Youth, politics and the internet

Disastrous decisions Motelism Sam Miles blog
There’s so much news, all day, every day, it almost makes you wonder where you can start to make headway on it. Spare a thought for the journalists racing from crisis to crisis trying to get it covered.

I wanted to write this post – a treat to myself in the final writing up of my PhD – to share just one short video relevant to tomorrow’s UK General Election. Cassetteboy has previous good form when it comes to well-timed, thoughtful and ‘yoof’-friendly campaign videos – take your pick from David Cameron’s Eminem-style rap or a neat lapoon of Jeremy Hunt’s attitude to NHS strikes – but this is the best I can remember seeing. With 5 million Facebook views in just 24 hours, it seems that a lot of you share that view. For those of you without Facebook (they exist!) you can see a version here.

Cassetteboy vs Theresa May general election 2017 Sam Miles blog.png

This 2-and-a-half-minute précis of Theresa May’s failed initiatives, morally bankrupt policies and disdain for British public services gets right to the heart of the issue in an election where the Conservative campaign has been more about smearing the opponent than putting forward their own tenable ideas for social, political, or even – in a post-Brexit, post-austerity age, both managed under Conservative leadership! – economic change.

I say ‘they’, but clearly the Tories have seen the inexplicable (but perhaps waning) popularity of Theresa May in the leadership role and as a result telescoped most of the campaign to her and her alone. I’d be hard-pressed to think of Tory names in the running for her future cabinet, and the guest appearances from Home Secretary Amber Rudd and Culture Secretary Karen Bradley have done little to suggest that bringing other Tory figures into the running would finesse the campaign approach. If you’re expressing confusion about Karen Bradley, rest assured that I hadn’t heard of her either. It says a lot about the Tory attitude to culture and the arts in Brexit Britain that the Tory manifesto barely covers some of these themes, even in relation to education (which is its own unique disaster, evidenced by the school on my street having to cut the length of its school day). Bradley deserves some sympathy for having to rationalise cuts to police numbers – hardly her expertise – on live TV in the suspicious absence of May. Rudd meanwhile buried her father 48 hours before appearing in the BBC General Election debate, making May’s insistence on stand-ins all the more laughable.

Leadership involves, you know, presenting your ideas to the public: inviting feedback and listening to concerns. Whereas Corbyn’s team seem to have finally coached themselves on speeches, outreach and debate – and improved dramatically as a result, albeit not across the board – May is more leaden than ever, seemingly comfortable only when attacking the opposition or boosted by bigger personalities. Her terrible negotiating skills and singularly uncharismatic sociability should ring alarm bells for her capabilities in negotiating Brexit, and yet so many members of the voting public seem willing to run that risk. Is a bad Brexit better than no Brexit?

It also says a lot about this election that it was announced just 7 weeks ago (rather contradicting May’s argument that a general election is not in the best interests of the British people) already feels like it’s gone on for years. This is because it has been engineered by a ruling party uninterested in the transformative power of politics. An election campaign that does nothing to offer its own roadmap for an imagined future is no campaign at all. If the Tories win tomorrow’s election it will be in spite of, rather than because of, their work, and younger voters in particular will have a hard time aligning the politics they saw happen and the opportunities for change left untaken.

Crisis after crisis has piled on in recent weeks, and yet May’s response as the leader of the country has been repeatedly found lacking. The gall of the Prime Minister complaining this week about extremism in the UK after 5 years as Home Secretary tasked with tackling exactly those issues says it all. How exactly does her promise to tear up the Human Rights Act really tackle the root causes of homegrown terrorism, and why aren’t more people pointing out that the Hillsborough Disaster inquiry has this exact legislation to thank for the overdue investigation into the police and government cover-up? Why does May consistently fail to speak out against Donald Trump’s increasingly damaging geopolitical fiascos, including the Paris Climate Agreement, and why has she not more convincingly defended the hard work of Sadiq Khan after Trump’s repeated criticisms?

