Post Brexit Actions

We are many of us grieving - but we have a duty to keep our grieve brief and move in to action. I am not the only person to compile a list of possible actions - nor is this exhaustive. But hear are my thoughts for what they are worth. Pleas do add suggestions in comments section or links to other good ideas. 

• Reach out to comfort people - send texts, flowers love to those who might be feeling scared and depressed.

• Reach out to listen to people - Regardless of how you voted and very especially if your white. We need to understand what racism is. It is no longer sufficient to say you are not racist. We live in a racist system we need to learn about it and how it impacts on the lives of people of coulor. Ask friends what it means to live in a white supremacist world. Read alternative media. Great start is Media Diversified.

• Reach out to confront people - Friend or family says something racist? How are you going to respond? Practice those conversations now before you need to have them. Have you historically missed opportunities? How can you do it better next time?

• Take action. Wear a safety pin if you will but it is no longer sufficient to say you are not a racists. You now need to be an anti-racist. You need to take action. Find local community groups join. Go to rallies. Fall in behind the leadership of migrant communities and people of color.

• Join a trade union

• Join a political party - I have my biases (Labor) but  if your a person of peace and integrity - get involved. I want to see Labor under Jeremy Corbyn do well but I want to see the Lib Dems do well, I want to see the Greens do well and Plaid. 

• Join a local community group working to relief the worst of austerity politics.

• Read- My suggestion for post brexit reading is hooks 'All about Love' and Freire 'Pedagogy of Freedom'. Add your suggestions bellow.

• Reflect how you talk to children - if you have any formative nurturing contact with children - teacher, parent, aunt how are you going to talk to them about whats happening. Many of them are scared and confused.

• Action- Reflection-Action-Reflection keep going to grow.

• Pray

Islamiphobia, miss-directed anger and the borders that need closing.

The following is a collection of more or less collected thoughts

I am deeply disturbed that the Tories perceive that an islamaphobic attack on Sadiq Khan is a winning strategy in London. In the London I know it will back fire. But there are many Londons.

The strategy seems to have even unified Boris and Cameron.

It is a politics of fear and we deserve a politics of hope.

Whizzing round my twitter feed is the question #whereisthetaxzac?

Creeping into my Facebook page from a number of unexpected corners is 'close the borders'!

Lets pause for a moment of reflection on the monarchs 90th Birthday.

Which group of people by their actions restrict your access to resources, increase and guard their own, drive up the house prices where you live so you are forced to move, contribute little and take much? hand that wealth down to their children who they keep separate and away from everyone else, who do not integrate, don't ride the bus or use local schools? you get where I am going right?

It's cliche but when you point the finger there are four pointing right back at you. Not only have many Tory MP's including Zac Goldsmith shared a platform with the Imam Khan is meant to be ashamed to associate with but a succession of British politicians and our dear monarchy have some very worrying relationships with the powers in Saudi Arabia. 

The problem is not where the fingers point but where they eyes look. Upper class white man points we dutifully follow the finger. Anyone who is not a ruling white man pointing at a ruling white man and our eyes follow the 4 fingers pointing backwards.

Vote Sadiq Khan because London deserves a politics of Hope. We are losing our homes, our schools are being taken away from our local control, our communities are being torn apart and our city will end up desolate and absolutely NOT because of the 'them' we our so afraid of but because of the them who have lived among us for millenia.

I was out canvasing once and we knocked on a woman's door she lived in a house at the edge of a council estate opposite her were some very posh islington houses at a guess 5 - 7 big bedrooms. She assured us she was a life long labour supporter. She was very angry that her daughter could not get a house in islington. the direction of her anger - the woman living next door recently arrived in the country with her children all sleeping 9 to a room. Lift your eyes over the road- there is your reason islington residents can't get islington houses, there are the people who have fundamentally changed the nature of islington and there are the people with spare rooms.

