This week's NS: The London issue

Summer double edition: essays, fiction, art and photography inspired by the capital.

Special double edition with contributions from Vivienne Westwood, Matthew Hollis, Maurice Glasman, Will Hutton, Ruth Padel and Evgeny Lebedev, an essay by Will Self, a new short story by Joe Dunthorne, an interview with David Bailey and a specially commissioned 12-page  photo essay on the world's greatest city

This week’s New Statesman is a 92-page special issue on London. The double issue of the magazine features a series of capsule essays, “Tales of a city”, in which artists, authors and public figures reflect on their relationship with the capital. The pieces include:


  • Vivienne Westwood on a life spent in art galleries

  • Bim Adewunmi on Hackney’s inevitable gentrification

  • Alex Preston urges bankers to look up at the buildings they built

  • Ruth Padel argues the case for London Zoo

  • David Lammy questions whether London can be a place for everyone

  • Matthew Hollis travels on a boat down the Thames

  • Stuart Maconie offers a northerner’s take on the capital

  • Dorian Lynskey celebrates the Rough Trade record shop

  • Sarah Sands insists that no other city can compete with London

  • Maurice Glasman recalls gloomy childhood Sundays in Palmers Green

  • Evgeny Lebedev is grateful to a city that welcomed him


Will Self: Streets of love and anarchy

For a special essay, Will Self takes a stroll through south London with his son. They encounter pirate DVD sellers, 1970s tower blocks and Battersea Power Station – and Self remembers how much he loves, and hates, the protean city. Ralph Steadman has created an original illustration for the New Statesman to accompany this London essay.


Reporter at Large: Edward Platt

Last summer, Edward Platt set out in the footsteps of J B Priestley, tracking Britain’s post-industrial decline and revival. In the last of his “English journeys”, he visits the Isle of Dogs and Southwark, and discovers that urban poverty coexists uneasily with high finance. With photographs of Canary Wharf and the Shard by Stephen McLaren and Mimi Mollica.


Also in the London issue

  • An extensive photo essay, specially commissioned by the New Statesman, opens with a reflection on foreign depictions of the city by Sukhdev Sandhu, the author of London Calling and Night Haunts: a Journey Through the London Night. Across six spreads of the magazine, vintage photographs from Tate Britain's exhibition “Another London” (opens on 27 July) sit next to reinterpretations in images by the contemporary photographers Daido Moriyama, Alex Webb, Aaron Schuman, Jan Stradtmann, Noemie Goudal, Gueorgui Pinkhassov, Mishka Henner and Richard Mosse.

  • David Bailey, whose iconic fashion and celebrity photos of the Sixties captured the essence of Swinging London, talks to Rebecca McClelland in the NS Interview.

  • We run a new short story by Joe Dunthorne, “The Cold War”, set in an east London park and with an illustration by Barry Falls.


Elsewhere in this week's NS

  • Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, reflects on what can be done about Britain’s gloomy outlook in the Economics Column.

  • In the Politics Column, Rafael Behr reports that Boris Johnson “has told aides he intends to perform his mayoral duties on an unofficial part-time basis after the Olympics”. With seven deputy mayors left to run the capital, Johnson will be afforded “three years of idleness” – which for Downing Street “means endless scope for political devilry”.

  • In the Critics section, Richard Mabey writes the third in his series of “seasonal diaries” for the NS on the “floral phantasmagoriahe" we have our unusually wet summer to thank for.

  • Leo Hollis examines attempts to transform London from a Victorian capital to a futuristic metropolis using the latest digital technology.

  • The former editor of the Observer, Will Hutton, writes examines three books by leading economists who dissent from the “austerian” consensus on the best solution to the economic crisis, both domestically and globally. 

  • Also in The Critics, the NS's pick of the top ten London novels, films and songs.


This week's double issue of the New Statesman, cover dated 30 July - 12 August 2012, is on newsstands and available for purchase here


Alice Gribbin is a Teaching-Writing Fellow at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. She was formerly the editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here