This year has felt like the end of days sometimes when it comes to the global stage, and it is youth who will suffer from the egotistical machinations of older leaders and voters. At least the age group most involved in ubiquitous technology are those best placed to act on what they learn through online content when it comes to the ballot box. Bouyed by the age-divide in Brexit voting, my only hope is that today’s young voters will maintain their tolerance and their thoughtful outlook on the issues affecting our society not just in our current political climate, but as they age over the years to come.

martyn hett sexuality and the city blog Sam Miles.png

I wanted to end this post with a note to say how saddened I was to learn that Martyn Hett was a victim of the Manchester terror attack, one of the funniest people you could possibly follow on social media and a some-time writer for Huffington Post and Attitude magazine. Even the Telegraph (the Telegraph! no lover of tattoos, Buzzfeed or gay culture) gave a nod to his infectious humour. You can read one of Martyn’s own articles, on internal homophobia here, and his Buzzfeed tribute to his mum’s craft work, which has since gone very very viral, here. My friend Alistair Bealby, a fellow blogger, has just published a fantastic Guardian piece on the impact of Martyn’s death and his mission to #BeMoreMartyn here. Finally, I have Martyn to thank for the Mariah Carey meme that my blog sported exactly a year ago in the run-up to the EU membership referendum. Here it is again for you to enjoy:

EU

London cycling, social change and urban geography

 

Just a quick post this week, but an apt piece to share with you, given the lengthening days into summer.

This is a really interesting article about the policies (and failures) underpinning London’s growing cycling trend, which as a London cyclist I’ve been following with interest over the past few years (not least the ever-growing debate on helmet wearing – I’m a helmet wearer myself, but always interested to hear other views). But back to cycling itself: go to central London at rush hour and you’ll be amazed at the density of cycle commuting going on, helped in places by dedicated cycle provision, and hindered in others by the ongoing difficulties of shifting an urban infrastructure to shared modes of transportation.

In terms of urban geography, cycling is a fascinating topic of study – during my north American conference trip last month, I was pleasantly surprised to find fully established state-funded cycle schemes not just in New York and Toronto, whose density would suggest that this kind of offering can be implemented without hassle, but in Boston and Miami too. There are questions to ask here about who uses these schemes (Tourists or commuters?) and for what purpose – just weekend leisure, or daily commutes that mitigate against more polluting journeys by other residents? There is a lot of talk about cycling reaching ‘critical mass’ in cities – some argue that we are already there, but others argue that outside London, UK cities are less cycle-friendly than ever, not least in that drivers seem to be now joined by pedestrians in their complaints about poor cycling behaviour.

Bike Sexuality and the City blog Sam Miles.jpg

A little calmer than cycling the Old Street roundabout

What is interesting about this article (and I don’t agree with everything in it, but then that is no reason not to find valuable content in it, right?) is the persuasive argument that policy initiatives with this kind of change really do seem to come down to money. The environmental factors, the health benefits (yes, the health boost of urban cycling does still outweigh air pollution in all but the most polluted cities), the improved efficiency in road density: those are collateral. In a neoliberal city infrastructure predicated on continuing development, money remains – and it seems will likely persist as – the central driver(!).

You can read the whole piece below.

 

When I lived in London 10 years ago, biking to work was almost unheard of. I remember a colleague of mine, the only cyclist I knew, rolling up her pantleg, lifting her shirt, to show me all her scars.

Since then, though, cycling has nearly doubled, and is expected to surpass driving in just three years.

cycling revolution

London has—visibly, significantly—become friendlier for cyclists. The bike-hire scheme, the bright blue “cycle superhighways,” you even see tourists and kids out cycling now. I started biking on my work-trips to London about six years ago, and it seems like every time I visit, there’s more quietways, better signs, (slightly) nicer drivers, fewer close calls.

I am perplexed by how this happened. All the arguments for cycling to work—cheaper, less pollution, more exercise—applied as much a decade ago as they do now. So why have they suddenly found purchase?

As far as I can tell, the…

View original post 3,863 more words

Chasing the tail of Brexit

I’ve been considering whether to write about Brexit. So much to say in one sense, but so little to comment on in terms of actual developments, 9 months in. There have at least been a succession of empty sound bites from government, added to this week by a truly messy BBC Question Time Brexit special (which UK viewers can watch on iPlayer, here)… it’s enough to make you pull your hair out.

