University Shouldn't Be Free, At Least Not Until It Benefits More People

So I haven't been on here for a while. My last exam of second year at uni coincided with the election result, and celebrations were had for both. I've also lived at three different addresses over the last two months as I manoeuvred around housing contracts. My summer job(s) have kept me busy, and I've been working on other projects for next year.

But a lot has happened since my last article: terror attacks, the election, Grenfell Tower, Brexit struggles, a Conservative plot to overthrow Theresa May, and Donald Trump and his son conducting secret meetings with Russia. These are all topics on which I could talk about for hours (I've been trying to make another Trump article yet have far too much to say) but I fear that I'd just be another voice to the choir. If fifty other people are saying what I will then it would be pointless for me to comment. When an event like the Manchester Attack or Grenfell Tower happen, whilst nuanced discussion is badly needed, you also don't want to shout your beliefs when victims from such events still grieve. Maybe I'll tackle them at New Year in an annual review of the year, similar to Charlie Brooker's Yearly Wipe (if you haven't seen that, definitely check it out).

More comical, but somehow just as slightly depressing, as his Black Mirror.

You do need to distance yourself from an event before you can critically comment on it. It has to be less personal and your beliefs justified in more conclusive evidence before you can truly make a judgement, and that is why future historians will have a more definite viewpoint on how we lived than we do now. And an issue which gained a lot of headway in the election, but has now died down which gives us time to reflect, is the issue of tuition fees. This seems to be an issue, in my political circles at least, where you either want free tuition, or you're an elitist. My lord and saviour Jeremy Corbyn announced ahead of the election that he would scrap fees for current students and contemplate how he could wipe out past student debt. So you'd imagine I'd be fully behind him, right?

Me and bae, circa 2016 (colourised)

Somewhat, although my support for Corbyn mainly rests on him pumping money into other areas of the public sector, most importantly the struggling NHS. That's the political issue I care about most, because sickness can strike anyone, and people shouldn't be force to pay for their health due to mere luck. I think when you have the NHS in the state which it is in, with multiple closures, that's what Corbyn needs to highlight. And when he campaigns for free tuition fees along with greater public sector funding, well, that kinda reinforces the idea to political opponents that he throws money at everything, whether its important or not.

Now, where am I going with this? Am I saying that as one of the working class I don't want people like me being encouraged to go to university? Am I denying that our economy would benefit from a better educated population, allowing our engineering and science sector to prosper?

Me, circa before the 2017 election

Of course not, I am forever grateful for the university experience I have been afforded. I will have to pay back the debt, and it is a lot of debt, but at least I don't until I earn over 21 grand. And neither am I denying that the debt won't put people like me off university.  Only because I have such a passion for my subject and wanted a new experience in life was I willing to put myself in debt. I have had an incredible experience, and would want as many people as possible to also share a similar one. However, the value of university is not just about benefiting the individual - if it was then it should rightly only be paid by that individual. It is about benefiting society. When it does that, then of course it is a worthwhile investment for society to pay. But I don't think everyday people believe universities benefit their society, or at least themselves, and so they shouldn't be expected to pay for free tuition out of their own taxes until the benefit is clear to them. Let me explain. 

An article titled "Academics can change the world – if they stop talking only to their peers" makes the rounds every now and then, and rightly so. The article states:

Biswas and Kirchherr estimate that an average journal article is “read completely by no more than ten people”. They write up to 1.5 million peer-reviewed articles are published annually. However, many are ignored even within scientific communities – 82% of articles published in humanities [journals] are not even cited once.

Universities are meant to be for the public good. Of course they have become more recently geared towards making profit, but ultimately and historically their goal is to benefit society. Each university wants to distinguish themselves to state why they are the best institution for students to visit in order for them to become an engineer, scientist, historian or so on. They thus cannot make all their research public. But society invests in university for society's benefit. For example, in 2004 the University of Manchester created a material called Graphene. 200 times stronger than steel but flexible, the material could shape the future of biomedical science, engineering, architecture and electronics. It is a wonder material. And yet the University has not trademarked the compound for their own immense profit (which private companies do). They have instead allowed the material to be used by the public domain in order to ensure the material can reach its fullest potential and is now researched by universities and companies worldwide for its many possible applications. This is an example of university or education benefiting not just our own society, but possibly the entire world.

