me that I needed to find another job and it took a further five months before anyone had the guts to confirm that my contract wasn't going to be renewed - and only then because that person couldn't put it off any longer.

In policy; in practice

Losing your job through no fault of your own - in fact, having sometimes put personal wellbeing second to the job - really knocks your confidence. This was potentially the third time I would be made redundant and this time, I had a family to think about (my wife earns a bit more than I do but not enough to manage without my income). Regardless of being in the worst possible frame of mind to find a job, that was what I had to do. 

Softening this blow slightly was the knowledge that the University has a redeployment policy to help staff whose jobs are at risk:

• Staff at risk of losing their job will be on a redeployment register and will be contacted when a suitable position comes up
• Redeployees will have first option to apply for new positions before it is advertised widely
• Redeployees will not have to sit a formal interview, instead the recruiting manager will have an informal discussion to ascertain whether a redeployee is suitable
• Redeployees do not have to meet all essential criteria if the criteria they don't meet could be learned on the job within a reasonable amount of time.

It turned out that the University's published policy was no longer being followed and none of the above was true. There was no register and no one contacted me. I did have to have a formal interview (I only realised this whilst in an interview). External applicants had already submitted their applications and indeed, the recruiting manager/s had the opportunity to look at those candidates' applications (although they weren't meant to, there was nothing to stop them) at the same time as looking at mine. The final point about redeployees not having to meet all of the essential criteria is possibly the most crucial factor in what happened next. 

I applied for a role which, on paper, suited me quite well. My application was honest and there was one of the essential criteria which I couldn't claim to meet. Just one. I met all of the other criteria including most (if not all) of the desirable criteria. I was offered an interview (it was only during this interview that I realised the informal interview thing was no longer being followed: fortunately I had chosen to dress smart for it anyway) and I answered all of the points well. I was informed shortly afterwards that I was "unappointable" because I didn't meet one particularly specific criteria that, knowing quite a lot about research grants in HE, I think only a couple of dozen people in the UK could possibly have met - and how many of those would be looking for work at this specific time? Understandably, I still wonder about the external applicant who got the role and whether the recruiters had looked over their application before rejecting mine...

The ridiculous part came next. Shortly after this rejection, I applied for another role as a redeployee and after a formal interview, I was offered it. When I started the job, I was told that I also needed to cover for an additional post which was in need of a project manager. You see, one way that the University saves money is by not appointing people when they're needed but some time later. It turned out that the role I was now covering was almost exactly the same as the one I'd been deemed "unappointable" for: the same job title, the same funding body, the same rules and regulations to understand and follow; the same 14-page report to write almost immediately. Very quickly, I learned a huge amount of information about the funding and my efforts to complete the report on time brought praise from the academics involved. So much for being unappointable.

Performance and perturbation

The relief of getting the new job - as much as I would have much preferred not to lose my old role - glossed over the tumultuous six months I'd just experienced. The mortgage and other bills would be ok; I no longer (for the time being, at least), needed to consider starting a new career in my 40s the way I'd had to in my 30s. At first, it was ok although there had been a lengthy delay in replacing my predecessor, due to the aforementioned pandemic panic (by this time it was clear that the knee-jerk redundancies and recruitment freeze had been unnecessary) and the pressure was on me and those I was reporting to to make up for lost time. 

I was still in the early stages of settling into the role (in fact, it is kind of two roles - but I won't bore you with the details) when the government belatedly announced that schools would close again and so on top of work, I had to spend about half of every working day in January and February teaching and looking after my son. I enjoyed spending more time with him and love seeing him learn but the pressure of work, with a number of important events on the horizon, was starting to show. My line manager was openly critical of me a number of times: I think I'd mistakenly thought our informal weekly team meetings could be used to raise concerns and find solutions when actually they're just for pretending everything was perfect and practising our false smiles. Apparently, as a more senior staff member, I needed to show the younger staff that everything is cool when you're part of the team.

This was the first time it had ever been suggested that I wasn't behaving correctly around colleagues and it made me more anxious (quite an achievement). I was trying to absorb the pressure by working late and when my line manager realised this, they were concerned and started to micro-manage me and for some reason expected me to have work done earlier than was necessary. Gradually my brain began to turn to mush. I couldn't concentrate; I doubted every small decision I needed to make; I wasn't able to get myself out of the house to take much-needed exercise because when I wasn't working, I was worrying about it even more. 