But it would be remiss of me to ignore the debate today: the day that the UK signs ‘Article 50’. A chance, I’m sure, for nationalists patriots to mark with fervour, with a blurry idea of what it is they’re actually celebrating – not entirely their fault, given the opacity of how Brexit is progressing on a governmental level. The more fringe quarters of the rightwing press are crowing about ‘our’ very own ‘Independence Day’. It is dubbed, somewhat clumsily, ‘E-day‘ (all your trigger warnings come at once: it’s a Daily Mail link). I mean, I quip about fringe quarters of the press, but The Daily Mail is the UK’s most-read newspaper with circulation figures of 2 million, making it the 4th-most read English language newspaper in the world. Lovely.

British EU desks

‘Taking back control’

It is at least true that signing Article 50 will trigger the extrication of the UK from the European Union. But this triggering is not really a ‘breaking free’ in any significant sense. In fact it is more like the reverse of a ‘taking back control’ promised to the electorate. It is a capitulation of British interests, money and co-operative policy structures built over half a century, in a ham-fisted attempt to assuage a misguided postcolonial crisis of identity. *Breathes deeply*. Take what you can from the humour of the BBC show; there’s nothing funny about our real Little Britain. Article 50 represents the start, not the end, of an interminably long political negotiation to decide how European trade and movement will work in the future. According to Whitehall policy staff, there are 700 separate areas to disentangle. It’s like a large-scale divorce: only in this divorce, there is little precedent for what should happen, and an awful lot at stake for people outside the marriage itself.

As for what the relationship between Britain and the EU will look like in the future, that will remain unclear for longer still: the first negotiations will only be able to deal with Britain’s actual departure. Britain has been told by the EU it has outstanding financial commitments of around €60 billion to pay. We don’t seem to be in a particularly strong position to argue against that, seeing as our ‘side’ still needs to secure future lucrative trade deals with the bloc in the wake of, err, those trade deals we’re about to lose with our EU membership. Why would other European countries allow Britain the same or even similar access to their trade offering when Britain isn’t willing to abide by the tenets of EU membership? We can’t have our cake and eat it too, as Philip Hammond noted this morningContra bluster from British tabloids about our country’s refusal to bend to the will of European plutocrats (itself a claim with something of the echo chamber about it: MP’s expenses, anyone? Tory fraud scandal? House of Lords paid non-attendance?) David Davis has actually already admitted that yes, we will have to pay up. Brexit: so far, so messy.

brexit bus Sam Miles blog.png

That red bus

Paying €60 billion rather dwarfs the red bus brigade that claimed £350 million per week went into the EU. In fact, the latter figure has been disproven anyway, not least because of the value of reciprocal income. But €60 billion also pales into insignificance when you consider the £220 billion worth of exports alone we currently sell to EU countries every year, as well as the same – more, in fact – bought via our imports from EU countries. Those will be compromised when we lose unilateral trade agreements for at least the period of negotiations, if not longer. Sure, we can work through policy that tries to shore up some of this trade, as well as looking to other countries to stem the gulf – but that takes time and, surprise! – money. These are complicated and in all likelihood, protracted, negotiations that voters last summer were truly in the dark about: either because they didn’t think about it or they weren’t equipped with the information to do so effectively.

For those with buyer’s remorse, the £350 million saved per week can go to the NHS though, right? Apart from nothing’s come through yet. The claim is now abandoned by the very people who made it, and in real terms, NHS spending is actually down. Even where NHS spending may increase, adjusting for inflation shows that it won’t rise as much as suggested, and non-NHS health services face disproportionate cuts. ‘Leave’ voters should rightly be furious.

Us vs. Them

What was interesting about this week’s BBC Question Time Brexit special was not so much the political performances but the audience. Again and again, what people complained about/were worried about/made uninformed assumptions about… was immigration. In case we were in any doubt, Brexit was for many people a protest vote to reduce immigration. The fact that the EU is represents only half of inward movement of people to the UK is besides the point to these voters, who just want less of it and do not feel they are given opportunities to make that heard: and so they used our European membership referendum as their direct line.

