Reflections on the 2021 Election Cycle and Where Next for Labour?

With a few results from the Police and Crime Commissioner polls outstanding, the mammoth 2021 election cycle is drawing to a close, and with it the bloodletting has begun in earnest, with Sir Keir Starmer reshuffling his top team and sacking his Chairman, who also happens to be deputy leader, as well as demoting his Shadow Chancellor.

On the other hand, there were a number of "winners" from this cycle, including from within Starmer's party. So, what can we draw from this double helping of elections, and where do the parties go from here?

Hartlepool exposes the existential crisis in Labour

The most eye-catching result that emerged early on Friday was the by-election result from Hartlepool. Having been a rock solid Labour seat since its creation in 1974, and once the constituency represented by Labour grandee Lord Mandelson, it just about withstood the crumbling of the "red wall" in 2019. In fact, Mike Hill's majority was larger than that his predecessor, Iain Wright, enjoyed in 2015 in the face of a strong challenge from UKIP. When Hill resigned, triggering this by-election, there was speculation that the Conservatives could pose a serious challenge, or indeed win the seat. 

In the end, it wasn't even close. The easy answer would be that Brexit Party supporters transferred their allegiance, and there would be some truth in that, although it should also be noted that the Labour vote went down by nearly nine percentage points compared with 2019. 

The result confirmed that a chasm remains within Labour in terms of two almost diametrically opposed strands of "Labourism", a chasm which emerged during the Brexit debate and looks set to dominate the machinations of the Labour movement for some time to come. On the one hand there is the "traditional" Labour voter of the provinces, historically blue collar working class, socially fairly conservative. On the other hand is the "metropolitan" Labour voter, typically pro-EU and in favour of a high-tax (of those earning more than them anyway), big government approach to society. The rise to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn exposed this rift, with the metropolitan branch tending to be fanatically behind him while the provincial branch were generally less keen, more so a result of his tendency to be drawn to causes and issues that didn't resonate with them.

Brexit opened up the wounds, the metropolitan branch voting almost exclusively "Remain" while the provincial areas were less clear cut - Labour voters in "Leave" areas said to have still broken in favour of "Remain" but only just. With Brexit came a new attitude towards provincial voters from the metropolitan branch, with a mixture of disbelief, name calling and mocking towards those who dared to vote "Leave" - those silly little uneducated, mostly old, racists in the towns, how dare they express an opinion.

The 2017 Election halted this to an extent - Labour promised to respect the result of the referendum and deliver Brexit, albeit one fashioned in their image. This, coupled with the absolute mangling of the campaign by the Conservatives, ensured the "red wall" not only remained in tact but was solidified to an extent. At the time, there was no "deal" on the table, the Brexit process was in its infancy - Article 50 had been triggered but March 2019 was still nearly two years away, so there was plenty to chew over.

However, by the time 2019 came around, Parliament had been drawn to impasse by warring factions trying to either deliver or frustrate the process. Theresa May saw the writing on the wall and bowed out, leaving the path clear for Boris Johnson to come in and "get Brexit done". He played a blinder in calling for the election, as Labour were backed into a corner. On the one hand did they also promise to deliver Brexit, which would risk them losing their metropolitan support base (and a lot of activist support), or did they promise to thwart the process either by revoking Article 50 or by holding another referendum, which in turn would risk them losing their provincial support base. It was hoped that by going down the latter route of another referendum, plus promising a whole load of new freebies, this would be negated.

It was a disaster. The problem is, not just was the issue of another referendum yet another frustration and expression of mistrust in those who voted "Leave", the promise of "free stuff" was seen as patronising and yet another case of "we know best". Corbyn by now wasn't something of an unknown quantity, and his name was mud on the doorsteps of provincial England. In the end, Labour gained just the ultra-Remain seat of Putney and lost countless others.

When the contest began to find Corbyn's successor, I surveyed the contestants and, as I usually do, looked at which one I "feared" the most based primarily on their statesmanlike qualities i.e. how would they fare when stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the world's leaders. The three leading candidates emerged as Rebecca Long-Bailey, Jess Phillips and Starmer, and I immediately picked the latter as the one to watch. Long-Bailey, from the Corbynite wing of the party, is mockingly referred to as "Wrong Daily" by Conservatives, and from my perspective I considered her to be far too lightweight to be taken seriously - on the world stage she'd be nudged off to the side just to the outside of the Prime Minister of Croatia. I don't doubt Phillips' passion, but I had visions of her losing her temper on the world stage and headbutting Macron. Starmer, on the other hand, is someone with genuine gravitas. My biggest doubt would be that as one of the chief architects of Labour's botched Brexit policy he may have a long way to go to convince the provincial wing of the party that he stood for them while, despite being a Trotskyite in his youth, his position of not being on the hard left may alienate the Corbynite wing of the party. Both seem to be coming true.

To be fair to Starmer, he has been dealt something of a duff hand as the Covid crisis was enveloping the country at the time of his coronation and has been the dominant factor in everything since. And, to his credit, he has tended towards governing for the greater good rather than to score political points, while he has at least made tentative steps towards draining the party of the poison that had developed in recent years especially regarding anti-Semitism. However, there have been stumbles along the way and he appears to have been poorly advised in terms of some of his gestures and gimmicks - for example the advice around flag waving, which was seen through immediately, while the recent stunt around wallpaper exposed that the issue of how Boris Johnson funded the redecoration of his flat was something only meaningful to the Westminster bubble. In the meantime there appears to be very little substance in terms of what he actually stands for and wants to do policy-wise. With Corbyn you knew you were getting an unapologetic Socialist, but what does Starmer actually want to achieve?

For now, Starmer appears rattled, and he needs to lay down what his policy direction actually is, lest the gathering vultures begin to properly circle. Labour has tended to be more loyal to its leaders than the Conservatives, but one senses that could be about to change.

The Dynamics in Scotland and Wales

Well that was Hartlepool, and it took a lot longer to digest than I originally envisaged. Interestingly the dynamics in the assembly elections in Scotland and Wales remain somewhat different.

Firstly Scotland, where the results seemed to be something of a mirror of the 2019 Election where the SNP swept most of the board. Despite the inner turmoil within the party and Nicola Sturgeon's travails which have moved polling back towards "No" in terms of independence, the SNP came agonisingly close to securing an overall majority. That they didn't was partly down to a tactical approach by the unionist parties and their voters. Arguably for the first time since Jim Murphy Labour has an effective Scottish leader in Anas Sarwar, with Douglas Ross too a decent choice by the Conservatives. Independence will remain uppermost in political discourse in Scotland, although it was noted that unionists outpolled nationalists overall.

If Labour are licking their wounds in England and to a lesser extent in Scotland, they at least have some crumbs of comfort in Wales where they came within one seat of securing an overall majority, winning 30 of the 60 seats in the Senedd. This was seen as a vindication of Mark Drakeford's approach where the vaccination programme has been seen as the best of even the fantastic programme across the four constituent parts of the UK. This has seen Drakeford emerge with credit even after one or two idiotic restrictions, such as closing off non-essential goods in supermarkets and allowing pubs to open but not serve alcohol. While the Conservatives have also made very encouraging gains, mainly as a result of UKIP's strong showing last time, Labour can at least point to Wales and say all is not lost.