Yes the people over the road may use language in a way that is similar to you, and cook food that you can name and recognize but you sit down at the table with each of these neighbours and you will find you have more common concern with the one next door than the one over the road. That is why the media spend so much time telling you to hate your neighbor, because by the way the media is owned by the people over the road as well. Though they don't want you in there house, they are just trying to make sure you don't notice that they took it from the common good for their personal gain.

My grandparents met in a chaple where they went to worship in their native language, my children are now 4th generation Londoners. That language and culture have in the past been silenced and attacked by the policies and legislation of English governments. (The language is welsh). But London being London provided a community and home. The chaple where they met is now an Ethiopian Chaple. That is my London, that's the london I want to live in.

The Queen who I understand to be very popular is the head of state for 16 different countries (and thats not counting the gaelic nations separately). So before we shout shut our borders can we just consider our historic respect, or lack thereof, of borders?

There are however some borders I would suggest we shut down. Shut down the borders to Non-Dom's if they don't live here they don't live here. Shut the borders to offshore accounts. Shut down Islamophobia, Misogyny, racism. Shut down Capitalism (okay now I've lost half of you!)

Salaam Shalom Peace Heddwch

Natural Frequency

You may write me down in History with your bitter twisted lies

You may trod me in the very dirt 

but still like dust I'll rise

I am leaving my job to become a physics teacher, tangent I know but the resultent force of wanting more training and previous life as a scientist. Having not left work yet but starting to swat up I am coming up with some brilliant (if I do say so myself) Physics/politics mash-ups!

Preiviously I have written about Political Red Shift  and made some comments about our need for an Einstien like logic and imagination. This week I have been thinking about Maya Angelou, Corbyn and Natural Frequency.

So you know on cartoons where people sing and shatter glass, or do you know that marching soldiers break step to cross a bridge incase it breaks. Both of these effects are caused by the fact that matterials have a 'natural frequency' that is the particles vibrate at a certain frequency and if they are hit with a wave of the same frequency they start oscillating in a supper excited fasion to the point that the system shaters! (I'm not sure I've got Physics write there!)

However do watch this:

That's the power of something hitting a structures natural frequency. Why almost every time I do a workshop and hand people a range of poetry is it 'Still I rise' that is read out. Why is it every time I hear it read it sends chills down my spine. Why do so many women I have worked with having read it once carry it with them everywhere they go. Because it hits our natural frequency. And when something hits our natural frequency we begin to oscillate and the system we are emeshed in starts to  strain, the edifice that is Patriarchy starts to crack, and will, as long as we continue having that natural frequency input, fall crashing down and we will be free little molecules.

Why is Jeremy Corbyn's campaign gathering so much momentum and energy. Why is it causing such anxiety to the structures around it? Natural frequency. 

What Poem/Song/Political speach hits your natural frequency? leave me a note bellow

Imagining #JezWeCan

'Imagination is more important than knowledge'

'Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.'

Albert Einstein

'Can you imagine Jeremy Corbyn on the front bench? Can you imagine Jeremy Corbyn at the dispatch box? Can you imagine Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister?'

I feel my imagination is under continuous question? But I'm afraid my self assured imagination has suffered no dent in it's own assurance, it has just been temporarily quietened while trying to workout how to gently and respectful suggest that the problem may be located in the imagination of the questioner.

Yes I can imagine all those things and whats more my rather fertile imagination generally floats around in a much wilder place that I am not going to share here.

But everybody thinks differently and that neurodiversity makes us stronger as a collective. So while I am generally more challenged by the A to B bit, even walking the wrong way home on occasion due to absorption in my own thoughts, I am mighty glad the world contains people good at getting from A to B.

The thing is is that it doesn't actually take much imagination to think of Corbyn as leader. Imagination may help you jump straight there but logic can get you there too and its important we make the journey both ways. 

So here's the logic:

Corbyn's Policies are popular with the electorate.

He is unlikely to be divisive given his history of trying to facilitate talks between opposing groups. He has suggested an elected cabinet and acknowledged that Labor is a broad church and would be willing to listen to a diversity of views. This is in contrast to the behavior and tactics of some other politicians recently.