On an economic basis, complaints about the drain of migrants have been repeatedly proven unfounded, as this excellent Movehub infographic shows (full version in link, albeit only measuring up to 2012). In fact, EU migrants are of greater benefit to the UK than non-EU migrants. They are mostly young, working, and paying taxes. But good luck countering feelings with facts. Until we listen to voters’ concerns and where they come from – whether emotionally or practically – they will not feel listened to. Through it all, Brexit is kicked jerkily into action despite its at-best tangential relevance to the issues that are really at stake for a disadvantaged electorate.

Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 12.56.28.png

Political rhetoric, course 101

What now? Well, no-one really knows still. David Davis may bluster about the solid 9 months of work done by his department to set things up for disentangling itself from the EU (incidentally, the department is rather refreshingly titled ‘The Department for Exiting the European Union’ – no acronyms here, pals). But a smooth ride hardly seems likely given the myriad aspects needing consideration, from economics and trade to constitutions, binding and non-binding policy regulation. Think of the headache involved in deciding the rights that should be afforded to EU nationals currently resident in the UK, and Brits abroad.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: this whole Brexit scenario was an avoidable crisis, manufactured and stoked by egotistical politicians like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson who enjoyed their soapbox without having to take ultimate responsibility. It will swallow money, human resources and focus from other crucially important issues that do need political action and do deserve the focus of British voters. There’s plenty wrong with the EU, but the union has stepped up its efforts to better rationalise processes in the interests of cost-saving and efficiency. It seems to me far better to be part of an like-minded, established bloc with half a century of experience than going it alone in a global age of economic uncertainty, compounded by shifting geopolitical allegiances that threaten civil unrest at any time.

Sure, at times we have invested more into the EU than we were getting out; but such disproportionate political grandstanding to exit a union that has done a lot of good seems all the more surreal when you consider the £31 billion we are paying to renew Trident. Let’s call it what it is – a nuclear deterrent for a small country with dwindling impact on the world stage. Using the euphemism of ‘Trident’ lets us get away without consideration of what nuclear armament, with all its consequences, really means. Still: might come in useful in a future where our European allies are rather colder in their diplomatic collateral.

What I’m saying is: I know we’re supposed to get behind these political machinations now. I know that ‘Brexit means Brexit‘ (but what, exactly, is Brexit?). I know that there will be unenviable work done by incredibly dedicated civil servants here and on the continent to hammer out a mutually beneficial (or mutually palatable) contract over several years. But as an ideological exercise, it remains a misguided, manipulative endeavour and a case study for Political Rhetoric 101. A GCSE history class could pick apart the political motivations for rolling out Brexit at a time of hardening social attitudes, rising nationalism, structural inequality and enforced (and demonstrably ineffective) austerity measures.

In 10 years, when we see an arms-length Europe and a privatised NHS, I don’t think school classes will have any problem in linking the patterns together to show how a perfect storm of misplaced patriotism and lies came together to exacerbate both.

School student head on desk Brexit Sam Miles Blog.jpg

This really does say it all.

International Women’s Day round-up

I’m up to my neck in deadlines at the moment, so I’ll keep it short and sweet, but today is International Women’s Day and it is more important than ever to celebrate the event. The theme of this year’s celebration is ‘be bold for change’ – a manifesto we can all get behind in a global political climate that remains perilous. The statue of Liberty went unlit last night in an unplanned power cut, and you don’t need me to explain the symbolism 101 happening right there.

statue of liberty dark Sam Miles blog

To round-up some of the writing marking today’s importance, I’m reblogging three solid but concise pieces in The Guardian. 

  • Rebecca Solnit argues that silence and powerlessness goes hand in hand, which means it is more important than ever to speak out [whether talking, campaigning, maybe even blogging!] to keep politics progressing. Read more here.

    silence by Nathalie Lees Sexuality and the City blog Sam Miles

    Picture credit: Nathalie Lees

  • As a one-time expat in Madrid, Spain myself, I found Sam Jones’ article about women silenced by the 20th-century Franco regime fascinating. These artists, writers and scientists are finally getting the recognition they deserve. Read more here.