But that's just one example of research. Of course, its doubtful that universities are sitting on hundreds of wonder materials waiting to be used (although I'm sure various militaries and governments would be interested in keeping such materials and technology for themselves), but it just goes to show you how much environments of lifelong research can create incredible results. Yet if the average piece of research is read by no more than ten people, then society is obviously not benefiting from that research.

Universities also make abominations like these which the military are interested in

Now, the average joe, including myself, doesn't have a clue about specific groundbreaking research into polymers or cells, and likely still wouldn't if you explained it to me because you probably need a lot of knowledge in that subject to fully comprehend it. But I'm sure most people would be interested in knowing how it changes our knowledge of say the human body or what implications it has for the future of technology. Universities shouldn't give away all their research because they don't need to, not everyone understands the brain cells of ducks. But people would be interested in learning that ducks are a distinct relative of dolphins, and could be trained to do their shopping for them.

Here's a picture of a duck I took. Can anybody tell me what kind of duck it is?

I thus think universities should do something like publish the highlights of their research monthly on public platforms. You may argue most people wouldn't be interested, but a lot of their taxes are still invested in universities, especially if tuition were to be made free, and so the information should be available. At the very least having the information there will only foster some kind of further interest in research.

For example, I study history. My university, Sheffield, is great in that I can use thousands of online resources - articles or e-books - in incredibly diverse topics like poverty in the Roman World, all the way to ones about Hitler's drug use. They also have two massive libraries. You may argue it is the fact that I pay tuition fees to a good university that I have all these resources available to me, and that non-university students can easily go to a library or the internet themselves to learn about such topics.

Hitler partying hard.

But before I came to university, I wouldn't even know there was a wealth of research and information about Hitler's drug use. I didn't know there was a difference between the Roman Republic and Roman Empire. I didn't know people studied Early Modern Europe as a degree, and that various convents of nuns in the 1600s were said to be possessed by the devil requiring exorcism (which was also a common thing). Before university I wouldn't think to study it because I didn't know these things existed. And thus universities, graduates or education generally needs to make this kind of knowledge more known to the public to enrich their knowledge of the past as part of its purpose, and also possibly to encourage further study of such things.

But maybe the problem is more systemic. Every now and then I encounter someone who doesn't even know who the current Prime Minister is, or doesn't know the dates of when the World Wars started or finished. These are ordinary everyday people and don't deserve judgement for being stupid. Rather, you do wonder what kind of society people grow up in when they don't know, or don't think to consider, who is actually their leader, or when the events which shaped the society they live in happened. You wonder if schools or parenting needs to change, if people are so focused on money, television, going out on the piss, that they don't even consider the wider picture surrounding their lives. Maybe they struggle to understand politics or subjects at school and that is fine. But the fact they don't see an importance in understanding these things is the issue.

And you have these people working most of their week away in a job they might not like in order to unwind at home or enjoy their times with family or friends. And they then find that some of their taxes go towards paying students who for 3 years have a large part of their lifestyle funded. And if they struggle to see why they have to work to keep their homes and lifestyle yet students don't need a similar amount of physical work to do so, they get jealous. They wonder what exactly it is that students do other than party if their research largely belongs to the universities and not the public. If they are learning about things the public didn't even know existed yet the public are still kept in the dark, then the public aren't benefiting from university. Universities then, hell the education system at large, needs to better reveal the research it has in order to keep the public interested. Only then would it be worth making university free.

Michael Gove said with Brexit that the people were "sick of experts". I think this is largely due to these experts being so inaccessible. In days of old, public intellectuals like Socrates would be consulted on societal issues. I think we need a similar class of people today. In order to remedy this problem of unshared knowledge, I'm possibly making some kind of history radio show to talk about stories and issues of history from things I've learnt at university and elsewhere. Keep your eyes peeled.