All of his policies including unilateral disarmament have been successfully implemented in other countries.The vast majority of the criticism hurled at him is dependent on character assassination, mockery and derision of him and a large proportion of Labour party membership - that should tell you something. 

Lastly - look at the wrinkles where are Corbyns wrinkle marks - round his eyes they are the signature of a life of sincerity and smiles. 

Good Housekeeping - What I've learnt from the budget

Learning from the wisdom of the budget my husband and I have sat down and reviewed our household income. We thought it would be helpful to share some of our thoughts so that other people can also apply the chancellors excellent approach to finances to their own personal circumstances.

The child we were fostering has to go. Though this child has been with us three years we have come to see the lack of wisdom in times of austerity of supporting such scroungers. We are sure if she just tried a little harder he could sort out her parents break down or alternatively support herself with a job I mean if she doesn't put any effort into supporting herself then we can't keep propping her up. Plus we just don't have the room anymore the recession has made our house magically shrink.

We may get another lodger. Our current lodger is great and we really need to let him know how much we appreciate him. We are going to invite him to dinner and reduce his rent as a way of thanking him for paying 30% of his rent intermittently. We hope that keeps him happy because we really couldn't afford for him to move out. Plus we lent him several thousand pounds of our savings and if he moves out we might not get it back so we really need to make sure he stay's cause that was meant to be for the kids uni fees. 

We've cut the kids pocket money - there just isn't any room for that at the moment. We've also asked Granny if she could start doing the childcare while were at work because we can't afford nursery fees and Granny loves the kids so I'm sure she'd be happy to do it for free. Then we can go to work for more hours.

We have a family holiday coming up, to keep costs low we're going to leave the kids behind - they don't really need a holiday. We've had a look at what we could sell off and cut out. We don't want to cancel the golf club memberships or stop hosting dinner parties for our richest friends. We do think though we could put the kids on a diet of gruel. They need to stop eating so much of that junk food and piles of sugar they've been consuming anyway, we have told them repeatedly but they keep on eating what's in the cupboard. 

Also they haven't really been contributing much we might send them a bill for their toys, oh and tax them for our efforts in helping keeping the toys safe. Also I think the third one will just have to go, last in first out. 

If we keep making these right choices we should be able to run a surplus by 3010. We are anticipating some resistance from the children so we are going to make sure they hear us ask the lodger to make sure he please pays the rent. We'll let the lodger know beforehand though because we really mustn't lose him it would be so hard to find another lodger I mean there are just so few people looking for accommodation.

There is a Choice: Jeremy for Labor Leader #Jezwecan

Political Red Shift

In case you missed it I am incredibly excited about Jeremy Corbyn's Labor Leadership bid and that at the very least we have someone publicly and repeatedly getting the airtime to refute the austerity myth. I am not the only one there is a growing movement of people who are beginning to glimmer some hope and I think Jeremy Corbyn will do better than many people originally predicted.

The media reporting and general public perception of the anti-austerity movement is much more dismissive and mocking than history will be. The reality is that the idea's that Jeremy and the wider movement he listens to and dialogs with, are not extreme or overly ideological. Mostly they are not knew ideas mostly they are things that our society at some point has accepted as sensible. 

So why do so many people perceive this movement as so much 'lefter' or 'redder' than it actually is? I think the stars can help us answer this.

Red Shift is the name for the phenomenon that describes why some stars look red. When we look at stars that are moving away from us (or we are moving away from them) the light coming from them, which we know should be a yellow color, looks red. This is because the wavelength appears to look longer because the objects are moving away from each other. It's the same reason that when a police car goes past you the siren sounds with a lower pitch as it drives away from you. 

I think we have a similar situation in european politics. The right are moving to the right and arguably with increasing velocity. We find ourselves on this moving object and as we look out at alternative galaxies we our not conscious of our own position or relative direction through the political universe. As we look out at alternative galaxies many of them, that in reality have been more constant than we ever have, appear to be getting increasingly red. 