One evening, following another complaint from my line manager about something trivial, my brain broke. I had to take some time off, even though it made me incredibly worried about what would happen: would I be able to return or would the University find a way to justify removing me? In total, the GP signed me off for six weeks. The University's Occupational Health Advisor had suggested people going through similar experiences often need much longer than that - possibly as much as a year. It was suggested to me that the University's support ended after six weeks and that gave me an ultimatum: would I drag my ill brain back to it and hope that I could manage, or would I face the reality of a very long time off work and what that might mean for my career? I had to try returning. At first, I went back to work on slightly reduced hours. Then my line manager and the main academic I report to had weekly meetings with me to keep a check on workload and my priorities. The University expected that a total of three months including the phased return and that extra support would be enough and, there, the support ended. 

For me this was far from the end of it. I managed to get a few sessions with a University counsellor and in those discussions, we came to realise that the cause was not the pressure in this role (I've managed it before: even while coping with the death of a parent and worrying about the one left behind) but the strain I was bearing from previous 6-9 months. I was still struggling to focus and my line manager was picking holes in everything I did: even when it was out of my control or, actually, something I'd done well, just not exactly the way they wanted it done. This culminated in a horrific hour-long meeting which was supposed to be my performance development review. Instead it was an hour's takedown of me by my line manager. Every explanation of anything deemed to be unsatisfactory (I was on holiday; I can't force academics to do their jobs etc) was seen as an excuse and "I don't want excuses, I want solutions." Once I realised that everything I said just made the situation worse, I sat quietly, looking down, occasionally nodding remorsefully. The meeting ended when my manager suddenly smiled and said: "Well, I've got to go now, have a good day!"

Prescribing to preserve the profession

I've never been made to feel this way in all of my life. I was made to feel so small: it was a humiliation. Every fibre of my being wanted to quit there and then but feeling that way was not conducive to getting a new job and the bills won't pay themselves. So instead, I spoke to my GP and suggested increasing my medication - he agreed and changed my prescription. I tried to look for other support, via my union (I never did find any); I enrolled in some training that probably wouldn't make any difference but just might help me to manage despite the awful way I was feeling. I set about changing some of my methods to make sure that I didn't do anything a better way if I could do it my line manager's way. I would no longer be honest about how I feel: I would fake everything and never ask them for help. I would work longer hours, work faster and harder; skip breaks and put work ahead of my mental and physical health.

To an extent, this approach has worked. The increased medication helps me to focus. I'm no longer getting complaints from my line manager: in fact there's been a huge switch: rather than being micro-managed, I'm being asked to help with more of their work. That's not really a good thing: if I say that I'm too busy, I risk going back to where I was before with everything being scrutinised and criticised. So I say that I can help and work even harder to make sure I get that done without jeopardising anything else. The only time I've gently challenged my line manager was when my performance development review did come around: they wanted to add in long, detailed lists of things I would be doing over the next year. This is contrary to the guidance - which I know well, having done them before and having trained as a line manager myself - but my efforts to keep it constructive and geared towards my career were effortlessly batted back and instead my PDR became even longer and more detailed. 

The fact that these changes (PDR aside) have been effective only serves to highlight the issues that many working people often face: at the mercy of their employers' whims or financial desires, they end up making decisions that are bad for their health. And it feels so temporary: it's just not possible to keep up this level for a sustained period.

While my medication helps me to focus, it also makes me tired and this has been increasingly obvious since increasing my dose. When I don't have to do something, I feel like I don't have the energy to do anything. If I sit back in my chair while I'm thinking about something, the tiredness feels powerful and I sit forward again and carry on working. This is an even bigger problem because I'm also skipping breaks and working later: that means I'm barely getting any exercise and that is awful for my physical and mental health. And anyway: why should I have to medicate myself in order to keep me working the way my employer wants me to work? I've proven over many years that I'm capable of doing a good job despite my mental health difficulties but I need to be able to do it in a way that works for me. 

In theory, I have to choose between my health and my work. In practice, working in the 21st century with the cost of living so high, we don't get to choose.

Strong Britain; Divided Nation?

Creating division is nothing new in British politics, especially under conservative governments. The public are constantly pitched against each other: immigrants v 'British' people (whatever that means); working v unemployed; young v old; everyone v Muslims and so on. The government's latest focus (with help from cross-party MPs, I should add) - which in itself is nothing new - is dividing white working class people from non-white working class people. 

MPs on the Education Select Committee have decided that the term "white privilege" has contributed to the "neglect" of white working class pupils. Tory MP Robert Halfon says that white working class kids have been "let down and neglected" by the system for decades. He added: "privilege is the very opposite to what disadvantaged white children enjoy or benefit from in an education system which is now leaving far too many behind." As a white person who grew up in a working class family in a working class area, I have something to say about this. 