Mayor Votes Also Encouraging for Labour

I have been heavily involved with the campaign in London, pounding the streets trying to get Shaun Bailey in London and Nicholas Rogers in our assembly seat elected. The former proved to be forlorn, but I'm delighted that we secured a win in the South West seat for Rogers, who will be an excellent member of the London Assembly. Another encouraging sign is that Bailey massively outperformed the polls which suggested Sadiq Khan would likely win on first preference votes alone. Indeed Bailey actually won the first preference vote in two of the assembly constituencies where the Labour candidate was elected, which showed that either Bailey outperformed the party in those seats or that Khan underperformed - or both. I was staggered to read a pre-poll assessment in Private Eye that predicted Bailey would struggle to beat Laurence Fox and Brian Rose.

Ahead of the Local Elections in London in 2022, the results were very encouraging that, far from the wipeout predicted in 2018 (which never really materialised), the Conservatives can look ahead to 2022 with optimism. In microcosm, there were two by-elections in Hounslow (including in my ward of Hounslow Heath) which saw large swings from Labour even if they won both seats comfortably. Similar swings next year would bring in to play several wards, including the ward I've been mostly involved with and hope to be standing in next year (Osterley and Spring Grove). 

The other two standout contests from a Conservative standpoint were in the north east and the West Midlands, where Ben Houchen and Andy Street held on to their posts, the former with a ridiculous 73% of the vote.

However, there was plenty of encouragement for Labour in winning most of these contests including flipping the likes of the West of England and Peterborough / Cambridgeshire. These contests, even if by largely being "metropolitan" in construct perhaps masking the issues, show that Labour is far from dead just yet.  

What Will Make Labour Electable Again?

Looking from the outside in, it's easy to engage in a touch of schadenfreude at the travails of Labour and the ongoing civil war, but also taking a detached view can point to ways in which the party can move back towards being electable. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Move back towards the centre

Under Corbyn, Labour shifted decisively to the left having moved leftwards post-Blair. While moving to the left may have been considered a logical shift, it has contributed to an erosion of support particularly in the provinces. The left wing of the party considers Blair a dirty word mainly a result of his actions in the Middle East, but as Lord Mandelson put it the other day, Labour's election results in recent memory have been "loss, loss, loss, loss, Blair, Blair, Blair, loss, loss, loss, loss". While Blair 2.0 may not be a vote winner in itself, it's clear that when Laura Pidcock last week said in response to the results that the party needs "more Socialism", this was not what the public has actually been saying.

2. Reconcile with, instead of patronising, the provinces

Even now in response to Hartlepool and the local results I have seen people saying or writing about how the people of these places don't know what they're doing, they lack common sense, basically that provincial types are stupid. Memes glorify in showing metropolitan types hurling abuse at provincials only to then express surprise and anger when they don't then get their vote. On the other hand, Boris Johnson has made a point of speaking with (rather than at) people outside urban bubbles and has been making good on promises to bring industry - for example the free ports, the proposed move of Treasury services to Darlington and vaccine factories - to places that might ordinarily have been considered "left behind". 

3. Focus on policies, not issues, and stop bashing Britain

Outside metropolitan bubbles, people are more focused on good governance than tackling "issues". The Corbyn leadership devoted a lot of its energy to the latter, and popular causes of the left came to the fore, often at the expense of the party's popularity. People in general would rather see our flag being waved by party members at their conference than the flag of Palestine - and the po-faced reaction of the left of the party in response to the ham-fisted attempt to become more patriotic a few months back is symbolic of why increasingly the party is seen as "anti-Britain" (see Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP's tweet in the immediate aftermath of the Hartlepool result as emblematic of this failure to see the positives of championing the UK). The UK is not perfect, far from it, and there are many reasons to feel negatively - but there are also far more reasons to feel positive feelings, and for many the perception is currently that Labour doesn't have a patriotic side to it. Oh, and the "woke" stuff. Again it may play well in the metropolitan bubble, but the public at large don't really feel positively towards party leaders jumping on bandwagons and being pictured "taking the knee". The causes may be worthy, but they are unlikely to win widespread electoral support.

4. Stop obsessing about the "B" word

Brexit is done. We're out. It's over. 

So, in a nutshell it's a good time to be a Conservative, and Labour still has some wounds to lick as it seeks to regain its sense of relevance. I'm sure it will happen at some point - after all it took them three further election defeats after the Michael Foot debacle in 1983 - but for that to happen there needs to be a clear direction of travel that picks up the country as a whole along the way.

On the European "Super League" and Why It's Possibly a Red Herring

The Footballing fraternity erupted in outrage yesterday as twelve of Europe's top clubs, including the "Big 6" English clubs, announced they had signed up to a European Super League, a closed shop of elite clubs that would compete against each other. Now, this idea has been mooted for as long as I've been a passionate follower of the game, and there has been clear mission creep over the years as the European Champions Cup became the Champions League, which then admitted teams who weren't actually "champions". However, the fact that these clubs have now officially declared their intent has brought home the reality that maybe, just maybe, this thing might now be happening.

However, what will be the outcome, and has this been done as a deflection tactic? Will it turn out that this move is designed to get the fraternity to accept what it considers the lesser of two huge evils?

Initial Reaction

The bombshell agreement hit in time for Gary Neville and co to comment on it during Sky's live coverage, and the reaction from Neville was predictable in its passion and outrage.

For me, as a supporter of one of the "have nots" of the game, whose existence is driven by occasional player sales (that in itself denigrated by the EPPP formula that means the top clubs can cherry pick lower division talent for peanuts) and the odd trip to the top clubs in the cups, I labour under the forlorn hope that one day we will break through and become one of the "haves" of the game instead. The beauty of the game is that I've seen the players of little old Exeter go toe to toe, and indeed draw with, teams like Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton. On one memorable night in January 2005 I was stood on the Big Bank as Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes et al were run all the way before seeing us off 2-0 while we were a non-league side.

Yesterday's announcement threatens future generations from being able to experience the same euphoria. It shows that these six clubs care not for the machinations of the pyramid, rather whatever furthers their own ambitions.

Now, unlike others I don't begrudge them their ambition. However, they can't have their cake and eat it. If they are willing to take a draconian step to sign up to a new league, the reaction needs to be similarly draconian. The FA (and UEFA) need to step in to ensure that this European Super League operates in complete isolation - and while it may be thought that this could be a measure to cut off their nose to spite their face, I'm sure the FA would enjoy broad support were they to strip the "Big 6" of their FA affiliation. To that end, that would lead to the clubs being banned from competing in FA-sanctioned competitions, while I would go a step further and ban the clubs from signing players registered to FA-affiliated clubs. The clubs' players would also be banned from competing under the FA banner (i.e. for England) - something which would need to be done in tandem with UEFA and FIFA in order to make the players consider whether they wish to compete in their closed shop or in global competitions such as the World Cup. Many may choose the former - that's their prerogative and they're welcome to decide.