Political Discourse In This Country is F*cked, or How I Learnt To Stop Worrying And Love The NHS

So, those of you who know me will probably know which way I will be voting in the election. And sometimes I wonder if people think I'm like "I've read Marx, I luv socialism hehe xoxo go on Jezza". But voting Corbyn to me is a necessary option. I don't like politics because I get hard over how the country is run. I don't write rants because I love to argue or seem intellectually superior. In fact, I'd be mortified if anyone did think that, because I hope people think I'm as humble as possible.

I do it because I care about people. I care about life, because it's amazing in all it's different varieties. The Conservatives have consistently cut the NHS. Here are some examples. And here. And here, back home. Why do I care about the NHS? Because life can surprise you nastily. I think people today, because we do generally have a better quality of life than decades ago, only think of their life in the grand scheme of things. When I'm 20 im doing this, by the time I'm 30 I'll have found my career, 35 a partner, 40 i'll have kids, etc. But life doesn't always work like that. You could have a heart attack out of the blue. You could be in a car accident. You could contract a disease which leaves you bedbound for months. You could require a lifesaving operation. This happens. Life is fickle.

Wow, that took a sudden dark turn.

Look, I'm not here to make you worry about the possibility of these things happening to you or a loved one. These things do have low probability, and live is for enjoying what you have, not worrying about what could happen. The thing is, when these things do happen, we have a safety net. Against the uncertainty of life which can wipe out people in a blink, we have the NHS. The NHS will do their goddamn best to keep you tied to this mortal coil. And Theresa May is gradually eroding that.

If you wonder what life would be like without the NHS, look at America. Look at the story of Matthew, a healthy guy with his life ahead of him studying his PhD at Texas University. Disaster struck out of the blue and he suffered cirrhosis caused by autoimmune hepatitis. In plain English, that means his body's immune system started attacking itself. He's now in 62,000 dollars worth of debt. He doesn't look at his bills anymore, they just make him upset. He is financially bankrupt, and more importantly, his life is at risk. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, Want a baby in the US? 15 grand please.

And if you want to know how much dominance Theresa May is offering the private sector, Richard Branson is SUING the NHS. A BILLIONAIRE SUING A HEALTH SERVICE. It makes me sick to my stomach. They are arguing we cannot afford the NHS as it is. But we're out of recession. And she's still continuing austerity. Yes, we've got Brexit to pay for now, but hang on let's think. What's more important here. Leaving the EU. Or saving lives. Lives to us which now may be complete strangers, but one day could very well be us, or our family.

Richard also has contracts in care homes for the elderly. Will he also sue Gladys?

But, the media's out to get Corbyn. And this is the issue with political discourse. I'm not saying the man's perfect and without blame. But are we seeing massive discourse in the newspapers and media about the NHS? Yes, every now and then we hear about the cuts, but are we hearing how they are being applied? Are newspapers at the scene of your local hospital, investigating what's happening? How on earth they are choosing to cut £100 million pounds out of their budget? Do you hear the doctors on the news going "Well, we had to choose between helping the sick kids, or the old people. Goodbye Grandma".

(I could have inserted a comical picture here, but it's not a laughing matter at all).

No, you hear ZERO of this. All you hear is "Corbyn voted in support of the IRA!". Well, the issue is more complicated than that, and it was twenty years ago. The Tories are giving arms to Saudi Arabia, who are bombing the shit out of Yemen and have links to radical Islam, now. "Corbyn didn't bow far enough during war commemorations!". Oh really, well he went to dinner with them afterwards, unlike David Cameron. "Diane Abbot didn't have a clue about the cost of the police force!". OH REALLY, WELL HOW ABOUT THE LIE THAT LABOUR GOT US ALL INTO THE RECESSION WHICH STARTED THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE (we could more justly blame bankers, or the economic system which Corbyn seeks to adjust) YET NATIONAL DEBT HAS ONLY INCREASED.

Corbyn's a madman right? We could never afford everything he proposes. I'll be honest, even I think he's proposed a bit too much recently. But just contemplate something for a second. All this rhetoric about Corbyn, it existed before Brexit. And Brexit is going to cost us hundreds of billions of pounds? Huh. So we have the money to completely overturn our economic system in one sense, but not in a way to help all of society?