Political Doppler effect or Political Red Shift (n.): the means by which the political left appears far left because of the speed with which the right is moving far right. 

At Risk of Significant Harm

On Friday the Guardian reported that the Department of Education is consulting on privatising children's services including Child Protection. I am not sleeping so well.

Now the bottom line of privatisation is that individuals will profit financially. Personally I'd like to re-nationalise everything, however I feel there is a very fundamental difference between privatising services such as the railway and privatising public services. There are private sector companies already running sexual assault referral centers, just pause on that a moment shareholders are therefore making money because rape exists. If you privatise Child Protection...

If the consultation is a consultation maybe I don't have to worry as the companies likely to be involved are massively unpopular. But as a letter from senior social workers said 'We are very concerned that the government consultation, launched with a very short period of only six weeks,'

The companies who are likely to bid for these services include some currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. The Howard League have done a good job of summarising some of the appalling things that have happened under their watch you can read them hear.

Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on Local Authorities to investigate and  make inquiries into the circumstances of children considered to be at risk of ‘significant harm’. Privatising out Child Protection particularly to the likes of G4S and Serco will on the balance of probability be putting our children at risk of significant harm.

A parent who left their child in the care of someone they new to have a track record of abuse, or who did not provide their child with enough food, or who deliberately let them watch porn would probably find their children where subject to a child protection plan.

The government however is concidering handing over its children to the watch of capitalists, 
has cut support to in and out of work families to the extent that many cannot afford to provide their children with the basics, and are ok with page 3. 

You can sign a petition set up by Children and Families England here and you can respond to the consultation by 30th May.

And if anyone can think of a creative way were we can make a referral to social services for all children because of a risk posed by the state or the media (without causeing them havoc cause they are massively overworked) then your brain has got there before mine. 

The Center for Victim Blamming

I generally try to avoid any contact with the Center for Social Justice because the shear force of its victim blaming, patronising and fact denying seems to overwhelming to counter. I'm often left totally unsure where to start and feel it needs someone with a greater insight to write about it.

However this is my blog and one of its main functions is for me to spit and his about things that annoy me without forcing anyone to listen. So here is me setting out some of my main concerns with the CSJ.

1. The Appropriation of the term Social Justice

Social Justice means something. As a blog form the CSJ points out the concept of Social Justice 'has long been owned by those on the left' and adds 'of British politics'. Social Justice is a concept that is both ancient and global it doesn't belong to Britain but has in the main belonged to progressives. Now that doesn't mean people on the right have nothing to contribute but what is most helpful in debate is for people to critique views they don't agree with and present alternative arguments. What the CSJ has done is simply come up with their own understanding of social justice and then act as though it is the dominant understanding.

2. Lack of clarity and transparency

The CSJ describes itself as independent, the BBC often describes it as right leaning which is far more accurate though I think still not the whole picture. I don't understand why it doesn't formalise and declare its exact link to the conservative party. The Fabian society for example clearly describes itself as being affiliated to the Labour Party. Why couldn't the CSJ do an equivalent? 

The second transparency issue is the lack of definition of Social Justice as a concept. Given that they are clearly using an understanding different from the most commonly held agreed understandings it would be very useful if they could define what they mean.

3. Policy Suggestions or Research 

I asked this question specifically in regards to the Girls and Gangs report. I was told it was research and given an answer about methodology but that answer only really addressed data collection not how it was coded or analysed. You can ask front line workers, but how you collate and interpret what they say can impact massively on the final message.

4. Origins of Poverty

Though its never directly stated my impression of the overarching narrative of CSJ is that the cause of poverty is decision and behaviors made by poor people themselves. Though they acknowledge the cyclical nature of things they consistently refer to social breakdown as causing poverty while most Social Justice activists would see poverty and inequality as the cause for social breakdown. Infact I find much of their narrative victim blaming. They state that:

'Social justice is not achieved by focussing on the poverty line or tweaking the benefits budget.  Instead, it requires unleashing the work of change in people’s lives to create in them opportunities and hopes for the future, as well as a level playing field for positive choices.'