First, is the obvious point that Halfon and his Tory chums couldn't care less about working class people. Everything they have done in government has made life harder for disadvantaged people. They have made cuts to child benefit; they have almost completely dismantled support projects like Sure Start; local council cuts have fallen much harder on poorer areas; they have refused to invest in council housing or to help insecure workers against unscrupulous employers. 

Second, is the wilful misunderstanding of the word 'privilege'. To say that I am privileged because I'm white is not to say that my parents never struggled for money when UK manufacturing was left to rot under Thatcher. It's not to say that I went to a brilliant school which set me on a sure path to success. It's not to say that I've never been unemployed or worried about how I was going to eat AND pay the rent while earning too little to get by. 

My white privilege means that those things didn't happen because of the colour of my skin: they happened because successive governments have taken working people for granted and made their lives worse for the benefit of the rich. My white privilege means that when I was smoking weed with other white mates; or when I was hanging around a street corner on my own with my hood up against the cold while waiting for someone who never showed up; or when some (white) lads started a fight with us and my drunken self-defence ended up with me pinning my assailant to the ground and punching him in the head, I was never worried that these things would land me in trouble with the police. Would I have felt the same way if I wasn't white? If I wasn't white, would I have felt able to apply to University? Would I have been given a place on the course even though my portfolio really wasn't up to scratch? Would I have been given a chance of a more secure role after only a few weeks as an office temp? I could give many other examples of situations and opportunities that might have worked out differently for me and I'm sure if I was black, I'd be able to give many more.

I fear that this latest attempt to divide us will work because the right wing media will be only too glad to amplify it as a real example of how white people are really the victims.  

In stark contrast to this reality, comes the news that the government would like all school children to sing a song titled 'One Britain One Nation' on 25 June. The lyrics present 'Great Britain' as a nation united, which is precisely the opposite of what the government and the media have been doing in recent years. The first verse talks about surviving many wars, as though we didn't start most of them. It talks about opening our doors, as though Priti Patel stands out on the cliffs of Dover with flasks of tea, calling for asylum seekers to make their home here, and celebrating our differences as though Eid and VE Day were treated the same when it came to tales of lockdown lapses. The song ends with the Hitler Youth (Britler Youth?)-style chant 'Strong Britain, Great Nation', which seems to be an attempt to brainwash our children into being future GB News viewers who only open their eyes to absorb the false reality they're being sold. 

Hopefully most Schools will decide not to take part in this ridiculous show of misplaced patriotism but just in case, I've already asked my son to blow raspberries throughout the performance. 

Thinking out loud about left-wing political efforts

This piece might be read by a few people who are all thinking about how the left can build something from the ashes of 2019-2021. What do we need to do? How do we do it? I'm thinking as I type, so please forgive the lack of structure!

For avoidance of doubt: when I say "the left" or "left-wing" I mean people who supported Jeremy Corbyn. And when I say "socialists" or "socialism", I'm talking about democratic socialism and that doesn't include people who claim to be socialists but in practice seem happy with the current Labour party.

First, what are our problems? Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:

No electoral vehicle; very little parliamentary influence

Whether or not you are inclined to stay within the Labour party and try to drag it back to the left or whether you feel there is no point flogging that dying horse, it can't be argued that right now, Labour are not promoting socialist policies: in fact they are purging the left in ever more blatant ways.

Talking about parliamentary influence could be seen as the same issue. But let's not forget that the political agenda over the last 40 years or more has been mostly set by unelected right-wingers. Most of the main trade unions appear to be operating from the left - although not all of them are - and they still have some influence over Labour policy, even if much of the party wished that weren't the case. So there is a glimmer of hope.

Persuading the electorate against an extremely biased media

Socialist policies are popular - even with Tory voters. Unfortunately the majority of our politicians and the majority of the media have managed to convince a large proportion of the electorate that left-wing policies - and the people who promote them - are radical, or even dangerous. 

Even if we can't convince everyone that the BBC is biased against the left, I don't think many people could deny that our press is massively dominated by the right. 

The fractured left

There are a lot of us out here. There are a number of small parties, loads of campaign groups, there are writers, bloggers, podcasters, youtube broadcasters etc. One of our problems, as I see it, is uniting. To paraphrase Jo Cox (who wasn't on the left!), we have more in common than that which divides us; unfortunately, we are not united. For a while now, many on the left have been inclined to distance themselves from others on the left. Perhaps we don't all share the same perspective on every topic. Maybe some are in a bubble with others who are too similar to them and maybe they sometimes miss the bigger picture. I might have been guilty of this minor criticism myself from time to time and there are one or two personalities who I find myself agreeing with a little less of late. But I try to stay positive about people who I know to be left-wingers even if they occasionally say something on a particular topic that doesn't exactly reflect my own view. 