The Stalking Horse Approach

The reason I considered in the title of this piece that it's possibly a red herring, is that the timing of the European Super League announcement was very convenient, and the outrage generated could allow for something almost as heinous to slip through without fanfare. In this I'm minded of an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister", where Jim Hacker is trying without success to get the Treasury to agree to a tax cut of £1.5 billion. In order to get this through, he instead pretends to show support for a plan which would cost the Treasury £4 billion in tax revenue through taxing smoking into oblivion. The Treasury, spooked at the thought of losing £4 billion, decides to drop its opposition to the £1.5 billion tax cut.

So where does this fit in, and why is the timing so important? Well, today UEFA is due to announce planned changes to the Champions League format which, under normal circumstances, would lead to similar outrage. While I've not had the chance to go into the proposed format in detail, the basics seem to suggest a revamped group stage with extra teams and extra matches. Clubs involved would have to make decisions around whether they could compete in domestic cup competitions (for England this would mean probably withdrawing from, or entering their U23 team, into the EFL Cup), and there are further possible implications around the size of the Premier League and the ability to shoehorn 38 matches into a season where the top clubs are playing a stack of extra Champions League games.

As a result, there is a nagging feeling that what we have here is the Hacker tactic. The FA and their equivalents in the other major UEFA nations are faced with bad idea A or bad idea B. Bad idea A means the FA has to do some major reorganisation to accommodate the "Big 6", perhaps reducing the size of the Premier League, perhaps scrapping or totally downgrading the EFL Cup. Bad Idea B means losing the "Big 6" (and their revenue generation and support) totally. Which is, therefore, the lesser of two evils?

Either way, the biggest losers from this blackmail are the mugs who turn up week in week out at grounds up and down the country. Perhaps it's time the FA called the bluff of the "Big 6" and told them to go and play in their league and revoke their FA affiliation. Should this ESL be a failure, the clubs would be welcome to reapply for FA affiliation, but they'd have to start at the bottom of the pyramid. The thought of the Manchester clubs and Liverpool playing in the North West Counties league would be very funny indeed.

The Sinister and Cynical Framing of the Narrative - It's Good for the Ratings

Since the world was plunged into Covid-related chaos, I've developed a keen interest in the "Culture War" being fought in the US and which has, by proxy, transferred over to the UK. Quite frankly it's horrifying, and has laid bare the power and triangulation the US media and "Big Tech" has achieved. In writing this piece I'm grateful in particular to one individual in the US, whose journalism and nightly podcasts I've become an avid viewer of - Tim Pool was someone I'd not heard of this time last year, I'd describe him as someone whose politics generally tend towards the left of centre (yet he was described on his show as "far right" by a leftist guest) and anti-authoritarian, but who has been at the forefront of the utter madness that has descended on US politics and media. Pool's background in journalism saw him on the front line at the Occupy Wall Street rallies while working for Vice, amongst other things.

Despite the fact the country tends towards a right of centre trajectory, the overwhelming majority of the US mainstream news media (TV, print journalism) comes from a centre-left to hard left bent. This may have not been so obvious until recent years, but with the catalyst of a populist from outside the political fraternity finding himself in the top job, these news sources have decided that there's ratings to be had in divide and rule, painting said populist as the Devil Incarnate. 

By 2016, much of what has been called the "MSM" was in decline, while online platform Twitter was floundering. However, the advent of "Orange Man Bad" saw a resurgence, credited as the "Trump Bump". His prolific use of Twitter aroused interest in the platform, causing a spike in registrations. People started to tune in to the likes of CNN to hear the likes of Brian Stelter reporting on the latest words and actions of the President and why this is yet another case of him being Literally Hitler.

Not Rigged - "Fortified"

Fast forward to 2020, and the craziest election I can remember in a major democracy - had it taken place anywhere else and, more importantly, without an incumbent that had caused so much angst, it would have been widely derided as a farce. While most of the claims around election rigging have been discredited, it's no doubt that various shadow campaigns were being fought, mainly by those with enormous financial and opinion influences - indeed Time magazine ran an article in February claiming the election had been "fortified" by major corporations. While many changes to the electoral systems in several states which gave rise to suspicion were claimed to be incorporated as a result of Covid, documents suggest the changes were being legislated on at state level long before. 

Media Suppression of Bad News

One of the ways in which the campaign was manipulated came in the form of suppression of news, with one story in particular encapsulating this. In the weeks leading up to the poll, the New York Post broke the news of a particularly damning scandal involving Joe Biden's son, Hunter, which had massive implications for Biden. The main crux of the story centred around documentation around how Hunter Biden came to be appointed in a senior role at a Ukrainian company, Burisma, and how Biden potentially interfered in a criminal investigation into the company by blackmailing the Ukrainian government into firing its chief prosecutor and dropping the investigation. Biden himself is on video boasting about how he got the prosecutor fired (albeit not linking it to Burisma). Further news emerged about a trip to China on Air Force Two (the Vice President's plane) for Hunter to tie up a private equity deal, while e-mails implied that the "big guy" was due his cut.

How was this news treated? With a combination of indifference or disdain. If your news diet consisted only of CNN and the Washington Post, you probably never heard about this scandal before November - indeed polling after the election showed that many people hadn't heard of the Hunter Biden scandal, and a large number of those further said they wouldn't have voted for Biden had they known. Twitter and Facebook responded to the allegations by suspending the New York Post's accounts (surely in clear breach of Section 230), while claiming that the reports were unsubstantiated (the old chestnut "Russian interference" was raised too in order to discredit the stories). In short, it was a co-ordinated suppression campaign aimed at getting bad news about Biden out of the public domain.

It was only after Biden was safely ensconced in the White House that the same media outlets quietly admitted the stories were true and that Hunter Biden was under investigation by the FBI, incredulously asking why this story didn't break sooner - because you suppressed it, numbskulls!

Play the Man, Not the Ball

Shutting down the story is part of the puzzle, shutting down the storytellers is another. James O'Keefe heads up Project Veritas, an investigative journalism company known for its undercover sting operations. His latest sting saw a CNN executive admit on camera that the broadcaster had been engaged in a propaganda campaign aiming at ousting Trump, but also that their coverage of protests in the past year has been deliberately aimed at stoking the fires by race-baiting. Previous videos released by Project Veritas included ones showing ballot harvesting during the election.

The establishment hates O'Keefe and his methods, as he relies on methods to get his stories that are often considered somewhat nefarious - for example it's said that his CNN sting was something of a "honey trap" involving the use of dating app Tinder.

So what happens with O'Keefe? His Wikipedia profile is one long smear campaign, saying he specialises in "disinformation" and describes him as "far right" (he isn't). The establishment media also smears him at every opportunity, while last night it emerged that he has been permanently banned by Twitter, for apparently posting using multiple aliases, a claim he denies. The issue here is that O'Keefe is notoriously litigious, and he tends to win. He has vowed to sue Twitter, which could have far-reaching implications.