In this framework we must work to persaude or punitively pursue people to change themselves because they are the origin of the problem. They are responsible not only for their own poverty and inequality but also for the fact that they don't experience life as a level playing-field. If only they were better and more um I don't know 'like us'. 

The reality is that we live in a desperately unequal society where wealth, resources, voice and power are more and more exclusively in the hands of the minority. The cause of poverty quiet frankly is wealth. 

None of this would concern me so much if a.) they where more upfront about their underlying assumptions and b.) I didn't have the sneaky suspicion they where hugely influential. I've decided I am going to watch the CSJ more closely. 
Here are some other articles I found that are much more eloquent: 


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/tory-vilification-poor-child-poverty

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/duncan-smith-poverty-benefit-sanctions-easterhouse

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/manufacturing_ignorance_the_centre_for_social_justice_and_welfare_reform_in

Childcare - some Mummy suggestions.

My heart lifted as I heard Ed Balls announce labour would commit to 25 hours of free childcare, while I stood at the Fabian conference bouncing up and down trying to keep my baby asleep. Immediately I wanted to know from what age. I got chatting latter to a woman next to me about the complications of having a family and working. We both agreed we wanted more than a commitment to 25 hours free childcare (from I suspect 3 years) we wanted a comprehensive set of policies that would support families in work and address the competition so many people experience between caring responsibilities and paid employment.

In the lunchtime session with the Fabian Women’s society someone pointed out that the disproportionate effect of the cuts on women had not been mentioned in the main meetings so far and that we needed to mainstream feminist politics. I nearly shouted amen before remembering where I was and giving a polite clap instead. Another point made elsewhere was the rampant nature of individualism and the need to articulate the benefits of collectivist action.

I wonder if these two things contribute significantly to the lack of value we place on caring and nurturing those who are dependent on others. This lack of value strikes me as odd since every single one of us has at some point in our lives been entirely dependent on others. However much people have made their own way and their own money there was a point in their life where they were unable to do anything and would have died had not someone lifted them to bottle or breast. And for most of us there will come again a time where we are greatly dependent on the care of others. I think there is a great opportunity for Labour to fill the gap and come up with a comprehensive set of policies that value family.

Now the phrase ‘valuing family’ from a Christian is going to send many people into a state of panic and with good reason. But rather than shying away from discussing it let’s meet the challenge with a deeper solution than the right can offer.

Firstly my Christian and socialist world I understand family in much broader terms than the ‘traditional’ right view. I put traditional in quotation marks because I’m not sure the nuclear family is all that traditional. Since complete dependence is such a universal  experience lets value it and celebrate it.

So in my nappy changing buggy pushing day dreaming a comprehensive set of policies would look something like this:

·       Joined up thinking from birth to school. At the moment you have to go back to work at year 1 free childcare kicks in at 3 or sometimes 2 what are you meant to do in between.

A universally available community service allowance. This would be an increase of your tax free allowance dependent on you doing at least 5 hours of community service a week. Parents would automatically be entitled and could nominate one other person (relative or friend) who also cares for their child for free for at least 5 hours a week.  Where only one person has parental responsibility for the child they will be able to nominate 2 other people. Adults in need of additional support would also be able to nominate individuals to receive this tax free allowance. People who gave 5 hours a week of their time to a voluntary organisation could get a simple form stamped by the voluntary agency, which they give to their payroll department to receive the tax free allowance. This would be a great answer to the announcement of giving married/civil partners a tax break. Mostly couples save by economies of scale so we must reply with something fairer and deeper.

Childcare vouchers should be changed from a weekly rate to an hourly rate and should be generously set so as to cover at least 80% of likely childcare costs. This would stop it from becoming more expensive to work more hours and allow parents to decide how much to work based on the needs of the child and family. The amount of childcare vouchers available should be increased between the ages of one and three rather than at present where you can get the same for a 3 and 15 year old.

Deal with the lack of nursery places. Deal with term time only issue.

