Reflection on Uni Slam 2016.

I had attempted to write about Semester 1 before its sequel began but, as I’m about to explain, my weekend was kind of occupied. 

Yesterday, along with four other English Lit students from my Uni, I attended a competition under the name of UniSlam. It was, to say the least, an impressive showcase of poetry from 16 different Universities across the whole of the UK. Having been arranged into heats, we were knocked out by the first Prelim against much older, much more experienced competition. There are no hard feelings – this was our first attempt and our team was compromised of primarily first and second years against Final years & Postgraduates. What it did make me realise however is just how much more work I have to do.

Since arriving at University, I wrote more poetry in the last four months than I did for the rest of 2015. A lot of last year was quite difficult for and usually I channel via verse but it never seem to come until I started to attend HOWL Poetry Sessions in Uplands, Swansea. At last I had found a scene originally only viewed on Youtube and admittedly, in dreams. When arriving at HOWL, one realised just how huge the poetry spoken word scene is and there are constantly events for us to attend as performers. It’s really refreshing as a student being able to do something which has really been a part of my life for the best part of 5-6 years. (That is to say, that’s how serious I’ve been writing poetry for, as serious as you can get at least). 

To then attend a national competition representing my Uni was really special to me. The range of talent amongst the performers as well as the content made me realise while I have improved, I have so much more to work on. I don’t like talking too extensively about my work – I think poetry is good when you can draw conclusions from it yourself, it proves you’re engaging with the art. I’ve really tried to construct stronger analogy as well as broader themes, feeling my poems would become very out of touch. My judge yesterday said sometimes, ideas were still hard to follow through, which I wholeheartedly agree with. 

My only New Year’s resolution (aside cycle more) is to write like I’m running out of time. This is in reference to Hamilton, my favourite musical written by the brilliant Lin Manuel Miranda. Recently he has been doing some 6 performances a night, writing music for a Disney film, writing a song for a Star Wars film as well as having just written Hamilton AND helping raise his 1 year old song. It is this enthusiasm which has really made me race and jump up more at writing and forcing myself to write in general – if LMM can do all that, I can at least finish whatever I’m working on. 

This inspiration has made me more creatively resilient, which I think Uni Slam has done too. I was ready to hear constructive criticism to work with so I can get stronger as a performer and as a poet. I’m not saying I’m about become some neo-Ginsberg type any time soon but, I’m hoping that I can reflect in a few months’ time and be able to see an obvious change and growth. My only regret concerning this wonderful opportunity is that there wasn’t enough time to be able to spitball with other creatives, conferring with my contemporaries and simply a lot of admiration from afar of others.

Now, it’s back to notebooks to do some more scribbling....

Is our safe space that safe at all?

Yesterday I came across an Independent article which reported my University (Swansea) as one of the worst institutions to having bans on things it doesn’t like. The notable example the article (and others which have talked about the report) have turned to is how Pole Fitness was banned on the grounds of it being “inextricably linked to the multi-million pound sex industry” as the line has gone. It really pissed me off when I read the article. But, having revision to do, I turned away from my rage to allow myself to contemplate what this meant and to give myself time to calm down before writing thoughts upon it. Because part of the reason I’m so adamantly against banning (which I guess is what I’m about cover here) is that on should think before saying things. 

The report suggested anti-trans/pro-Israel and Atheist/Secularist speakers are the most commonly prohibited from speaking at Universities. These three issues, hot topics from what I understand of progressive politics currently, make sense. I would like to say that I’m speaking as someone who is the son of a trans person, a Quaker [ergo religious] and Palestinian sympathise when I write this blog. But one thing I believe adamantly is that we as young people should not have cotton wool over our eyes. In a world where politicians sneakily pass things through parliament without us looking, where men in authority may commit crimes lost to “missing dossiers” we must be aware of what is going on around us – even if we happen to thoroughly disagree with a voice that is speaking. 