Huh
It's almost as if
The sixth richest country does have the money
They just don't want to evenly spread it

It fucking stinks. We're kept in ignorance of how much money we truly have and what exactly is happening with Brexit. We only know that politicians speak of the economy like it's some deity which most be upheld above everything. They televise politics to consist purely of characters like Corbyn and May like it's a bloody TV show. Tune in tomorrow, you'll never guess what Corbyn will say next! But oh no, what are the EU leaders doing in the distance? Who cares, look at the gaffe Trump pulled today! HA! These are all things designed to keep your attention span short, keeping you distracted from actually understanding the issues at play here.

"He's behind you!"

Do you hear ANY critical thinking about the situation we're in by the media? No. We just hear accusations. And it's dumbed down political discourse everywhere. "CORBIN IZ CRAZEE" "TORY SCUM!" "TIM FARRON 4 LYFE". People don't enter the political arena to understand how the world works. They do it to pick sides. They play a game. But this isn't a fucking game. People's lives are at stake.

I want to talk about so much more, because this issue is much more complex. I want to talk about how Facebook's algorithms hinder political discourse because it only shows you posts on your timeline with similar views to your own, so it further reinforces everyone's political bubbles. I want to ponder whether this has lead me to believe that Theresa May's argument consists only of "strong and stable government", and whether I've missed something extra from their argument bar slagging Corbyn off with arguments which don't contemplate the bigger picture. I want to question how Corbyn gets so much hate from the pro-Brexit media, yet Tim Farron gets hardly any stick despite the fact he wants to reverse it? Tim, we've only just fucking got out after we've pissed off the entire EU, you think that both they and the country will dance for joy to be back after so much divisive hate?

But all of that moves away from the heart of the matter. That the vote is about humanity. Do I think Corbyn would make the country economically poorer? With Brexit too, yes. But guess what? You can be the richest man in the world. When you or someone you love is in critical condition, that is the poorest you'll be. Because life isn't about money. It's about being able to experience the wonders which make you laugh, love, live and think. As long as you have people who care for you, people who make you happy, and you and those people are healthy, money won't be able to get you any more happiness. And if you still think that Corbyn investing so much into the NHS and everything else will bankrupt the country and lead us to ruin, I'll end with a quote.

"Our grandparents fought in the millions to defeat Nazi genocide and Hirohito's imperialism. Then when there was not a penny left - when the country had far less money than they had today - they fought even more, to build the NHS, the welfare system, and over 200,000 new houses each year. Don't believe the Tory lies. Don't sit back and do nothing. Don't let your grandparents turn in their graves. Fight back against the selfish savagery. Leave your grandchildren something of value; a humane and compassionate society."

~Christopher Bainbridge

European Excerpts #1

A Hungarian Rhapsody

So, we were going on a bar crawl, and the guy from the hostel said we were going to Morrisons. This was confusing for two reasons. Firstly, I didn't think it was much of a bar crawl if you resorted to getting beers from supermarkets. And more importantly, I knew they had Aldi's and Tesco's in Budapest, but I didn't expect a typically northern supermarket here. Would a Hungarian Ant and Dec be greeting us at Market Street?

"This better be authentic Hungarian meat Dec!"

No, it turns out Morrisons was a karaoke bar in Budapest. But it was still surprisingly English.

We got there to hear the music glaring and, just below the bar, a dance floor where the karaoke was taking place. In this place we were witnessing people from all across the world - Germany, Australia, America, Denmark - all belting out the non-stop American/English classics that were playing: Bohemian Rhapsody, American Pie, and so on. Here I am, an Englishman in Hungary, and I'm witnessing various Germans sing Queen word for word. I felt guilty as the only German band I knew was Rammstein, and those guys are not exactly the right kind of vibes for this place.

Except maybe this video.

After singing my heart out to The Proclaimers' 500 Miles with a guy from Watford, I did want to find something non-English during my experience here. There were other rooms to explore, so I was figuring I'd encounter some traditional Hungarian club music (in hindsight one cannot expect to find true authentic culture in a place called Morrisons). But before my fruitless journey, I saw yet again a foreign reconstruction of something typically Western: a middle room with tabletop football and an Xbox playing arcade games free of charge. Admittedly they were only demo's, but what a brilliant idea! Why on earth isn't this done over here? They had some proper classics on there like Galactica which I hadn't played since I was a kid on a Nokia brick. The first (and only) round was very easy, but an American was watching me and commented "Wow dude, you've definitely played this before!". Mate, I've played Dark Souls, this is child's play, even if I am little drunk.