---

So how do we solve these things and what are the hurdles we must overcome? Again, these are just my thoughts based on the issues outlined above:

Electoral vehicle / pursuit of parliamentary influence

This is possibly the most obvious question we have - and one of the most difficult to answer. Many would like to get behind another left-wing party (some are looking for a new one; others are trying to promote small left wing parties that have been around for a long time). Many fear splitting the left vote and think there is still a way to win in the Labour party. My personal view is that the left within Labour are currently like a footballer who can't get into the starting eleven. We have fallen (or rather, been kicked) so far that we don't seem to have any steer on the direction of the party: the leadership, the party structures and all the mainstream media are against us. They didn't see the 'threat' from the left coming (like they didn't see the EU referendum going the way it did). Now they're back in control, I can't see us wrestling it back for a long, long time without us doing something different.

If - and it's a huge if - the left could get together behind a number of respected candidates*, with union support and backing in the 'new' media, we would of course split the left vote. But the way I see it the next election is going to be a disaster for the Labour party anyway so perhaps this is the right time to make a break. And if we were united and successful in winning a couple of seats (perhaps targeting the 'worst' of the PLP), we might have options: more from Labour might join the movement; more voters might decide to switch allegiance; maybe the party would take its finger off the self-destruct button, kick out the wreckers and become a reasonable party again. That last one is a bit fanciful, I admit.

Whatever your view, I think it's true to say that at the moment, the Tories have a healthy majority (and no opposition) and our views are not represented by any Westminster party. So would it make a huge difference right now if we were to split the vote? Or should we lay the foundations for future success while we're on the back foot?

Communicating Socialism with a united left.

As many of us have already been talking about, most voters don't think about right and left, capitalism or socialism etc. But many have been convinced that progressive policies are either out of reach or simply a bad idea. 

One of the good things that came from Corbyn's leadership is how the party grew into one which not only had something positive to campaign on but a lot more people willing to do it. A lot of people around the party have had good about community organising: addressing local concerns and changing minds street by street and town by town (Momentum seem to have fallen over themselves somewhat but they were very effective in 2017). It's really hard with all the media tooling up against a progressive message but 2017 showed it was possible with almost the entire world against us. 

To do this, we need clear messaging on a range of subjects that 'speak' to a range of people. And that messaging needs to be informed by "real" people and their actual real-world issues. Getting the messages out will require a very large and diverse group of people speaking to people, delivering leaflets, communicating via social media, knocking on doors, speaking to local groups. 

The scale of the effort required feeds into my thinking about how we organise: there are many of us across the country but we mustn't shut people out because they support someone who said something we don't agree with on Twitter (provided it's not offensive of course: we don't want those people!). We need to reach out to other groups doing the same things: perhaps what is needed therefore is a coordinated movement with one clear overarching goal that unites the efforts of a number of small parties, campaign groups, charities, media outlets etc. This brings it's own difficulties: getting the numbers in means there might be one or two bad eggs and it's important we don't let one bad character cloud everything else the movement does. I admit I don't know how we handle that.*

So I think that covers it for now. One message - informed by 'the people' - one clear aim into which we can fit messaging on a range of big, real-world issues.

*This is a particularly thorny subject. There are a few bad characters who claim to be on the left and we need to keep those out. For the most part, however, the issue the left has had over the last five-six years has been with the smearing of good people: their words made in impassioned speeches, for example, taken out of context. I think it's a very thorny subject because those people shouldn't be excluded - indeed some are very valuable comrades - however, great harm could come to a growing movement by association with someone viewed as problematic. Again, I don't know how to get around that one.

We can't go back

Sorry to have to point this out again but centrists/moderates/grown-ups or whatever they want to call themselves seem a little hard of hearing.

Centrists want to return to the third way politics of the Blair era and talk about New Labour’s three successive election victories. They choose to ignore the way the UK political landscape has changed and the effect that has had on Labour’s success.

Of course what matters in reality is the number of seats you win but demographics change over time as populations age and move (indeed COVID-19 could be a factor in the next shift especially if it stays with us for a while and if other pandemics in the UK follow close behind). Also, constituency boundaries change over time so when looking at electoral success over a long period, it makes sense to look at vote share rather than the number of seats: it is possible to consider this a more accurate way to compare a party’s success while acknowledging that they must also win enough seats to get into power.

Here are UK's popular vote share figures for the last 42 years:

Year	UK
1979	36.9% ↓
1983	27.6% ↓
1987	30.8% ↑
1992	34.4% ↑
1997	43.2% ↑
2001	40.7% ↓
2005	35.2% ↓
2010	29.0% ↓
2015	30.4% ↑
2017	40.0% ↑
2019	32.2% ↓

The Labour victories in 1997 and 2001 unsurprisingly show the biggest UK-wide vote share to Labour in the last four decades, with the 2017 result coming third less than 1% behind the 2001 result.