A Mass of White Noise

Tim Pool noted that at the time of Occupy Wall Street, the major corporations in the US decided they needed a diversionary tactic in order to turn people against each other - suddenly, and no doubt coincidentally race relations came to the fore.

A lot of this has come to a head in the past year, with the catalyst being the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last May. The trial of the police officer involved, Derek Chauvin, is close to its conclusion, and it's anticipated that almost no matter what the verdict, Minneapolis will burn. However, Minneapolis is, and has been, burning anyway - exacerbated by the accidental shooting of wanted criminal Daunte Wright just outside Minneapolis last week. Riots have been taking place on a nightly basis - but you wouldn't know it if you don't look properly. The establishment media have taken it upon themselves to refuse to call anything related to Black Lives Matter and Antifa unrest in the past year as "riots" - indeed when the now former Chief of Police in the Daunte Wright case, Tim Gannon, called what was going on a "riot", he was roundly admonished by the watching media, telling him it's not a riot. His response was to say that he was actually at the scene, before unsurprisingly deciding to resign his post when he didn't receive support from the elected officials in the city.

And here is where further triangulation shows the lengths the establishment will go to in order to change the narrative. Pool's show on Monday night performed a search on Google for "riots", with almost all the search results relating to stories about the incidents in Washington DC in January. A similar search on the lesser-known search engine DuckDuckGo, and indeed Bing, yielded results about recent events in Minneapolis. In order to see any content via Google, they had to replace the search term "riots" with "protests".

Then there is the coverage of the Chauvin trial itself. In chiming with O'Keefe's sting with the CNN executive talking about race-baiting as it makes for good ratings-heavy news, the establishment media has framed the trial of Chauvin as being one-way traffic in favour of the prosecution, some coverage even calling it the "murder" of Floyd, which would surely contravene sub-judice rules somewhere along the line. However, for those following the minutiae of the trial they wouldn't recognise this at all, as the defence has built a more than compelling case casting doubt on whether Chauvin's actions actually caused Floyd's death - for example, one of the prosecution experts admitted that had they seen Floyd's body in isolation, they'd have concluded he died either of a drug overdose or heart disease. In fact, yesterday the judge came very close to declaring a mistrial. 

Could it be that, for the sake of ratings, organisations like CNN are painting the case as open and shut, only to stand back and film the riots (sorry, mostly peaceful protests) when the verdict comes back differently? Could it then provide a further narrative to run and run with about how the justice system is rigged?

It could all be rather fanciful of course, but the evidence is mounting, and it's compelling, about how the narrative is being framed partly to prop up news organisations that were in danger of floundering now they no longer have their panto villain keeping them afloat.

Lockdown 3, and This Time It's FINAL....Maybe (and why old people are vaccinated first)

So, at around 8pm last night, Boris Johnson put on his solemn face on TV and announced that for the third time during this horrible pandemic, England would be placed on lockdown. This is not quite as strict a lockdown as seen last March, with certain elements of society allowed to remain open where they were closed last time, but it's near as dammit - with schools told to close until at least the February half term.

In essence, the numbers suggest the PM had little choice but to go draconian. Positive case numbers and numbers in hospital (if not - yet - the numbers on ventilation) suggest we're hitting the peak of the second wave meaning the NHS is under severe strain. The situation is perhaps not as acute as it was in March/April - but it's not far off. I think there have been issues that could have been handled better, albeit mostly in the messaging. I was, and remain, incandescent at the messaging around the Christmas "relaxation". From the outset the message should have been "No Christmas unless things improve" rather than making a pledge that couldn't be delivered. My anger was not at the rules put in place, rather that just two days previously the PM made it clear he was not going to change his mind, before promptly doing so just after MPs (who'd have erupted) were sent home.

There is, of course, a big reason to suggest we're entering a final push with regard to suppressing the virus and returning to some sort of normality - the presence now of two vaccines in circulation in the UK means we are well on our way to protecting the most vulnerable, meaning that for those of us for whom the virus is an inconvenience rather than an immediate threat to life, the day we can "live with it" is surely not too far off.

The School Conundrum 

The main change from the fairly draconian Tier 4 restrictions, under which the bulk of the country were placed in the last week or two, and the national lockdown, is the closure of schools to all bar those who are vulnerable and/or the offspring of key workers. The closure is a key point of debate - on the one hand it has been argued that with the new variant of Covid it is more transmissible by children, hence it would be difficult to stop numbers escalating by allowing children back into school. On the other hand it is argued that a balance has to be struck between the physical health of schoolchildren and the emotional and educational damage a closure could inflict. My daughter's school had put in place already a delayed return and mass testing, and performed very well last term in managing the virus, I'm confident they could have opened in a week or two with structures in place to mitigate against impact. 

However, I'm also not particularly concerned purely for my 13 year old daughter about her education when moving to online rather than face to face teaching. She is a good independent learner, she has a good laptop, and she has her own bedroom which serves as study space. 

However, we're the lucky ones in terms of our child being kept off school - there will be thousands, perhaps millions, who will be seriously disadvantaged. For many, especially in primary schools, the emphasis is on home learning rather than online - difficult to manage when both parents are working (even if both working from home), and/or juggling other commitments, such as pre-school age children. Then there are others who don't have 24/7 access to IT, or who share bedrooms and therefore have no space to study independently. And therein lies the crux - the educational gap is already large, and will only get a lot larger as a result of stifling the education of those whose education is best served in the classroom. In short, it's a difficult balancing game, with those making the decisions damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The Vaccination Priority Issue

I have seen a lot on social media around people promoting the idea that teachers and school staff should be elevated in the priority list for vaccinations. I understand the emotive issue around this, but it also betrays a lack of understanding about the vaccinations, what they can and can't do, and why the priority list is as it is.

Essentially, the injection is not a magic wand that makes the virus disappear. It doesn't even stop you catching the virus. And, most importantly, it doesn't stop you passing the virus on to others. What it does do is provide your body with the necessary capability to stop the virus developing within you and making you ill (often to the point of death). Therefore the government has made clear the priority list for people receiving the vaccination based on the number of people who need to be vaccinated in order to save a life or, in other words, to first vaccinate the people for whom Covid is a likely killer.

So, first of all we have elderly people in care homes (and their carers), then people over 80 years old alongside healthcare workers, then those over 70 and those with severe healthcare issues for whom the virus would likely kill them, and so on until everyone over 50 has been taken care of.

The one "anomaly" in there is healthcare workers. However these are people who on a daily basis come into contact with members of the public who are already compromised with such a high viral load that it is potentially lethal - and naturally the higher the viral load you encounter, the more likely you are to suffer badly yourself. It therefore stands to reason that healthcare workers should be prioritised alongside the elderly.