This damn game.

Anyway, I ventured into the next room. Much more modern dance music, but still largely English. One might think my dreams of a cultural night out had been dashed and that I was distraught, but by this point I was too drunk to care, and the music was banging. I can't remember if I had lost my friends or not by this point, but I saw a couple of Danish girls we had met in the smoking area earlier. Some of the guys they were with had been sent to the drunk tank for anti-social behaviour outside. Let's just say I wouldn't recommend messing with the Hungarian police. One of the girls had told my mate he was cute. Good on him. Such good vibes in the face of arrest meant only one thing: time to dance.

Who knew Rammstein could satisfy all my dance gif needs?

I am a bit of an eccentric dancer, but the other Danish girl didn't mind. We were both going for it. I was loving her moves and she was loving mine. I get sweaty quite easily, so after a while I told her I had to go to the smoking area to cool off. She followed. And just to reinforce how sweaty I was from a bit of dancing, a guy on the way out asked me if I had taken MDMA. I'm afraid not, only if this was an actual Morrisons.

By the time Dec got to Market Street, his jaw was swinging.

I've always been a bit insecure by how much I sweat so I apologised to her. She smiled and said it was only natural. Here I am, hardly able to speak a proper sentence in a foreign language, and there she is as a Danish girl comforting me in English. We went outside. Talked about our degrees. Smiled. My friends came out and we all had a joke together. We headed back in to dance some more, but after a while the two of us went to the bar for a drink. We then sat at a table across from it.

Chatting about Budapest. She'd been here before. She was studying an art degree, so I asked if she had visited the Hungarian National Gallery which we had done earlier. She was surprised with how much we had seen of Budapest as we neared the end of our three night's stay there. 

We talked some more. Every now and then we'd stop and just look at each other, smile and laugh. It's weird how two people can so quickly connect. Yeah we were drunk and this was hardly a romantic setting - some woman was screaming ABBA with all her lungs - but here we are coming from completely different countries and we just click.

After a while she said, smiling, "I don't know what to say now". Me neither.

"Sorry."

"What for?"

"I'm just a bit awkward ahah."

I felt so dumb, not just for this, but how she could connect with me so easily using English yet I couldn't speak a word of her language. It felt like she was making the effort to connect to me on my level, yet I couldn't return the favour. Nevertheless I was simply interested in her as a person. I wanted to know as much as I could about who she was. She was an art buff like me and I had only 15 days to talk to as many people from across the world as possible before I went back to Britain. The most exotic people I generally talk to here are southerners.

Their ways are mysterious and arcane.

Every now and then I edged ever so slightly closer. I was going to go in for a kiss. We probably could have done this sooner if I hadn't been so bloody curious about culture. I wasn't really expecting anything after - the party hostel we were staying at wasn't an ideal place to bring back a female companion. But a kiss kind of completes the connection we were feeling, ya know? It's nothing major, but it's reassuring, and with a cool person it's just kinda nice. I leaned in further for a kiss and...

Her friend came up to her. There was drama with her group, probably due to the fact the lads had either been arrested or sent to a drunk tank. Oh yeah, I forgot being locked up by the police in a foreign country is quite the pressing issue. They obviously needed to talk things through together elsewhere. She gave an abrupt goodbye, but I could tell she was genuinely either sorry or caught off guard. I was a bit annoyed to say the least. I could feel the connection, and my mates said she could barely keep her eyes off me. But the law of the land is 'hoes and bros before foreign bros' after all. I saw her again and tried to strike up conversation, but I could tell she was too preoccupied with the drama, the possibility of her going elsewhere with me would only plunge their group into more uncertainty.

This is all with logical sober hindsight. At the time I just felt awkward, unsure what to do, like having read an engaging book with no real ending. A 'club romance' shouldn't even denote this much thought. But it was just so cool bonding with someone from another country. We talked about our courses. She was my type. Even just looking into each other's eyes was a pleasant experience. 