Left-wingers will rightfully point out that whilst there may have been one or two Labour backbenchers who weren’t keen on New Labour’s direction, Blair and Brown didn’t face the internal sabotage that we know plagued the 2017 and 2019 elections. And then there’s Brexit: all but two of the seats Labour lost in 2019 were leave-voting constituencies which, we can assume, weren’t impressed by Labour’s decision to back a second EU referendum.

But let’s park those two potential factors and just break down those popular vote figures a little.

Year	UK	Scotland
1979	36.9% ↓	41.5% ↑
1983	27.6% ↓	35.1% ↓
1987	30.8% ↑	42.4% ↑
1992	34.4% ↑	39.0% ↓
1997	43.2% ↑	45.6% ↑
2001	40.7% ↓	43.9% ↓
2005	35.2% ↓	39.5% ↓
2010	29.0% ↓	42.0% ↑
2015	30.4% ↑	24.3% ↓
2017	40.0% ↑	27.1% ↑
2019	32.2% ↓	18.6% ↓

As you can see, Labour always did well in Scotland until 2015 when the SNP destroyed the centrist Labour party led by Miliband and Balls. Corbyn managed a tiny positive swing in 2017 before the downward trend continued in 2019.

If that doesn’t underline the importance of the Scottish vote, then perhaps this will:

Year	England
1979	36.7% ↓
1983	26.8% ↓
1987	29.5% ↑
1992	33.9% ↑
1997	43.5% ↑
2001	41.4% ↓
2005	35.4% ↓
2010	28.1% ↓
2015	31.6% ↑
2017	41.9% ↑
2019	34.0% ↓

Only the landslide 1997 victory was a better result in England than the result under Corbyn in 2017. Again, even if we ignore what we know about the huge divisions in the Labour party between 2015 and 2019, that result is astonishing given that Blair had the backing of the Murdoch press and Corbyn didn’t really have any mainstream support whatsoever. 

The arguments for a return to the centre ground really hold no water when you look at the election results since 1997. The 2019 result, which Labour centrists will tell you was the greatest disaster since Thatcher died (joke), was a far better result than the centrist Labour results in 2010 and 2015. And in Blair’s last election, the Tories actually won the English popular vote by 0.3% - under Michael bloody Howard!

To somehow conclude that going back to centrism is the right move, not only do we have to ignore the SNP’s total dominance since 2015 (and the possibility that Scotland might not be part of the UK for very much longer), and the internal sabotage wreaked on the Labour party by the anti-socialist factions, and the fact that Blair was backed by the kind of press no progressive would ever want to associate with, we also have to remember the financial crash.

New Labour embraced the deregulation of the Reagan/Thatcher era and let the city look after itself. The 2007/08 crash happened on their watch and the Tories pinned it on them to put Cameron and Osborne into Downing St and a hell of a lot of cash into the pockets of the already wealthy. 13 years later, we are living with the Tories’ disastrous handling of the pandemic. That and the hard Brexit we’re stuck with could potentially combine to create an even bigger financial crash in the UK. The UK is a very different place to the one that elected New Labour in the 1990s and we have gone so far down one track that the kind of managerial tinkering around the edges that you can expect from self-proclaimed 'moderates' just isn't going to fix our problems.

People seem to like sports analogies, so I’ll end with one.

If we were to take the 1997 Premier League-winning Manchester United team and drop them into 2024, would they win? You could argue that side, which went on to win the treble two years later, was as good as any in the Premier League today. But the game has changed. Players are generally a lot more skilful today than they were 22 years ago and today’s tactics would make Ferguson’s 4-4-2 look like a League One side. Also the rules are far more strict: Roy Keane and Nicky Butt would spend half the season suspended and today’s forwards would win a hatful of penalties against Gary Pallister, David May and the Nevilles.

The opposite is also true: put van Dijk up against Alan Shearer or Dominic Raab against Robin Cook and they wouldn’t know what hit them. But, no matter how many people seem to really want to, we can’t turn back time.

Do you hear that, centrists? WE CAN’T GO BACK.

Begging you (centrists) to listen

November 2020 is an interesting time, to say the least. On the day of writing (10 Nov) temperatures reached over 73 (23C) degrees in New York City. This year so far we’ve had epic floods and record wildfires. The planet is sick in more ways than one. There's a US President who refuses to accept that he's just lost his campaign for a second term and a UK government who have spent the last 10 months repeatedly hardening and then reversing their stance on everything except Brexit (and with Trump on his way out, the hardest of hard brexits may be the next u-turn).