The key element is in mitigating for those who need mitigating against the virus. And this is why the argument for pushing teachers and school staff up the priority list, admirable as it sounds, is a counter-productive measure. For most people in education settings, catching the virus is not a game-changer (or potentially lethal), and therefore for every fit and healthy 25 year old (whose symptoms would be moderate to non-existent) who is vaccinated, one 70 year old for whom Covid could kill them doesn't receive it. In addition, the fit and healthy 25 year old could still carry, and pass on, the virus to the 70 year old, who could then die. The whole object of the vaccination, to save lives, will not have done its job.

On the other hand, if you give the 70 year old the vaccination, coming into contact with an infected 25 year old ought to have no negative repercussions for either party. The vaccination will have done its job.

When you therefore weigh up that the vaccination is there firstly to protect the vaccinated individual from harm, you need to assess that it's those who actually need to be protected from harm that should be at the top of the list - and in this case it's pretty clear that your chances of survival from the virus go down the older you are, and whether you have underlying health conditions that compromise your immune system. Therefore in order to maximise human life and health, we need to hold firm to the priority list as it is now, and not compromise on this to vaccinate people whose need is not actually as great in terms of their immediate threat to their life.

Anyway, if the government and its agencies are able to keep to their promise of getting the top four vulnerable groups vaccinated by mid-February, here's hoping we're out of the woods in weeks and months rather than years. For me, there are several things I want to do: sit in a pub with my mates (with no "substantial meal"), watch the mighty Exeter City live (sod's law it will be at yet another insipid display at Wembley), head down to my Mum's place in Dorset, enjoy a full Cricket season, and celebrate Katy's 50th birthday in July with the party we booked ages ago. It's not too much to ask, is it?

A Crisis of Democracy

When Joe Biden announced during the US election campaign that the Democrats had an extensive "voter fraud organization", taken completely out of context (as the video itself shows), was this something rather prescient? From what we have seen since the polls closed last Tuesday night there are many who are seizing upon this as evidence that impropriety has indeed taken place - Attorney General Bill Barr has now ordered an investigation after multiple claims and affidavits from election officials testifying to witnessing wrongdoing - meaning the presidential election race cannot be called fully and firmly just yet even if the press and the world's leaders have crowned Biden as the victor.

All this is an extremely sad indictment of a voting system that needs to be examined closely, and makes me proud that despite its flaws the UK election system is light years ahead of that across the pond. 

This post will attempt to draw comparisons between the voting systems here and in the US, look at the flaws in the US system (especially during the pandemic), and try to make sense of what happened. 

The UK - imperfect but streets ahead...

I have been involved in the voting side of elections in the UK since I first counted votes in the 1998 local elections (and referendum on whether we wanted a Mayor in London), and as such have taken a keen interest in psephology and the system we use here. 

In the twenty or so years since we have seen an increase in postal voting, which in turn has led to an increase in questioning the validity of voting - personally I am against postal voting for all bar those who physically cannot be at the polling station on election day, but I appreciate I'm probably in the minority on that one. From my perspective every step you take away from fully verified in person voting the more chance there is of voting imperfections. The US commentator Tim Pool describes this as the "chain of custody". 

The Electoral Commission published a report in 2014 into voter fraud in the UK - thankfully the conclusion is that it's not widespread but pointed to the postal system being problematic, and called for the introduction of voter ID at polling stations (in line with most democracies) - something that the current government has pledged to introduce. For me this is not before time. At the moment as long as I know the name and address of a voter I can walk into their polling station, say I am said person, and cast their vote for them. I can cast my vote by post (so "invisibly"), then be the first voter at my polling station and give my downstairs neighbour's name and address. Anecdotal evidence (I have no physical evidence of this so won't claim otherwise) has claimed that whole busloads of people have been ferried around from polling station to polling station, told who they are to pretend to be at that station, voted, then got back aboard and moved to the next one. As I say, this is totally unverified so I cannot claim that this is true.

But when all is said and done, there is little evidence to say postal voting or non-ID voting has actually swung an election in the UK (there were calls to investigate the Peterborough by-election last year but no evidence was found of wrongdoing), and long may it continue.

...and the US - imperfect and streets behind

And then there's the US. While it's not the first time the system in the US has been thrown into chaos ("hanging chads", anyone?), the 2020 election has blown everything wide open and, to my mind, needs root and branch reform. There are so many moving parts that this will be difficult, nigh on impossible perhaps, but it needs to be examined so there is a clear and unambiguous winner without recourse to the courts.

Starting right at the beginning - why is there a need to declare party affiliation at the point of registering to vote? What works here is the fact every household registers anonymously (we do need to do better at ensuring the people registered actually live there, but again it's not considered a widespread issue), everyone then gets a ballot card. The moment you have party affiliation on your ballot registration is the moment voters can be "accidentally" disenfranchised. 

Next is the age old "Federal vs State" debate - which means the voting system is decided at State level. Whoever controls the State controls the voting system. This led to a number of changes, mainly in Democrat-run States, that had the opposition crying "foul" before a single ballot was cast. It may be that there was nothing untoward in what was done, but once a seed of suspicion is sown (and Trump was particularly aggressive on that score throughout), it does nothing but germinate.

Following on from this is the approach to, and viability of, postal voting in the US. One of the key arguments following last Tuesday is how to count, or whether to count at all, certain votes cast by post. One issue is the US Postal Service itself - when I spent a year living in the US I despaired at just how inefficient their service is. It's understandable in a country as huge and disparate as it is, but at State level there's no excuse for post to take so long to be delivered. Here in the UK I have confidence in the system that if I post something before a certain time on Monday, it will arrive on Tuesday. So surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a ballot posted on Monday in the US will reach the local counting office on the Tuesday? And yet we see states accepting, and counting, votes long after election day. Voters can even post their ballot on election day itself and still be counted. To my mind this is absurd. Another comparison to make with the UK is that here, your ballot needs to have been received by the close of polls in order to count. If it hasn't arrived, tough.

Another rather tinfoil-hat bit of conspiracy theory around postal voting is around how people post items in the US - if you wish to post something you don't need to find your nearest post box, you simply put your items in your letterbox at home and put the little flag thing up, so when the postman comes to deliver the mail, they see your flag up and remove the items from your letterbox. What is to stop a postman who supports party X seeing a property with a board supporting the party Y candidate and accidentally "losing" their ballot? Reports have been posted about ballots being found dumped, so perhaps it's not so fanciful after all.

The counting of votes itself is also vague at best. In the UK, what happens is that come 10pm the ballot boxes are sealed, and opened only in the counting venue. At that point the votes are firstly verified to ensure that the number of ballot papers in the box tallies with the number of votes registered at the polling station (with several recounts of the box if necessary). Once all the votes in each box have been successfully verified, the votes are then counted, in full view of agents from each party who can intervene if a mistake is made or a ballot is regarded as "doubtful". The count then ends only when each vote is counted and allocated to each candidate and the result of the vote is declared.

Compare and contrast with the mess of the count in the US, which has given rise to suspicions of foul play - computers mysteriously deleting and re-allocating votes, vote counts going up when the counting isn't taking place, new ballots being "found" - and one can at least begin to understand why supporters of the "losing" party might think all is not right. 