When Germaine Greer eventually pulled out from speaking at Cardiff Uni, I was honestly gobsmacked. A minority of people – a few hundred – rallied against her enough to be able to make her decide not to speak. While I disagree with her stance on transgenderism and ergo, believe her progressivism to be out of date, I cannot stand the idea that she’s not allowed to speak in guest lecture which is not mandatory for students to attend. I do not think that having her attend the University is saying a fuck you to trans people. Because I think that there is a certain amount of respect/support always growing when it comes to these issues – though, I understand how it must be frustrating having a voice appear at your uni may be perceived as supporting her views. But hear me out: 

If we let her speak, we can question her. We can argue with her, we can fight against her. Because by doing so, by making her think about what is being said, I think that that is allowing free speech. This idea that we simply allow offence no-questions-asked in the name of freedom is a nonsense query. Much like claiming that having someone speak in the first place is also nonsense. One of the recurring themes from politicians left-to-right when discussing Donald Trump the other being banned from the UK is that they believed they could challenge and even change his opinions. By banning we do not allow our causes to be fought for – what we do is pretend an opposition doesn’t exist. 

The same goes for Israel/Palestine. I was part of celebration when our Parliament voted to recognise the state of Palestine two years ago and would still cheer now. But I do not believe that people can honestly claim a simple black and white position upon an issue as complicated as a country which was established 70 years ago out of another country, leaving a complicated political and cultural battle with it, is foolish. This issue cannot just be divided into “Israel wrong, Palestine good”. I originally thought that too – but looking into the issue, a lot more is at play. Perhaps having speakers in say, a place of higher education getting to talk about this in a different context would help us understand it more – hint hint. 

Obviously, there is a defence that we need our universities to be a safe place. I understand this immensely well, as someone who is LGBT and someone has suffered mental health issues. Having your learning as well as social environment be accommodating and accepting to you as a person is vital for your wellbeing and progression. But, there is a case to be made that by having SUs and Universities allow ideas to spread and educated/argue between us as young people will generate some opposition, yes, but even if you do not want to put up the fight yourself it will simply help Allies understand if you can help say “hey, this person said x which is offensive” to which someone more to-the-cause will remember. By having opposition, you create a breeding ground for your principles to grow and be even more sophisticated. 

Now, as I was lying in bed struggling to sleep (as pre-exam nerves do), I thought “well hang on. I don’t want a Neo Nazi Students Society in Swansea – so maybe even I have a line on free speech and banning?” And it was here where I saw problems develop. The distinction I can make with something like a Neo Nazi group of course is that they tend to be harmful of people, which as a pacifist (again, Quaker), I really cannot condone and do not think that any SU anywhere should be aiding people in harming others. But speaking does not necessarily mean harm and it is important we, as a Union, University and communities really examine what we mean by this. 

I happen to tink there is quite a strength for the idea that, Uni offers itself as political experimentation in a safe environment. If people want to dabble in UKIP politics now, only to realise maybe it’s not the best way for them, it’s a good environment to do it in. There should be regulations as to how people behave, as mentioned, but allowing a safety-net of it all just being part of Uni is perhaps smarter than people trying to ‘find out about these things on their own’. There is a trend amongst young people to do things out of protest which can lead to several dangerous behaviour developing. “OH we’re BANNED from doing x/y/z so we must do it excessively now, in fact.” 

We must allow discussion, though I always say that when discussing politics it is best if you treat it as a legal argument that one is having over a tea party. People must think and have good manners, the sort of thing you would like your Mum to hear as well as convey your argument. Tact is vital in a world where we allow several microphones to go off and rally different causes.Obviously, there will be people who disagree to this stance. And, obviously, I welcome them to. If I do not reply take it I’m taking a well-deserved holiday after a rather long revision period.

Peace and love to all.

What is New Politics?

Jeremy Corbyn is a bit of a paradox.

He is an older politician in a time where politicians seem to be getting younger and younger who appeals to the youth. He’s an inexperienced politician with no ministerial posts, a backbencher who rose above the rest. He is, by all accounts, an ancient relic which has been dusted off and now wiped, being used as the face of far left politics. To further this, he is – according to his own words – a champion of “new politics.” This is a phrase in politics which has always confused me. 

If you spoke to someone in the Edwardian era, they would claim the Labour Party was New Politics, a break away from the Burke/Fox/Mill/Gladstonian and imperialist traditions of the 19^th Century. It was a time where political parties, in their modern form, truly meant something. Gone were the days of policy-coalitions – the Liberal Unionists simply had folded in the Conservative Party, the more radical voices were being compelled by the new trade union movements developing across the whole country. 

I guess you could say 1928 was another New Politics moment. Well, specifically, 1929. It was the Second Government for the Labour Party – a minority led by Ramsay Macdonald. This election was the first to have women enfranchised, changing the electoral map much like the Reform Acts and enfranchising acts of the century before. But this was different; this meant that a whole new group who had never gotten a voice was now speaking. It had quite a large effect on politics in Britain, obviously. 