But this wasn't Romeo and Juliet. We were in a karaoke bar in Budapest which had just played 'Barbie Girl'. It probably wasn't even an authentic night out in Budapest, and even if we did kiss, I probably wouldn't see her again. Ah well. We had five more cities to see, plenty of people to meet, and other memories to make. At least not many can say they have had a Scandinavian muse. T'was a night to remember.

Gifs courtesy of http://rudrobin.tumblr.com/, http://rammgirl20.tumblr.com/ and reddit. Everything else is courtesy of Ant and Dec.

UKIP Fear and Labour Loathing in Stoke-on-Trent - why I won't rejoice just yet

Myself and many other Facebook friends gave a sigh of relief today, as Labour beat UKIP in a by-election at my home city. Yet I wonder how well we should pat ourselves on our backs considering UKIP came second place in votes, meaning the support behind them and their ideas will not simply disappear. But why is this the case? Did I grow up in a city of racists? Did Nazis from 1945 escape persecution through time travelling to a city known for making pottery? Is Paul Nutall the secret lovechild of Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins? These are all possibilities. However, there are deeper reasons for the situation we find ourselves in. First however, some backstory.

Stoke-on-Trent, while many people would believe otherwise, has produced some great figures in world history. Slash from Guns 'N' Roses and Lemmy from Motorhead? Brought up in Stoke. Reginald Mitchell, inventor of the Spitfire which aided massively in defeating the German Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain? A fellow Stokie. Edward Smith, the captain of that internationally famous ship The Titanic - erm...Robbie Williams was raised here too (and we are so proud of this fact we have even named streets after his songs).

Because nothing says Robbie like housing estates in his honour

My point here is we have a lot to offer. We aren't some social backwater, we have been a big name since the Industrial Revolution in ceramics (thus our other name the Potteries), and some areas even date back to the Doomsday Book. So why would such a place be vulnerable to the rise of UKIP? It has been said that our regional delicacy, the Staffordshire Oatcake, is so good it could even bring about world peace. Yet something is threatening that.

Next week's article : Could the oatcake reverse Trump's Muslim ban?

First, let me tackle perceived notions of it being a backwater. I think this is highlighted best in, shockingly, a video by the Guardian here (kudos to a Facebook friend for bringing this to my attention). The video, while indeed showing actual deprived areas of Stoke, only focuses on that. It makes it seem like we live in ghettos, a place which time forgot. It shows the disused old shopping centre and bus station, neglecting to mention we now have a much more modern bus station and that the updated Potteries Shopping Centre, in operation now for nearly three decades, still sees a massive influx of business. Yes, there are a lot of uneducated voters and yes there is a lot of deprivation, but you'll find that in most cities. What this video attempts to do is to create the narrative (done especially well due to it's ever so slightly grey filter) that Stoke is poor and uneducated and so will either vote for UKIP to change their situation or not at all.

Something tells me this doesn't sit right with Robbie.

To be fair, a ten minute video can only accomplish so much, and is no doubt a valuable insight for The Guardian's mainly middle class left-wing readership, revealing why some people vote for UKIP. Yet it masks the complexities of the situation. Stoke was the country's 'Brexit Capital', but why is this so if it wasn't a UKIP seat in the first place? If poverty and poor education were the only factors, a lot of deprived areas would have voted UKIP a while ago. Let's look at other reasons why Stoke is feeling disillusioned, like this guy.

Tristram Hunt, who shares a similar nickname to fellow politician Jeremy Hunt

Tristram Hunt was elected Labour MP for Stoke Central in April 2010. Two years after the economic crash of 2008, Stoke was hit especially hard and was one of the country's most deprived areas at the time. So, to oversee the situation, they hired a local man of the people who could truly relate to his constituency's problems, right? Nah, they brought in a guy from Cambridge who was the son of a baron!

Don't you think this kind of strategy only reinforces the view that politicians are only in it for themselves and their rich mates? Hunt may have won 38.8% of the vote, but when only 53% of voters bother to turn up, that is no victory and suggests that people felt no real affiliation with him. Labour won not due to their charm or policies, but simply because they weren't Conservative. When those who represent you politically actually don't represent your needs whatsoever due to a vastly different lifestyle, you begin to become disillusioned with politics in general. You could actually argue the rise of UKIP is a good thing for the working class and its Labour voters, because it will keep Labour on its toes in an attempt to appeal to the people rather than finding comfort in their favourable position in the Midlands/North as non-Tories. They can no longer simply put whoever they want in a seat and expect them to win without difficulty.