The context in 2020...

The 2020 US Election was always going to be a particularly strange one. Trump essentially won in 2016 because while there was a massive movement against him, there was also the factor of having a Democrat candidate who was absolutely despised by large sections of the electorate. I saw this for myself when my brief residency in the US coincided with her tenure as the First Lady - the running joke was around announcing "The President, and her husband Bill".

While Trump in the intervening years did little to assuage the fears of those diametrically opposed to him in terms of his bombast and generally divisive attitude, he did seem to solidify his support base by essentially doing what he set out to do (whether a positive or not) while his foreign policy, often baffling, yielded several landmark deals involving Israel that could positively impact the Middle East in the long term, while dialogue has been taking place with North Korea that could lead to it opening up in future. The US economy seemed to be on the right track too heading into 2020. Pundits were suggesting that having finally brushed off Impeachment, he'd win fairly comfortably especially given his opponent.

Then Covid happened, and all that changed. Trump's handling of the pandemic has been widely criticised, which brought the election back into play. 

As for Biden, well there was very little overt enthusiasm for him, but nor was there the anger at him that there was towards Clinton. While there were fears both around his cognitive abilities and whether he was having his strings pulled by the far left of the party (as evidenced by his choice of running mate), these fears nor the fears around Trump weren't really enough to sway the vote decisively either way.

And that is perhaps the crux of the issue. The context is that the Democrats pushed, in these pandemic times, for voters to vote early by mail. The Republicans, who have generally treated the pandemic less seriously (many perhaps due to living in less densely populated areas), said this was a recipe for fraud and to therefore vote in person. This was then evidenced by the on-the-night counts themselves. Those states where mail in votes were counted immediately saw the Democrats leap out into the lead then be clawed back as in person votes started to be counted. And vice versa for those states where mail in votes weren't counted until after the in person votes. This meant that it was incredibly difficult to judge the mood on the night and to call winners, then the suspicious-looking stuff happened. There may well be a logical explanation for why Biden's totals in some states would leap up while Trump's totals stayed static (especially if this happened while people weren't actually counting votes, as is alleged), but if you've been drilled into thinking the vote was going to be rigged, seeing things like this would only reinforce that view.

Had there been clear evidence on the night that either Trump or Biden was heading towards a decisive victory, it would have been easy for one to be declared the winner and for the other to concede graciously (or as graciously as one might expect in certain quarters...!). However, the close races in key states have magnified the claims of voting impropriety, which means that nothing is done until everything is done. Furthermore, when looking "down ballot" at the results in the House, Senate, Governor and State legislature votes, which showed a generally strong Republican performance, Trump supporters have further ammunition (rightly or wrongly) to cry foul. How come Biden received so many votes that had absolutely no votes registered "down ballot"? This could be perfectly reasonable especially given a demographic who were said to be voting "against Trump", but suspicions remain and questions raised.

It is an embarrassment that one of the world's great democracies is having its name dragged through the mud, but so too is it embarrassing that people are trying to say "move along, nothing to see here". While I *totally* buy the idea that every (legal) vote should be counted, so too do I believe that if there is suspicious activity, it should be investigated. If it is investigated and found that a) there was nothing naughty, or b) there were pockets of activity but not enough to alter the result, then fine, let's get on and welcome Joe Biden as the 46th President after he won fair and square, and good luck to him.

Lest we forget, meanwhile, that the Democrats spent most of the Trump term questioning the 2016 result and generally refusing to accept Trump won by fair means. Another four years of suspicion, this time from the Trump side of the fence, would be counterproductive to the long-term political stability of the country - so like every vote being counted, so too should every suspicious vote pattern be investigated.

Lessons to be learnt

If future US elections are to have the increased postal voting engagement we saw in 2020 due to the pandemic, there needs to be a realignment of their voting system and restrictions. How votes are collected and counted needs to be put under the spotlight, with control perhaps shifting from State to Federal. Votes should be received by the time the polls in each state close, and votes should be counted in one go like they are in the UK. Voter registration should be verified more closely (no dead people!) with tighter controls on the issue of ballots (an estimated 100,000 incorrect ballots were sent out in New York, for example). There needs to be greater transparency at vote counts themselves. Using a common set of guidelines and principles will go a long way to ensuring there is less recourse to the courts to decide outcomes.

I'm sure that in the end everything will be resolved, and I'm sure also that the result will not be overturned by the various legal challenges by the Trump team. Hopefully in 2024 with two less divisive candidates/parties, and after a root and branch review of the voting system, we won't be left wondering beyond election day. Meanwhile we in the UK can continue to show the way to a gold(ish) standard election system.

Striking a Lockdown Balance

So, here we go again. As of Thursday, most of our daily life, such as it has been in recent months, will shut down again. The tiered system was given but weeks, only to be temporarily chucked out of the window. There are massive contrasts with how this has been received - polling suggests a clear majority of people in favour of locking down, while Labour were calling for it for the last couple of weeks - but there has been widespread anger and disbelief. A number of Conservative members have torn up their membership cards as a result, while the business community has largely reacted negatively.

The issues at hand are: has the right approach to dealing with Covid-19 been taken throughout; why apply a national lockdown to what appears to be a more localised problem; should we trust the numbers; what are the alternatives.

Now, as always I caveat things by saying that when it comes to the science, I'm only a short step away from "dunce" category (I do have an AS Level in Chemistry, but that's as far as it goes). Where I do possess an amount of expertise is in data analysis, but even then my expertise is more reactive than in forecasting (although I am in print predicting the 2008 recession when the official line was to deny it - yay me and Vince Cable). All I can do is look at the numbers, the regional variances and make inferences based on those.

Anyway, I digress. When cases started to increase once again, the government introduced their tiered system of localised measures. On the face of it, these were sensible and could account for local spikes being controlled, while allowing those in lower risk areas to continue in some sort of normality. There remained quibbles with some measures, such as the "Rule of 6", for example in why small children counted towards this figure where they haven't elsewhere. As a result, by dint of my sister very selfishly deciding to have another baby in February, we haven't been able to meet up due to now being seven between us. 

London then moved into Tier 2 a couple of weeks ago, which once again causes many beneath the surface issues. My wife had a rare night out with some friends planned, that had to be cancelled. One other issue remained for those living on the outer edge of London in that these rules could easily be circumnavigated. Last week my wife, daughter and I decided to treat ourselves to a Sunday roast at a pub owned by friends of ours. In chatting to our friend, she made the valid complaint that the Tier 2 restrictions meant they were losing custom to places on the other side of the zone, about a 10 minute drive away, because they weren't subjected to the same restrictions on who could sit and eat together.