People and companies should be actively dissuaded from people working regularly weeks over 40 hours.  If you’re doing 70 hours someone is missing you and your doing 2 peoples job. If you are just earning enough you are being exploited if you are earning lots per hour than you are also taking someone else salary. 

All jobs should be advertised as optional number of hours unless there is very good reason why the job cannot be done by several people. People should be able to state on application how many hours they wish to do. The selected candidate will get the hours they requested and the next best candidate offered what is left ect.

Workplaces should where reasonably possible be required to make provision for parents to bring infants under one into work. (Most babies are very amiable and it’s a time many parents could work)

These are just a few thoughts after 31/2 years of juggling babies, volunteering and work. They all need thrashing out but are enough I think to provide a little hope that the left could offer something radical and deep that not only would help parents but change the way we value one another and engage with society. 

Ask the Left questions

'Just because someone was born and raised in Islington does it give them the right to have housing in Islington?'

This question through me slightly it was one of those situations where I felt unease in my gut but have taken a number of weeks to ponder it and unearth the exact reason for my unease.

Islington's house prices are staggering and rents rocket along with them. Overcrowding, poor quality accommodation, isolation and families being moved out of the borough are common problems. There are 1.3 jobs for every resident in Islington yet as a borough we have higher than national average unemployment. It is a borough of huge inequalities.

And the question being asked by someone on the left is loaded in a way that requires the poor to justify themselves. And there is reason for that. It was one incident that got me thinking but it was reflective of a theme. The dominant questions being asked are in the main being asked by the right. But should we be asking them or attempting to answer them at all? When I look at the housing problems in Islington I see a whole load of questions that have been left out of the asking. 

Lets stop answering the rights questions with long convoluted arguments that are straining to move the discussion leftwards at glacial pace -lets just ask the left out questions. Like should a small group of people with no long term commitment to an area be aloud to extract profit from its housing market, contribute nothing to the local community and move out leaving a greater number of its local residents in poverty? 

Perhaps many of us who like to consider ourselves leftist activists cant confront theses things and ask those questions until we have come to turns with our own hypocrisy. I live in an ex-local that I own. 

Perhaps neo-liberalism and capitalism has won out so much that only the fringes and outliers will ever be brave enough to ask questions about private ownership but I hope not. I hope questions about who has the right to own resources and space will become mainstream. Asking the questions doesn't mean we have to offer the answers of the past but it does acknowledge they where good questions to ask.

A New Year

Inspired by Hannah Mudge's blog here are some reflections and some looking forward to 2014.

2013 was an odd year. I was mostly pregnant which drained me of energy. Life was pretty stressful for a number of reasons and mostly I was glad to see the back of it. It did have some redeeming features, a new baby and some fabulous lodgers. Like Hannah I also found little time to write and when I did found myself getting into probably pointless discussions about gender differences.

2014 feels like a very new year and I am getting increasingly energetic about it. There is so much to be done. 

Today I began to read the news again - depressing. 

First thing I read yet another suggestion we are in danger of heading to a police state. 

Then for one reason or another I ended up on the Center For Social Justice Website which caused me to become so irritated I overcame years of deliberating and waiting for them to swing to the left and joined the labor party.

So first blog of the year, hear are my thoughts on the Center for Social Justice. I am too depressed to deal with 'ipnas'.

Center for Social Justice - sounds like the sort of thing I should love. I do not I find it incredibly problematic. 

My first problem is its name. Social Justice means something in common understanding. the Center has taken the phrase and appropriated it for their own purpose. Social Justice in most people's understanding, would involve changing the social structures in which people are oppressed. 

CSJ narrative seems to be that social breakdown causes poverty. Reading between the lines would suggest they think people chose to be poor. Most social justice activists and organisations would probably argue that poverty caused by economic inequality causes much 'social breakdown'.

I could get over all this if the they described  themselves as a right of center think tank on social issues. But they don't they describe themselves as 'independent'. They have pictures of Cameron all over their website and most crucially they were set up by Ian Duncan Smith. Are they really trying to convince me they are free to critique government policy? All this explains the 'social breakdown' rhetoric though.

