Labour's defeat at the 2019 general election.

We’ve woken up this morning to another five years of Tory rule.

I don’t know if anyone noticed, but I’ve necessarily kept quiet about politics over the last few weeks. Those who follow me on Facebook and keep an eye on what I comment on news pages and political “discussions” will know that this is quite rare these days. But the reason is: As I work for Dudley Council, I have been told in no uncertain terms that I am not supposed to show solidarity or support for any one politician or political party until after the election. This is standard procedure for people who work in councils or the civil service, and it also means I’ve had to keep a lot of my regular social media output quiet for the last five weeks. I have done so – people have lost their jobs for being in breach of their organisation’s social media policy[1] and I can ill-afford that – but now I’m allowed to talk about it again I want to make my position on the matter perfectly clear:

I voted for Labour.

I voted for Eleanor Smith, the Labour candidate for Wolverhampton South West.

I voted for Jeremy Corbyn.

I wanted a society where prices were reasonable, where public services were properly funded, and where decisions were made based on how well they benefit the country, rather than pushing one agenda or rhetoric. I felt that Labour had the best possible chance of making this fairer society that works for everyone, rather than leave those who don’t already have a lot of money to fight for the scraps of what’s left over. Now it seems that we live in a country that would rather people fight for scraps – and if you’ve got no fight left in you, you’re on your own.

Really as bad as all that?

I’ve heard the questions raised about Jeremy Corbyn. I know a lot of people don’t like him. Nobody who has said they don’t like Corbyn has been able to give me a reason for that, or at least one that didn’t come across as partisan sensationalism. But my awareness of political matters does not extend to seeing a party leader to do more to engage with the people than Jeremy Corbyn. If I knew nothing else about him, that would have been enough for me. However, it seems as though the people would prefer Boris Johnson. Funnily enough nobody seems to be able to give a good reason for that either, apart from “He’ll get us out of the EU,” which is a position I cannot support.

And I’m terrified.

You can make the same trite arguments I’ve been hearing since the 2016 Brexit referendum about millennial snowflakes, accepting democracy, and every variation of You Lost Get Over It. And no doubt many of you will. But I’m afraid this affects me at a far more fundamental level than such abstract concepts as sovereignty and democracy.

I work in a service that has, over the last nine years, had to weather the funding cuts that the conservative party felt they had to make. The government funding for my service has completely gone now – we’re almost entirely a traded service. But there’s also no interest in funding the schools that buy our service in, which means that there’s not much money to spend on things like arts provision. As a result, I’ve been losing work steadily for the last six years, and therefore losing my income. I’ve had to look elsewhere for work and I’m barely making enough money on a combination of my job and partial self-employment as a music teacher. My work on both fronts continues to decrease, and with a conservative government in power, I can’t see that situation improving.

So no, I’m not going to celebrate another five years of wondering if my job is still going to exist, or how I’m going to keep fighting tooth and nail to make sure I can provide for my family if it doesn’t.

How long can this carry on?

---

[1] So that we’re clear, I’m not referring to, nor am I aware of, any specific incident that relates to Dudley Council – but I know it happens in other organisations.

What Katie Hopkins (apparently) doesn't know about the Shamina Begum situation:

With a patriotic hero pose and everything.
People actually buy in to this.

Shamina Begum is making headlines at the moment as the girl who, at fifteen, left the United Kingdom to join Islamic State in Syria. Now at nineteen, she has lost two children, is pregnant with a third, and wants to come back to the UK. Given the precariousness of the situation in general, and the demographic of the people involved, it’s hardly surprising that Katie Hopkins has put her foot in it again according to this macro. I understand that the text comes from a video she put out not long after this situation came to light. However, I have seen a lot of it shared throughout Facebook during the day, and it’s alarming how many people are buying into the intended ideal – particularly as she is making a statement that simply isn’t true.

We’ll come back to Hopkins later, but first let’s examine what the situation is: It is not the case that Shamina Begum has given up her right to call this country her home. She is a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Under international law, the UK has no right to revoke that citizenship. The only time a county is allowed to do this – and this has happened, though I don’t know any specific details – is when a person has dual nationality, in which case they can revoke the citizenship from their country but not the other. A country is not allowed to leave somebody stateless.

I’ve seen a few other macros floating around saying things like “We don’t want her back,” “Your a spy” (sic) and “You only want to come back so the NHS will look after your baby,” and other things of the kind. The plain fact is that it’s not about whether we want Shamina to come back; it never was. By law, we as a country have no right to prevent her from returning, if she chooses so to do.

There have been some clickbait headlines purporting to be from government officials saying that they’re not going to help Shamina return. Again, the facts are a little more fundamental than that: Syria doesn’t have a British Consul service, so helping her back is incredibly difficult. If Shamina were to travel to Turkey, it would be another matter, but at present she remains in Syria. To try to take her back by force would be seen as an aggressive move that could cause an international incident neither country can afford. The only other way would be to go through Interpol, and the issuing government has to be pretty sure of itself before it will do that.

I don’t know much about the circumstances in which Shamina left the UK in the first place, but I would ask anybody claiming she is a traitor and a spy to consider the possibility of her being groomed, or other circumstances in which the decision to leave the UK was not entirely her own. Speaking from the point of view of someone who doesn’t see how leaving one’s country of birth to go and join a terrorist cell fighting for power in a country I’ve never even seen, I wonder exactly how this decision was made. And remember that, at the very least, she has a mother and father.

And as for Katie Hopkins: She has, at her most typical, made a statement that is not true. Now, there are two possible explanations for this. Either:

A)     She didn’t know the law relating to this situation, in which case why is she shooting her mouth off before her brain is fully loaded?

Or,

B)     (Assuming she knew the law,) She is asking us to accept that it is perfectly OK to break international law whenever it suits us.

Either way, it’s complete and utter nonsense.

(Incidentally, I’m aware I’m saying most of this without citation. Most of this information comes from various news sites I’ve been reading over the last few days, and remarks I’ve seen from some of my contacts. Also further information came to my attention about an international policing, and the text has changed slightly to reflect this.)