The Numbers Game

The big question regarding the announcement on Saturday regarded the numbers being put before us, and gives rise to the suspicion that we may not have approached things well. A chart was presented by Messrs Whitty and Vallance that showed estimated death rates using a variety of models. The problem was the figures used to justify the lockdown came from Public Health England, whose forecast of around 4,000 deaths per day at its peak (without new measures) put all other figures massively in the shade - including those of Imperial, usually the benchmark for ultra-pessimistic predictions. When one model is shown to be massively out of step with other models, the usual approach is to treat this as an outlier, not the basis upon which to make political decisions. 

While there is no denying that the number of cases is increasing, as is the daily death rate (currently running at around the same level as in late May despite the figures at that time including "suspected" deaths rather than only "confirmed" as is the case now), there appears to be no basis currently whereby a figure of 4,000 deaths per day would be reached. I have no doubt the situation re: deaths will get (possibly a lot) worse before it gets better, but while deaths in the first wave hit a peak of around 1,000 deaths per day, I'd be interested to know how a figure of 4,000 per day was arrived at. 

Some have speculated that PHE went off outdated figures and had updated their model to be showing a peak closer to 1,000 - with further speculation that the 4,000 figure was kept for political expediency purposes (i.e. it's easier to justify draconian measures based off the higher number). If this turns out to be the case, then heads should roll, quite frankly.

A Question of Compliance

My fear is that this new lockdown may prove difficult to enforce. Back in March when the country first went into lockdown, the overwhelming majority felt that it was a necessary evil. Even though we as a country are used to being free to come and go as we please, there was a sense that "we're all in it together" and so people queued dutifully outside the shops, they gave each other a wide berth on the pavement, they didn't flout the regulations. Cracks did eventually begin to show, especially amongst the younger members of society who, perhaps fairly, thought themselves less at risk and therefore less justified in being locked up, but even then most people were compliant and were relieved when the country began to be opened up once more.

While snap polling indicated public support (even amongst Conservative voters) for this new lockdown, anecdotally this doesn't necessarily appear to be the case. Perhaps it's an echo chamber mentality, but the Conservative Facebook groups are in meltdown over this. Some have announced their resignation from the party, others continuing to support the party but not these measures. Several prominent Conservative MPs too have said they will not support the new lockdown, although with Sir Keir Starmer announcing he will support it, there's no danger of the measures not being approved.

As for the public, the contrast in the weather currently vs the first lockdown may instil an artificial sense of compliance as people tend to stay indoors more during bad weather - but had we been enjoying an Indian Summer I suspect compliance would have been a massive issue.

The Health of the Nation vs The Health of the People

A major battle of wills when dealing with this pandemic is about how to balance mitigating and controlling the virus with mitigating and controlling the damage to the economy and the overall health of the people. When the pandemic first hit, capacity in the NHS was given over mainly to handling patients with the virus, to the detriment of a number of other people dealing with their own serious health issues (both physical and mental). The damage to the economy was inevitable as the government sought to deal with businesses forced to close and people losing their jobs (or having their hours restricted). 

Businesses have struggled to get back to some sort of normality, only to be now told to close again. For many, this will have been the final straw, and with no end in sight will throw in the towel - causing further damage to the economy. Economic crises tend to exacerbate other issues around public health, giving rise to the very real concern that the cure is proving to be worse than the illness. If by saving 1,000 lives to the virus you cause 2,000 unnecessary deaths to other ailments (including suicide), where does it end?

The key remains how to exit entirely from the restrictions we find ourselves under - and of course the number one exit route remains the development of, and widespread implementation of, an effective vaccine. We keep being told that a vaccine is imminent, but how imminent is imminent? And how much longer can we put the economy on hold until it's in place? 

The Alternative?

The main alternative that has been mooted is to shield the vulnerable while allowing others to go about their business as normal. This is certainly not without its merits - it keeps the economy going, it accounts for the fact that most people can experience Covid without serious issues, and there's the possibility of some sort of herd immunity developing (although sadly it seems the antibodies fade over time, going by recently published research).

The issue I see with this is that you cannot imprison the vulnerable forever, and that their vulnerability to Covid could be outweighed by their vulnerability to other issues (physical and mental). My mother is considered to be highly vulnerable due to Diabetes (the result of an operation that removed most of her pancreas, and therefore destroyed her immune system) - fortunately she lives in a house in the middle of nowhere with a big garden and a swimming pool, so shielding isn't so much of an issue. However, she's a lucky one, others stuck in a bedsit or a care home alone may not be so lucky. 

If we could guarantee that those needing to shield would be guaranteed (rather than hoped for) a vaccine by Christmas, then I would say "go for it". However, it's my belief that the elderly and vulnerable need to be able to have some sort of life too, so I err on the side of mitigation rather than imprisonment.

In Conclusion

To conclude, overall I'm not in favour of this new lockdown - although I shall comply with the new restrictions, as I have done throughout the various degrees of restrictions imposed since March. My ambition back in March was to have some sort of Cricket season - the measures taken ensured that we got a half-season, for which I was so grateful. My ambition now is that we will be able to take part in our usual large family Christmas - and if these measures enable us to get together in Dorset, I will consider it to have been worthwhile. 

What we do need to do is ensure we can trust just *why* these measures are being put in place. Fiddling the figures for political expediency is not the way forward, and will only breed mistrust. While I appreciate the need to paint a worst case scenario, the worst case should be realistic, and there's little evidence to suggest this is the case.

We'll see over the coming weeks whether the new restrictions will have a lasting effect on case and death numbers, but in my opinion it's fine to remain sceptical, whether that it is about whether these restrictions are necessary or whether these restrictions will solve the issue.

Let He Who is Without Sin...

I have been watching the events of the past couple of weeks with an increasing sense of bewilderment. Having been quite badly ill with what turned out to be vertigo caused by a fluid imbalance in my ears and which caused my blood pressure to rocket, my attempts to find a calming oasis have been shattered by what has gone on.

Let's start by saying the global pandemic, the likes of which we haven't seen for almost exactly 100 years, has caused a lot of angst and anxiety the world over. People are scared for their lives and their livelihoods, which creates a powder keg situation where a slight spark will ignite it and bring tensions to the surface. That spark happened in Minneapolis with the killing of black man George Floyd by white policeman Derek Chauvin. There's no denying it was a horrific and senseless killing which, captured on film, showed police brutality at its fatal worst. Much is said of Floyd's criminal past and possible other factors, but that's irrelevant - once restraint is achieved that should be the end of it, the suspect should then be immobilised by other means - handcuffing, being placed in the police vehicle. Not murdered.

That this happened at all is shocking and a terrible indictment on civilised society and rightfully causes outrage - I get that. But why now, when sadly this isn't the first (nor likely the last) time that a civilian has been killed unlawfully by the police, and why the global reaction? As I said before, we're living in a powder keg situation right now, and this was it - the spark to ignite violent retribution. Protests have taken place all over the world, London especially has been a focal point of protests outside the US. Celebrities have spoken out, the sports pages (devoid of any actual sport to report) have been filled with punch and counter-punch, while companies have fallen over themselves to out-outrage each other.