Bllur!!!

Then I read that Cameron's barber got given an MBE. 

I imagine I will be blogging quiet a lot of grump this year and hopefully seeing some collectivist action against ridiculousness.  

I was given a red beret for Christmas. Wearing it definitely makes me feel revolutionary. To the non-violent resistant barricade and lets all get an ipnas. 

The Wonderful Co-op.

Co-op are not going to be stocking a number of exploitative magazines aimed at a manipulative and patronising construct of masculinity (my rather long winded avoidance of saying 'lad's mag's!). 

Wahooo!!!!

This is because those companies have refused to provide said magazines in sealed bags which would prevent people being able to see the content unless they actively wanted to and bought them. (Unfortunate that these have been referred to as 'modesty wraps')

The wonderful wonderful thing about this is that no one can call this censorship - it is not. The Co-op is, well a co-operative, and has a membership, a membership today I am very proud to be part of. This decision is a response to listing to that membership. Democracy at work. 

The publishers where given a choice and they made a decision, a decision I would imagine might bring the co-op many more customers and members. 

What I love about what's happened at the Co-op is that it demonstrates how alternative business structures bypass the debates other organisations will inevitably get tangled up in: Freedom of speech (aka I want to wank to whatever I like) vs. the right to live free of oppression and intimidation, everyone needs to be free to chose and we can't possibly do anything to effect our profit margins, etc, etc.

Members of the co-op said um actually no we don't like it so it's going - simple.

I suspect though that the co-op will be miss-understood and accused of censorship. Just as David Cameron fundamentally misunderstood the point of the 'No More Page 3 Campaign' . There seems to be a disconnect between campaigners using collective voicing of issues to challenge and change attitudes and practices and those who should understand democracy and the democratic process seeing calls for censorship everywhere.

There is a co-operative alternative to capitalism. 

Food glorious food.

Of course its more expensive to eat healthily than to eat rubbish. Anyone who has to do any sort of budgeting would know this. 

Also lets think of the advantages of eating healthily. You feel fitter, stronger, are more productive, happier. Why on earth would the current capitalist system want to encourage that? There are so many advantages to keeping the poor depressed, miserable and lacking the energy to fight.

Cooking food from the raw ingredients rather than pre-made tins, jars and microwave meals containing who knows what, is also time expensive. A family on a low income working all the hours sent on pitiful wages that have to be subsidised by the state, also lack the time to cook. They don't have 30 minutes and quiet frankly I have never cooked a 30 minute recipe in 30 minutes.

The parents who wonder home to a cleaner cleaned house, who's kids have been picked up from school by the paid for childcare arrangements,  rather than having to juggle favors between friends, have time to cook with ingredients most people have never heard of, picked in some far off countries by other people's children. 

Fresh fruit and veg is incredibly expensive it is much cheaper to fill your shopping basket with crisps. The farmers are all struggling though so who is getting all that money? But also could I be so bold as to suggest that if fruit and veg where properly affordable the rich wouldn't eat it? 

The state of meat we eat makes me want to cry. What we do to animals and what we put in our own bodies doesn't bear thinking about. Good sustaining meat is really really not cheap or affordable or available in your local supermarket.

Another observation I am sure I am not the only one who has made, is that a large number of people have become incredibly anxious about what they eat. This has lead me to the conclusion that there is a difference between healthy eating and eating healthily. Collective food anxiety has been fueled I would dare to say deliberately by those with a vested interest in selling gym membership, dieting foods, and an entire industry directed at making us 'healthy'. The actual aim of all these industries  obviously is to make money so keeping you in a state of constant paranoia about what you put in your mouth is good business for them. People who eat healthily are very few and far between.

A critique of what we eat and who eats what is desperately desperately needed. But focusing the blame or 'not being judgmental' questions at the "choices" of individuals is not going to take us very far forward. We need to ask questions of the structures people find themselves in, the choices they find themselves facing with regard to what they eat. 