Decades later that difference was illuminated by a Cabinet minister of Edward Heath’s challenge his leadership, that minister being a woman, Margaret Thatcher. She introduced a politics to Conservatism which was condemned by former party masters like Heath and Macmillan (who as Chancellor of Oxford University, refused to grant her an honorary doctorate in a controversial move). Whether you like Thatcher or not, she help make much of the modern political atmosphere with her long reign in government. 

Then we arrive to 1992: New Labour. Is this not the height of New Politics? It showed Labour abandoning what was seen as an ‘outdated platform’ and going onto a more modernist approach to its politics. It helped, five years later, win a historically memorable parliamentary majority. It is one of the most contemporary accounts of New Politics and arguably, the most contemporary. However, personally, I think this assessment is an incorrect one to make. Because despite not having much claim to it now, there is another group to consider: the Liberal Democrats. 

In the height of their popularity, they were a party which excelled on being a new alternative. But the funny thing is, the Liberals are older than Labour (alright, so the LibDems aren’t but half the party was made up one of the oldest in Britain) and considerably older type of politics. Yet, they were seen as a fresh face in the lead up to the 2010 Election. I remember it well, being thirteen at the time and seeing Clegg was my political voice and engaging me in politics for the first time.

They were someone new and I was new to this world so clung to their moderate voice. “A little bit of everything” I remember thinking as I would watch each leadership debate, as precocious young sprout I was. 

So, from this short 500 wordish history, you can gather the concept of New Politics isn’t that new at all. There’s a recurring theme too; this sort of politics was built on being a straight-up, more practical politics for the people. While it may not seem as such in retrospect – Thatcher, the National Labour Government and the Liberal Dems being a few examples – that’s what their rhetoric was all about. You trusted Thatcher to bring results, the Lib Dems were trusted to do what they say, etc. And now, the New Politics is attached to Labour’s leader. 

So does the New Politics label go to those who ascribe to radical (in that they are shifting something not necessarily left wing politics) platforms? I mean, the SNP/Plaid Cymru and Greens could be counted as New Politics by that account. They all ran Anti-Austerity platforms, all were hitting Labour from the left during the election. 

We seemingly aren’t talking about them as much since Corbynmania has dominated our headlines despite the SNP’s “scary majority” over Scotland. But it’s not necessarily being some big game changer; it’s not like they could’ve even negotiated with Labour to form a coalition. So in that case, their New Politics didn’t really have much change and wasn’t won radical agendas. 

So what is it? What is ‘New Politics’? From what I can gather, it is not necessarily anything to do with policy. All of these parties share not an ideological platform but a platform of attempting ‘straight up’. They were all claiming to be straight talking, honest, principled characters who spoke to the people directly. Their relationship was direct, firm, they claimed command because they were the ones who knew best what the public was thinking as one giant mass. It is this similarity in New Politics where we discover just how pragmatic it is; when it succeeds, New Politics is coercing us to ideas that a leader has into thinking they are our own.

“By Jove, I want this because Jeremy Corbyn, who leads us, is saying it so it must be what I want” that is a victory for Corbyn and for all those who like New Politics. 

Now, without delving more into parliamentary history (because I really could), what does this say about Corbyn? I would never say he doesn’t believe what he says. In fact given how he’s handled Syria I think we can guarantee that he does [albeit that can be quite subdued which is hindering at times]. But all it says about New Politics is that it is not ours. It is, instead, a political strategy built on Machiavellian principle without us even realising. 

If we look to the Bedford Speech – “we’ve never had it so good” – as Harold Macmillan said in 1957, that was hugely believe in the 1960s. Arguably this is what politicians should be doing. They give us ideas and platforms for us to follow and we like them so vote for them. Is that not what democracy is built upon? The trouble is of course, by suggesting this, it doesn’t give us much authority as an electorate. We are not allowed to decide where politicians focus their attention. A primary example of this can be found currently in US Politics – many Democrats who are blindly following Clinton currently chose not to engage the issue of her emails. 

But should it occupy undecideds who is it to say that CNN shouldn’t covering each email in detail? Surely free democracy means getting to decide what we think is important and posing that to our politicians even if they think it’s beneath them? In fact I’m pretty sure Corbynites who say that’s the trouble with the Tories – that’s they’re not listening to us folk. New Politics should be founded on that principle. This is not to say that Corbyn doesn’t listen to people or the public but, maybe his New Politics isn't that new at all.