It is obvious now that we have reached tipping point when it comes to respect for the law and authority, and the approach law enforcement agencies need to take. Respect is, however, a two-way street. If you are (rightly) to condemn police brutality, so must you also condemn brutality against innocent police officers who are just doing their job. In London over 40 police officers have been injured during protests (which the BBC prefaced as "largely peaceful" in their headline), while I hope all but a twisted view found the footage of the bicycle being thrown at a police horse nauseating. In the USA at time of writing four black police officers (one a 77 year old retired chief killed when answering an alarm about the looting of a pawn shop) have been killed by protestors with no outpouring of grief and anger that I've seen from those who have been most vocal about Floyd's killing. Do these black lives not matter because they were in uniform?

And therein lies part of the problem. While I have no doubt the overwhelming majority breaking virus restrictions to protest in the past week or so have honourable intentions and a genuine desire to see complete equity of treatment, there is an undercurrent of anti-authority anarchism behind it. Note the banners being waved about with their Socialist Worker font. And note also the stated aims of the Black Lives Matter movement, the starkest of which is to "defund the police". How many people who peacefully protested over the past week realised they were protesting under an umbrella banner of an organisation whose stated aim is to abolish the police? How many of the companies, celebrities and sportsmen who have donated huge sums to Black Lives Matter knowing that this is their ultimate goal? What alternative do Black Lives Matter suggest in order to maintain law and order on our streets?

My final word on this particular subject concerns celebrity reaction, which has been powerful but at times counter-productive. I have no reason to doubt Jermain Defoe when he says he has been stopped by police frequently because he's a black man driving a Ferrari - and this is clearly something in police behaviour that needs to change - if officers are genuinely stopping people purely because they think a black man driving a Ferrari clearly equals criminal, then that is outrageous.

However, you have things like ESPN NBA reporter Chris Palmer, who tweeted his support for burning down a building (which turned out to be a housing project development aimed at the poorest in society) then changed his tune when the gated community next to his was targeted. Nice NIMBYism there.

And then there's Anthony Joshua. I have enormous respect for Joshua as someone who spectacularly turned his life around from teenage criminal to world champion boxer. He is a living embodiment of what a young black man can achieve if he gets his head down and focuses his energy into positive action. He could have spoken out with a positive message about engagement, co-operation and mutual trust being developed to aid relations. However, instead he saw fit to deliver a speech at a protest fomenting a form of Apartheid by imploring black people to only buy from black businesses. His get out was that it wasn't his speech but he was speaking on behalf of someone who was unable to attend, but the fact is he said the words. What a wasted opportunity.

The moment we compartmentalise, the battle is lost, and this is where this whole thing mirrors a society that is determined to compartmentalise. The phrase "cultural appropriation" is something I'd ban were I in charge as it is something that is completely meaningless. People have been taking ideas from other cultures since the dawn of time, it's part of what enriches the planet and encourages the melting pot that is an admirable aspiration. So Jamie Oliver has launched a ready meal based on a jerk recipe? So flipping what! So a celebrity dares to wear a Chinese-style dress? Big flipping deal! So someone decides to braid their hair? Wow, call the thought police! What next - the banning of Spaghetti Bolognese unless you serve exactly the ingredients of the original recipe? The banning of white people playing rock music because it originated in black culture?

No, instead of compartmentalising cultures and banning others from utilising yours, celebrate the fact that someone else feels so inspired by your culture that they wish to adapt it for themselves. Imitation and flattery, you get it, right?

Anyway, the further attempt at subversion has emerged in recent days with attempts to airbrush history through the vandalism (and in one case, the removal) of monuments to historical figures. We'll ignore the lame-brained vandalism of the statue of Abraham Lincoln (you know, the guy whose desire to end slavery caused the US Civil War and his own assassination), a worrying movement has sprung up dedicated to erasing most of the UK's monuments if the person being commemorated ever said or did anything contrary to today's standards.

Churchill has been a target for a few years - there's no denying that beneath the surface he was a bit of a wrong 'un. A heavy drinker, quite an unpleasant character with views that wouldn't be tolerated today. However, when it came to defeating the ultimate racist, who murdered several million of his own people because they didn't conform to his standards of what constituted human civilisation, Churchill came to the fore to protect this country, and should be celebrated in this manner. This doesn't mean people shouldn't denounce his bad side, I get that, but that's no reason to vandalise his statue or call for its removal.

The argument for removing the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol on Sunday was "but he was a slave trader" - yes, I get that, but at what point is his statue commemorating this fact? The simple truth is, if you were a trader in a port city in that era, particularly Bristol and Liverpool which served as prime ports for imports from the "new world" and Africa, chances are one of the items you'd be trading, alongside raw materials, foodstuffs and tobacco, would be slaves. This may seem unpalatable now, and rightly so, but again this is to judge people of yesterday by today's standards. While a small part of his trade wealth was from the buying of slaves from black slave masters, he more than put back into the city of my alma mater through his philanthropy. And it is this philanthropy that means Colston's name is forever connected positively with the development of the city.

And it has spread like wildfire. I admire the brass tack of Ntokozo Qwabe, the UK leader of the "Rhodes Must Fall" movement, in what's a brilliant piece of "biting the hand that feeds" - Qwabe himself got into Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. So here we have someone who clearly feels that strongly about Sir Cecil Rhodes that he wants him airbrushed from history, yet was happy to take his money and study at the university which hosts the people whose education was paid out of his pocket.

While there are arguments surrounding why there's a statue of Mahatma Gandhi in London, he's now on the hitlist because he, in common with much of science in the early 1900s, was a proponent of eugenics. We'll forget his other stuff, like his non-violent battle to gain independence for India.

And the hits just keep coming. Thomas Guy, you know, he of Guy's Hospital. Sir Robert Peel, a great reforming Prime Minister who did so much to improve lives for the poorest at a time when they were disenfranchised - which ultimately cost him his career when he repealed the Corn Laws. But not noted anti-Semite Karl Marx. Funny that. How about Joseph Rowntree?

The spread continues to popular culture - the BBC has announced it has pulled Little Britain from its on demand services. Why? Because one of their recurring sketches featured some racists and at times Messrs Lucas and Walliams might have blacked up. As usual, this spectacularly misses the point. When people laughed at the racist sketch (and I'm sure some did - I didn't but that's because I considered that sketch to be simply unfunny), they were laughing about the fact these people were so prejudiced, not agreeing with them. Likewise back in the day there was Alf Garnett - it was always important to note that he was someone to be laughed at, not with, and that Garnett's prejudices always came back to haunt him and make him out to be the monster.

Anyway, if you've reached the end of my diatribe, congratulations. If you can take away anything from this, I'd hope it's to take a deep breath, step back, survey the situation, celebrate our history and heritage while being mindful of the fact that we live in different and more enlightened times - at least on the surface (modern slavery is very much a thing in a number of cultures). If you search for the bad in every historical figure, you'll find it, but if they're overall on the right side of the ledger, celebrate this. Respect authority and expect respect back. Be colourblind, don't compartmentalise by seeking to create artificial divides. Celebrate diversity but don't denigrate those who seek to celebrate yours.