Lets ask these sort of questions http://www.sustainweb.org/childrensfoodcampaign/our_campaigns/

British bank notes - Gender and class politics played out

Pride, Not Prejudice, we did it! 35K signed on @UKChange & @bankofengland will put a woman on banknotes http://ow.ly/i/2GVq6 

Is filling me twitter feed. Is it only me who feels a little deflated by this. Yes we have kept a woman on a bank note and the swap will happen at the same time as losing Elizabeth Fry from the £5. But lets be careful not to confuse a woman on a bank note with women on bank notes. There are 4 notes are there not and will still only be one woman (aside from the Queen). 

I did sign the campaign and am incredibly relieved that women have not been lost altogether and grateful to those women who tirelessly led the campaign at great cost to themselves, but at most this represents a stalling if not a slight regression and certainly not progress. Elizabeth Fry was an activist and reformer who called out abuse and exposed oppression. Jane Austin wrote love stories, which however subversive or radical they might have been at the time probably represent a message to women today to conform to a worldview that regards achieving matrimonial bliss and securing Mr Darcy and his large house as women's primary goal in life.

I am more interested in the outcomes of a review of selection policy which has also been announced and how that policy is implemented.  Currently the criteria requires that candidates be uncontroversial but Churchill made it through. How can anyone do anything significant and not be controversial? Churchill wasn't just the PM during the second world war he also fiercely opposed Indian independence and was no friend to women's suffrage, hardly. It is his memory which is supposedly uncontroversial not him himself.

Is it only me who in this age of cuts and shameless right wing propaganda feels uneasy that as a replacement for the social reformer Elizabeth Fry we have Winston Churchill. It just feels like a bit more hiding of a certain British history. Just like we saw at the jubilee and Thatchers funeral the right speak a narrative of our shared history many of us don't feel we share.

So sorry for not joining the party but while Jane Austin may have some feminist elements I can't see it as a massive achievement. Especially when she's got on at the expense of Elizabeth Fry - we should not have to have an either/or. Patriarchy pitting woman against each other on our bank notes. 

I know I'm spoiling the party. Sorry.

Taxes

There have been many terrible terrible thing's that have been said of late about social security and those in receipt of it. And there are many people doing a valiant attempt to refute them in the rhetorical war exploding around us. However there is a phrase that I keep hearing that is not being challenged which is 'Taxpayers money'.

Is it just me or does this phrase not make sense. If I pay taxes then the money that I pay to the treasury is by definition no longer mine but belongs to the nation. Now I have a democratic duty to hold the government to account for how they administer our collective resources, but it is not my money it belongs to all of us as a collective.

The problem with referring to it as taxpayers money implies that as a taxpayer I somehow have greater right to decided how it is spent than those who currently are not paying tax, and by inference the more tax you pay the more decision making power you have. There is something inherently undemocratic in that. 

I am also fed up of being told what upsets me as a tax payer. There are things about social security that upset me, but not the ones the government tell me are upsetting me. It upsets me that there is such a thing as working tax credits and that people can work a 30 -40 hour week and still not earn enough to survive. I fundamentally think the purpose of social security should not be to subsidies the private sector; they should jolly well pay decent wages. 

It upsets me the amount of housing benefit people need to claim. Which is the result, not of too many children or people scrounging of the state, or living in Kensington. It is the result of unscrupulous capitalists, decades of daft housing policy and an obsession with private ownership. It upsets me that the tax system isn't such that it curbs the behavior of such empire builders.

But what upsets me more than any of this is that while friends and love ones are being squeezed to live on what is not possible to live on, while the price of everything is going up and life is getting tougher for almost everyone I know. I take a walk round central London and see wealth oozing out of the city. When I pass 6 Starbucks on a street and get sent links via amazon. When I see an add for a bank that the country bailed out with amounts of money I can't even conceive of, offering me an app to help me budget better. Then I get really really mad. That is what Tax payers are upset about (well this one at least).