Except this guy, he seems to have the right criteria for the job.

Stoke isn't a third-world city as the Guardian video implies. But it is dissatisfied with the ruling elites, and any perceived deprivation is multiplied when they don't seem to do anything about it, especially when they are former businessmen or even minor royalty. So when UKIP blames immigrants or the EU, doesn't that at least seem like a solution they have identified and are working towards, rather than disinterested politicians uttering vague promises while they sit on their backsides and mainly chat with people far wealthier than most of the people they represent?

69.4% of voters in Stoke voted Leave in the referendum. That's an alarming percentage, especially to the metropolitan elite of London who shrieked how much damage Brexit would do to our economy with its lack of EU investment and trade. Yet areas like Stoke, while we managed well with what we had (under incompetent local leadership), didn't seem to receive the economic benefits and EU investment that places like London were afforded. That may well have been the UK Government's fault than the EU's. But when the elite give people a decision like the Referendum, where either we continue the status quo, or the people are finally given a sense of power to overturn it, guess what? Those who have who have felt unheard by their leaders will make their pain felt.

I'm loving Brexit instead.

What Labour needs to do then is show it listens, it understands the problems of their voters, and it can highlight and reverse the economic and social issues we suffer. Ever since Tony Blair, Labour has been allowed to be filled with rich people who wanted an easy seat of power, a far cry from its original purpose as a party of -the- working class (hence its name Labour). In a bizarre turn of events the Tories are perhaps listening the best to 'the people's will' as they head towards a relentless 'hard Brexit'. Under the Tories, it will most likely only increase the inequality the country suffers more. But considering it was an ambiguous concept in the first place, what can you do? Politicians are now aware that the populace is not to be trifled with and will spite them to gladly watch them crawling in panic for a solution, as Theresa May's six month silence on Brexit and the ensuing chaos revealed. Thus, maybe it was a minor victory, and our well-being will be considered more in future. But if the people feel too much pain and alienation from the traditional parties, they are far more likely to vote for extremist parties like UKIP, and so Labour needs to realise it is the last stand against them in these areas and pull out all the stops to ensure they remain in power. 

Maybe this is why Corbyn forced his MPs to vote for Article 50, despite him having lots of Remain support. But what is perhaps worrying is that the winning Labour Candidate, Gareth Snell, was an ardent Remain supporter, referring to Brexit as, no joke, a 'massive pile of shit'. It was an incredibly risky gamble. One that didn't pay off in the Copeland election where a traditional Labour constituency reliant on a local nuclear plant came across a leadership which opposed nuclear power.

And whether Corbyn's labour can be both an effective opposition and act in the people's best interest is an issue for another time. All that matters to me is this - my hometown was finally put on the map again as a battleground for political history, the outcome no doubt affecting the future of both contending parties. Viva la Oatcake.

Stop calling celebrities who denounce Trump 'inspirational'

At the Golden Globes, Meryl Streep denounced Donald Trump. Her rebuke was moving, particularly as she had half lost her voice, as she focused on the soon-to-be President's mocking of a disabled reporter last year. Her voice quivered throughout, especially as she mentioned her friend - the now sadly deceased Carrie Fisher. One of the most powerful speeches I've seen from a celebrity, it was also refreshingly self aware as she noted the privilege Hollywood stars have.

But like all other celebrities on Trump, she didn't tackle the real issue. She joins a long list of celebrities denouncing Trump, from Robert De Niro describing him as "totally nuts" and America Ferrera who said he was "living in an outdated fantasy of a bigoted America". Well, fantasy or not, the fact that he is going to be President is a reality. But why are they denouncing Trump? Is Hollywood the last living bastion of liberal minded people in America?

They wouldn't want to find a wall between them and the U.S.