The light at the end of the long COVID-19 tunnel is in sight with the news that we might soon have a vaccine but it will be a long time before we are completely rid of it. Furthermore, the conditions that brought us this virus* are worsening and unless we see a dramatic shift in how we treat our planet, this will just be the first in a series of global pandemics that we have to deal with. 

Children are going hungry, homelessness keeps rising, racism is becoming mainstream and wealthy nations are letting desperate people drown in their hundreds. 

These issues have not occurred in the last four or five years: as a species we’ve been creating these disasters for far longer than that and we’ve known about them for decades. So what is the solution? What do we actually need to do to face up to the challenges of our present and our future? 

In the last couple of decades, we have heard leading UK and US politicians talk about these issues but nothing has actually changed, in fact many of these things are getting worse: we’re still making poor people poorer; there are still scared people dying while trying to get to safety; and climate disaster is upon us. Is the solution, then, more of the same? Should we elect more leaders who are on the side of capitalism provided they say the right words about these things? If political campaigns are funded by the same kinds of organisations who will be most inconvenienced by actual progressive politics, can we trust them to act in the interests of the many? 

Early analysis of the US election shows that in industrial areas in long-term decline, more people voted for Trump in 2020 than they did in 2016. If this sounds familiar to people in the UK, it’s because Brexit has followed the same pattern. 

Trump, like Nigel Farage and to a slightly lesser extent Boris Johnson, is seen as anti-establishment. We could point out that people like Trump, Johnson and Farage are clearly part of the establishment: they have always been wealthy, had expensive educations, are closely connected to the world of hedge funds and property speculation; but they are seen as something else. They tap into the rhetoric espoused by the right-wing media outlets who back them and they flaunt their renegade credentials against an unseen political hierarchy. 

We can’t say we weren’t warned. Until right-wing populists saw their opportunity and worked out how to win, the public’s active engagement with politics was very low and the common view was that “they’re all the same” and “they don’t care about people like us.” On the one hand, this was a damning verdict on leading politicians of all colours but on the other, it made it easier for the political establishment to carry out their own agenda.

To counter the hate from the right, we need hope from the left. Sadly, centrists on both sides of the Atlantic are busy picking fights with progressives while our right-wing leaders are exacerbating all of these issues with divisive social policies and destructive neoliberal economic policies. Now that Biden has won, we have US and UK centrists ramming this fact down the throats of progressives, as though Biden's campaign didn't attempt to ride the waves of recent progressive campaigns on racial, environmental and health issues. 

In the UK, Labour’s leadership has engaged in civil war by ignoring the pledges it was elected on and making an example of left-wing MPs, most recently and most dramatically Jeremy Corbyn. Whatever your opinion of Corbyn, whether or not you believe that this MP who has fought against racism his entire life is actually guilty of it himself, not only is Starmer’s treatment of him anti-democratic, it flies in the face of the EHRC view which states that leaders should not interfere in internal party  investigations (something that Labour centrists repeatedly urged Corbyn to do). Furthermore, the Labour party are now banning Labour members from getting together to discuss the issue. And they said Corbyn was a Stalinist. 

Blair, Brown, Clinton and Obama tinkered around the edges and after a huge financial crash, we’re standing on a burning planet amidst a global pandemic that has so far claimed well over a million lives. I debate (as calmly as I can) with centrists on an almost daily basis trying to get them to see that their way provides no actual solutions and that left-wing policies are not only what we desperately need, they’re also popular and economically sensible. Whether they’ve been brainwashed by dominant establishment ‘journalism’ or they just don’t want things to get better, it’s like talking to a brick wall.

On the left, we are smeared as naive and extreme while being expected to believe that the politics that got us into this mess will now get us out. We've opened the window for them but they're still flying repeatedly into the glass^. We've shown them the other side of the see-saw but they're sitting on the fulcrum and refusing to budge. They're tackling their own players, refusing to pass the ball and blaming the left-winger for losing the game. I admire the dogged determination of progressives in parties that want their brand of politics eliminated but at the moment I can't see how we win like this.

* Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency by Andreas Malm. Currently reading this fantastic book about the links and the parallels between our destruction of the natural world and COVID-19.

^ Fly against the window is an analogy partially borrowed from Ed Poole!

HS2

A number of years ago I wrote this piece on my thoughts about HS2.

*Since then I have spoken with academics and researchers who work on transport infrastructure, including one person who is a key government advisor on large infrastructure projects (he patiently listened to my thoughts, agreed and then expanded on them in many ways which went over my head!). Their insights all align with my opinion that the HS2 project is so flawed as to be a bad idea.

