Nick Clegg and David Cameron. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Will these professionally beige career politicians ever understand public service?

Despite grand promises, the coalition has not found a new way forward, nor has it overseen a resurgence of democratic engagement.

History tells us that in times of austerity, the poor and vulnerable are easy targets for those seeking to divide and weaken society. Benefit Bashing appears to be a new national sport, and this is a direct result of the death of the conviction politician, and the readiness of careerist MPs to dance to the tune of press barons in the hope of currying favourable electoral coverage. The ordinary voter is no longer the lynchpin, and press barons have seized the power our elected representatives have so readily ceded, now acting as king maker. Consequently, it’s now okay to making sweeping generalisations against huge swathes of people suffering deeply at the hands of a government composed of morally myopic, finger wagging millionaires, while ignoring harsh realities of how those government policies embed poverty and inexorably entrench class divides. The truth is no more than an inconvenience to be misreported or ignored. The fact that the media have shown more interest in where Bob Crow sunbathed on holiday, than the fact that 1 in 7 schoolchildren will endure a winter without a suitable coat says it all.

The untimely demise of Bob and Tony Benn could not have come at a worse time. The attacks on the working poor, vulnerable and disabled are not only coming from predictable government and media sources, but also from Labour. Both men were conviction politicians, routinely castigated for their views on most subjects, and in a minority of left wing advocates who managed to achieve broad media presence, speaking up for those with no voice, railing against casualisation of employment, and crusading against the excesses of a broken political system. They both passionately espoused radical socialist democracy, similar to the post war Labour administration that introduced universal health care, widespread pensions, expansive house building and full employment, but  were ultimately deserted by New Labour, as the party engaged in a limp wristed arm wrestle for what certain media outlets decided was the centre ground. It is the embedded fear held by political leaders of press barons, and a complete lack of political voices of conviction and passion, willing to defend the working poor and vulnerable that has opened the door to such flagrant collective character assassinations of benefit claimants, the like of which we have not seen since the darkest days of Margaret Thatcher.

Back in 2010, I remember discussing the prospect of coalition with many who saw alliance between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as a necessary evil, as well as being symptomatic of that broken system. In the infancy of this parliament, sun-kissed press conferences told us how new politics would establish new economic balance, the intoxicating melody of false hope weaving its thread through the sweet fabric of those summer afternoons, atop hypnotic drumbeats of blame aimed squarely and repeatedly at the previous administration. Four years later, the coalition is not so much necessary evil as it is a political infection that has been encouraged and cultivated by the collusion of a rudderless Labour Party, and the enthusiastic applauding of the more unedifying elements of the right wing press. Like any infection of virulence that goes unchallenged, it grew in size and severity, morphing from the Coalition of the Willing, into a Coalition of Haters.

Despite grand promises, the coalition has not found a new way forward, nor has it overseen a resurgence of democratic engagement. It has overseen the legitimising of repeated smears and attacks from government and massed media aimed squarely at those least able to defend themselves. It has overseen swathes of the legal aid system becoming virtually inaccessible for the working poor and vulnerable. It has overseen the bedroom tax continuing to wreak havoc among the most disadvantaged families, and employment rights and job security sacrificed with impunity. It has overseen the very poorest among us looking on helplessly while foreign nationals and bankers massage their tax burdens via London property acquisitions, with the working poor languishing on poverty pay in part time work, on zero hours contracts, or subsidising the profits of wealthy multinationals through workfare placements.  

We must take some blame for this. We buy these papers, and we recycle these lies. We need to stop subsidising this horror show. We need politicians unafraid of voicing opinion, men and women of conviction and passion willing to stand up for the poorest and most vulnerable, because those on benefits should never be column fodder for wealthy press barons. We need more Bob Crows and Tony Benns. They are the bulwark against the race to the bottom, and the worst instincts of a feckless coalition. They are a reminder that we must continue to oppose injustice and cruelty, and are an example to every professionally beige career politician of what it means to engage in public service.

 

Karl Davis is a writer, stand up comedian, train driver, and trade union activist and advocate. He lives in Hull and is married with two young sons.

Show Hide image

Women-only train carriages are just a way of ensuring more spaces are male by default

We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

“A decent girl,” says bus driver Mukesh Singh, “won't roam around at 9 o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy.”

Singh is one of four men sentenced to death for the rape and fatal assault of Jyoti Singh Pandey on a Delhi bus in 2013. His defence was that she shouldn’t have been on the bus in the first place. Presumably he’d have said the same if she’d been on a train. In the eyes of a rapist, all space is male-owned by default.

I find myself thinking of this in light of shadow fire minister Chris Williamson’s suggestion that woman-only train carriages be introduced in order to combat sexual violence on public transport. It’s an idea originally proposed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, only to be shelved following criticism from female MPs.

Now Williamson feels that a rise in sex attacks on public transport has made it worth considering again. Speaking to PoliticsHome, he argues that “complemented with having more guards on trains, it would be a way of combating these attacks”. He does not bother to mention who the perpetrators might be. Bears, vampires, monsters? Doesn’t really matter. As long as you keep the bait safely stored away in a sealed compartment, no one’s going to sniff it out and get tempted. Problem solved, right?

And that’s not the only benefit of a woman-only carriage. What better way to free up space for the people who matter than to designate one solitary carriage for the less important half of the human race?

Sure, women can still go in the free-for-all, male-violence-is-inevitable, frat-house carriages if they want to. But come on, ladies - wouldn’t that be asking for it? If something were to happen to you, wouldn’t people want to know why you hadn’t opted for the safer space?

It’s interesting, at a time when gender neutrality is supposed to be all the rage, that we’re seeing one form of sex segregated space promoted while another is withdrawn. The difference might, in some cases, seem subtle, but earlier sex segregation has been about enabling women to take up more space in the world – when they otherwise might have stayed at home – whereas today’s version seem more about reducing the amount of space women already occupy.

When feminists seek to defend female-only toilets, swimming sessions and changing rooms as a means of facilitating women’s freedom of movement, we’re told we’re being, at best, silly, at worst, bigoted. By contrast, when men propose female-only carriages as a means of accommodating male violence and sexual entitlement, women are supposed to be grateful (just look at the smack-downs Labour’s Stella Creasy received for her failure to be sufficiently overjoyed).

As long as over 80 per cent of violent crime is committed by men, there can be no such thing as a gender-neutral space. Any mixed space is a male-dominated space, which is something women have to deal with every day of their lives. Our freedoms are already limited. We spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about personal safety. Each time it is proposed that women don’t go there or don’t do that, just to be on the safe side, our world gets a little bit smaller. What’s more, removing the facilities we already use in order to go there or do that tends to have the exact same effect.

Regarding female-only carriages, Williamson claims “it would be a matter of personal choice whether someone wanted to make use of [them].” But what does that mean? Does any woman make the “personal choice” to put herself at risk of assault? All women want is the right to move freely without that constant low-level monologue – no, those men look fine, don’t be so paranoid, you can always do the key thing, if you’ve thought it’s going to happen that means it won’t …. We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

In 1975’s Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller pointed out that the fact that a minority of men rape “provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation”. Whether they want to or not, all men benefit from the actions of those Brownmiller calls “front-line masculine shock troops”. The violence of some men should not be used as an opportunity for all men to mark out yet more space as essentially theirs, but this is what happens whenever men “benevolently” tell us this bus, this train carriage, this item of clothing just isn’t safe enough for us.

“A decent girl,” says the future rapist, “wouldn’t have been in a mixed-sex carriage late at night.” It’s time to end this constant curtailment of women’s freedoms. A decent man would start by naming the problem – male violence – and dealing with that. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.