It ceraintly isn't a bastion for free thought, and not all the people who voted for Trump are racist. You want to know why some of those people voted for him? Because their lives are shit. Worldhunger.org revealed that nearly 21% of people in the state of Missisipi have little to no food security (enough food to adequately feed their families). In 2015, 41 million people in the United States lived in poverty - that's 10 million shy from the population of England. 45 million Americans are on food stamps (imagine being on benefits, but not given currency and instead stamps to trade for food, so everyone knows how poor you truly are). But why vote for a politician who wants to give huge tax breaks to the rich I hear you ask? I recommend watching this short video: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/12/west-virginia-donald-trump-supporters-mcdowell-county-poverty-video

When Trump's slogan was 'Make America Great Again', I saw comments like "When was it great? In the 50s when everyone was racist! Idiots! Bigots! Fools!". But the people from that video are incredibly proud people. They lived in a time where there was an abundance of jobs in mines and factories - it was nothing special, but it was enough to make a life for themselves. They felt like their kids could live the American Dream if they wanted. Now look at some of them, resorting to picking up cans off the street. There certainly was a time gone by when America was great for them, when they could actually live comfortably. Now that is gone.

These people could have voted for the Democrats, which are seen as the class for the poor or working classes much like Labour. But Democrats also focus on welfare schemes like food stamps, and jobs within the renewable energy and digital sector. Do you think the people of McDowell County want to be on food stamps with no possibility of their coal mines opening because renewable energy is the new industry somewhere on the other side of the country? No, those people want a goddamn job and they want to be proud. When Donald Trump says that he will reopen the mines and that he will encourage business to the United States, that is what will make America great again in their eyes. They've heard that Trump has said some really bad stuff about other sections of society, but when ever has society paid them any attention?

I am of course all for continued investment in renewable technologies and disinvestment in fossil fuels. The world will suffer the effects of climate change horribly in the coming years. But coal is all what those people know. The government didn't invest in them time or education after the mines were shut, so they don't know how to work in other sections of society. And when they see these celebrities with their flashy cars and fancy outfits, can these people relate to them as they supported Hillary Clinton and denounced Trump? Not at all, they're in a completely different world. One which has abandoned them to live in poverty and which only mocks them as racists. Trump may be a billionaire, but at least he attempts to speak their language.

There are no wells in McDowell County, Jay Z. But you're welcome to headline there

Instead of mocking Trump (which Meryl didn't to her credit), I wish celebrities or prominent figures would try to emphasise with those who voted for him. Hell, why not try to explain or even ask why he was popular in the first place, all without calling his voters racist. It is true that celebrities are given a platform and so should use it as best they can - but why not try to use that platform to tackle the true ills at the heart of society? The rapper Killer Mike did this perfectly in his support of Bernie Sanders, because both of them foster political discussion about the nature of society in their work. Meanwhile, support of Hillary from celebrities like Katy Perry felt awfully forced, because when has she ever done a song or talked in depth about politics apart from that weird time with Russell Brand?*

Celebrities have an amazing platform to speak from and to enlighten society, but for them all to simply denounce Trump in their own way does nothing. It only contributes to the liberal bubble which got him elected in the first place. ("There's no way such an idiot and racist could be elected, right? Oh my goodness, he's gotten elected! How could this happen? Shut up, racists!")

Of course, celebrities have every right to speak out against Trump and should. Its just that to be truly enlightening they would speak of the deeper problems of society - acknowledge the sheer inequality in society and what we can do to fix it, not to dismiss it under the topic of racism. Furthermore, in celebrities joining the anti-Trump choir, is it really inspirational? Are these wealthy people risking their lives or career stating these comments? No. And that's what truly powerful and inspirational behaviour is. People like Martin Luther King were imprisoned, had their families' home firebombed, and were eventually assassinated for what they did to change society. I'm obviously not expecting Hollywood to martyr itself. But saying something is easy, and isn't that inspirational. When you start doing something which is outside your comfort zone, then you lead by example, and that is when you start making a change in society.

*If I am to be truthful, I must admit I am a fan of Katy Perry.

Sources:

http://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2015-united-states-hunger-and-poverty-facts/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/12/west-virginia-donald-trump-supporters-mcdowell-county-poverty-video

http://www.amny.com/news/elections/celebrities-against-donald-trump-1.11550611