HS2 is at the top of our news headlines again - possibly because the government don't want people to remember about the Russia report, Jennifer Arcuri etc or notice the fact that they've already reneged on multiple election promises and their press/media have exhausted the Harry and Meghan thing for the time being.

Upgrading our transport network is long overdue: in it's current state it is embarrassing and barely fit-for-purpose. But I don't think HS2 is the way to go about it.

I live less than 8 miles from Manchester City Centre and I commute into Manchester for work. I'm in my 40s and out of all of my friends and acquaintances in Manchester, Cheshire, Lancashire and other parts of the UK including the South East, I don't know anyone who commutes between London and Manchester/"the north" (wherever that is). Some occasionally travel to London/South East for meetings but not enough to warrant this kind of money being spent on infrastructure. I can count on one finger the number of people I know who regularly commute between Manchester and other northern cities: the overwhelming majority of people commute from their homes in  suburbs/villages/towns to large towns and cities for work. Average distance travelled by rail in England is 30 miles (17 miles in London) so I'm not inclined to believe that inter-city travel, which is pretty well-served is the priority.

So what is the purpose of HS2? HS2: Whose Line is it Anyway? features a few people who know a lot about it giving a few reasons.

But even if we ignore the idea (fact, in my view) that it started and has been continued to suit certain politicians at particular points in their career, the environmental issues, the mixed messages (which alone suggest that those responsible don't have solid reasons for doing it), is it sensible to spend this much money on one project at a time when the "network" we already have is failing thousands of commuters every day? HS2 is going to cost far more than the entire 2019 Labour manifesto which apparently was going to bankrupt the UK - and that included re-nationalising the fragmented and failing privatised rail network. Let's assume for a minute that HS2 is necessary from a speed or capacity point of view. Tickets on HS2 will be at least as expensive and probably considerably more expensive than current tickets to/from London. Is that really going to persuade people who don't already get the train to do so?

We desperately need to get people out of their cars and onto bikes and public transport. This is only going to happen if we spend large sums of money not on one route to/from London but on improving local and regional rail, bus and cycle provision. Then and only then can we consider a fancy new line in the middle of the country. Many people claim that this infrastructure will speed up local rail as well by shifting capacity onto a new line but the evidence for this seems totally flawed to me and one person I have spoken to who definitely knows what they are talking about* has explained how we can massively increase capacity if we implement the European system of train scheduling on our current network.

The bigger question for me is why are so many people commuting into densely developed areas in the first place? I've written about this in the past and won't repeat it here but with modern technology, we don't all need to be in cities and the benefits of spreading at least some work out of the cities are manifold.

I want to reiterate my view that the UK desperately needs huge investment in transport infrastructure and it is not the cost of HS2 that concerns me (I'm a socialist and believe in higher taxes and investment in projects that will benefit people and our environment!). What concerns me is that this is a folly which will only serve to increase the number of people commuting to/from London and that the vast majority of people will see absolutely no benefit.

Commuting from Gee Cross (Hyde) to Manchester

I saw a post on the Cycle For Manchester blog (which apparently was based on this one) and as I am permanently grumpy about my commuting options I thought I'd do my own - albeit one which looks at the options based on doing the School drop-off and getting to the office on time.

Background: 

We used to live in a flat Chorlton but needed to buy a house and wanted a garden, so we looked at other areas. Our options were limited but we made sure we were no more than a mile away from a train station so that I could commute into Manchester by train. We ended up moving to Gee Cross in Hyde.

We're lucky that we live only a 5 min walk from our son's School so I walk him there. This means I start work at 10 am and finish later/catch up at home or on a day working from home.

1) Train.

Drop off at 8.50. It takes nearly 20 mins to walk to the station (I can do it in 15 if I'm in a rush!) and the next train I can get is at 9.25. If it's on time (ha!), I get to Piccadilly at 9.48. From there, not allowing for station crowds/barriers etc, it takes me about 20 min to walk to my office at the University. The earliest I've made it in by is 10.10, which is 10 mins late.

On time: No.
Experience: Don't mind the walk - it's a rare opportunity to listen to music or podcasts. The trains are old, packed, hot, noisy, uncomfortable and unreliable.
Cost: £7.00 per day or £1000+ for a 12 month season ticket.
Rating: 0/10

2) Bus. 

Even if the timetables are accurate - and even after 9 am I doubt very much that is the case - the earliest I could get to work after School drop-off is 10.20. 20 mins late for work.

On time: No.
Experience: Never tried it!
Cost: £16.50 per week or £595 per year.
Rating: 0/10

3) Combined Train and bus.

Again, even if the buses and trains are running to schedule, the quickest route which involves walk, bus, walk, train, walk, bus, walk (!) will only get me to work by 10.05 - 5 mins late.

On time: No.
Experience: I've never done it but all of those changes and all of that money and still not getting to work on time would drive me insane.
Cost: prohibitive!
Rating: -100/10

4) Cycling.

My route 7.8 miles and take me through Hyde town centre then down the A57 through Denton and Gorton and then from the Apollo down Brunswick Street to the University campus. Google says it takes 41 mins; Komoot thinks someone of my fitness can do it in 32 but the quickest I've done it is 35 mins (which would probably be 32 mins plus traffic/stopping at junctions).

On time: Yes!
Experience: Pretty hellish. The traffic is horrible, the road is narrow in places and grumpy drivers jostling for position don't want bikes in their way. The surface is poor, there is virtually no provision for cyclists whatsoever (there's a bridge over the M60 in one direction and a cycle route over the roundabout in the other, two short bus lanes I can use and one section where there's actually a painted cycle lane which is about 50 m long and ignored by drivers) and the air quality is dreadful. Then there's the hassle of taking a change of clothes and shoes, a towel, shower gel, deodorant etc, the time spent showering (which for me is in a different building from my office), then there's bad weather... Other routes aren't really worth considering. One would take me through Reddish Vale so not ideal for a hybrid with no suspension, plus it's much further and would not leave me with enough time to shower. On a positive note: I do appreciate the exercise - I don't have a lot of spare time otherwise - and although there are plenty of bad drivers I do accept that most are actually fine. And I can get to work with just enough time to have a shower and be at my desk by 10am!
Cost: Bikes, gear, maintenance etc doesn't come cheap but it's cheaper than any of the other options.
Rating: 5/10. I'm feeling generous today because I made it in without being killed or threatened*

5) Combined Cycling and train.

This was my original plan after my son started School. I'd barely been on a bike for a decade (didn't need to/wasn't very fit/lived in flats and bike storage was a problem/was very wary having been knocked off at speed on Deansgate many years ago) and where I live is quite hilly so I didn't think I would find the whole commute doable. I'd even gone ahead and bought a 12 month season ticket and it would work out that if the train was on time I'd get into the office just before 10 am (with no need to shower!).

The plan was to cycle to the nearest station (one mile) cycle from there to work (one mile) and back again, maybe taking in a more scenic route occasionally or a different train route if my nearest one was delayed etc. The problem I have is getting the bike on the train. It's fine in the morning because it's post rush-hour but in the evening, when the train is usually only two coaches, it's a real problem. Many coaches have inadequate spaces (often no long enough for an adult bike!) meaning you're taking up seating space and have your bike at an angle which makes it hard for people to get past. Even where there are proper bike racks, I still have problems getting on: if you're waiting for the train to arrive, you don't know what type of coach it's going to be so can't judge where to stand, and you don't know where the bike storage section will be. If the train is already there, it's likely to be so busy that the doorways and aisles are full of passengers...a fold-away bike might work but where I live is hilly and I would struggle without plenty of gears.

The worst bit about this is that the cycle home is worse than the cycle in. It's busier, it's dark for a chunk of the year, and it's pretty much all uphill (425 ft uphill; 100 ft downhill) which obviously means it takes longer - at least 10 mins more.

On time: Just about!

Experience: It feels really horrible to take up precious space on an over-crowded train and it's even worse if you actually can't get on it - especially if it's late and you've been waiting a while as has happened a couple of times.

Cost: £7.00 per day or £1000+ for a 12 month season ticket plus bike stuff.

Rating: 3/10.

Conclusion.

While my working pattern stays like it is (which will be for the foreseeable future), I think I need to cycle as much as I can. I'll get fitter and it will get easier. Now I'm off to see whether I can get a partial refund for my railcard...

*Late last year I had scary experience. Just a few minutes from home, I found myself in the middle at the front of a queue of traffic (I was trying to turn right: the two cars immediately behind me weren't indicating when I passed them and straight on was not an option!) onto a main road from a one-way side street. A tough guy (over 6' and built like a Russian wrestler) a couple of cars behind got out, stormed up to me telling me he was going to "kick my f*****g head in", grabbed my bike and threatened me some more. I told him to calm down and he went back to his car. I think if he hadn't been blocking the traffic he might have taken it further. If I didn't have a wife and child waiting for me at home I might have stood up to him (and taken a beating). Since then I've looked out for tough-guy cars (white Audis, anything lowered, blacked out windows, you know the sort) and given them way more space than I should have to.