    Elena Fortun memorial.jpg

    Elena Fortún memorial plaque

  • Finally, Molly Redden problematises the International Women’s Day campaign ‘A World Without Women’ by asking who it is for – it seems likely that those facing economic precarity aren’t going to be able to strike or take unpaid leave as easily as others. Read more here. (NB: the subheading, ‘feminism is having a mainstream moment’, isn’t very helpful, but I’m blaming that on the subeditor).

    Womens march Shannon Staples Reuters.jpg

    Photo credit: Shannon Staples/Reuters

Elsewhere, the Guardian has a rolling live news stream of International Women’s Day events, which seems to me an impressive commitment to a range of coverage, including protest.

I know I probably sound like a newspaper employee by this point, but it’s amongst the better of the media platforms I’ve seen today. Highly commended goes to Buzzfeed, for accessible coverage including links out to women writers from the Global South, with some fantastic photography – read more here.

Happy International Women’s Day!

GradFest & the importance of academic networking

QMUL gradfest Sam Miles sexuality and the city blog.png

Just a short post this time, to alert QMUL researchers to the PhD-run GradFest next week.

I was an organising committee member for this graduate festival in 2015 and 2016 and found it to be a really valuable experience, both to help organise and attend (I wrote about last year’s here. All these events are free, and have been organised by PhD researchers for others in the academic community. Some you can even attend if you’re at a different London institution. Events cover everything from making your own blog to yoga as a way of switching off from work, but all are united in being chosen by students for their relevance to the PhD process.

The ever-excellent Thesis Whisperer published an interesting piece yesterday questioning if conventional advice we are given about our research is wrong. With all the recent talk of isolation in PhDs, and debates about whether the PhD is even fit for purpose, initiatives like organised events are all the more important for what they can offer us in terms of collaboration and networking. I think inter-disciplinary (and inter-institution) networking is absolutely vital to solid, relevant research, but it’s easier said than done when the research environment encourages the PhD researcher to chip away at their 100,000 word Yellow Pages masterpiece alone. Along with conferences, organised research events like GradFest based on the increasingly popular model of arts or literature festivals, is one way to tackle this singular working pattern.

With my PhD finishing later this year, my thoughts are turning to an academic vs. industry career – or the hybridisation of the two(you know where to find me, Apple). This upcoming session on presenting research, including research that might have taken a wrong turn(!) looks right up my street.

img_4037

Senate House research room in Bloomsbury makes a scenic change from my living room but alas, few networking opportunities to be had in the hallowed silence.

 

 

 

Art as resistance in the age of unrest

graffiti-house

It feels like things are in flux at the moment more than ever before. I’ll save the theatre metaphors for my last post, but this is a world stage changing so fast that I can hardly keep up to write about it.

The worrying thing is that very little of it seems like progress; most feels like regression. To borrow Donald Trump’s favourite Twitter catchline: sad. If you don’t know what I’m talking about you’re lucky enough not to read his tweets, which are a garbled mess of egotistical grandstanding and hurt feelings about his media coverage. But Newsweek have compiled a list of all the things that made him ‘sad’; published last December, it hasn’t even got to some of the best stuff, but there’s ample fodder here to make you laugh (and cry).

How do we go about processing such rapid changes in politics? It feels hard to rationalise some of this stuff. The speed at which his Republican administration has reversed travel rights for migrants and foreign travellers (and then fired the US Attorney General for refusing to endorse the ban), muted the social media accounts of his environmental staff, and disinvested in global family planning and abortion funding is staggering. But the danger is that we find it so hard to process we give up on doing so altogether. This might be exactly what Trump’s administration want, so that they can press ahead with yet more aggressive strategies whilst we split our attention between one carefully manufactured crisis piling on another.

One way we can think (and communicate to others) about what’s happening is by looking at how art and graphic design respond to political upheaval – whether that’s via protest posters, graffiti, or advertising. We’ve seen the way that right-wing media manipulate privately-felt, often inaccurate anxieties within the general population to further their own media agenda. But looking to more creative expressions of feelings from individuals that are communicated outside of mainstream media channels offers us different perspectives.

 Protest posters

mayday-protest

Arabic protest James Jackson.jpg

We’ve seen protests around the world in the past week, and the signs were some of the best bits. The first, from Monday’s march in London, was made to protest Theresa May’s refusal to speak out against Trump’s ‘muslim ban’ (photo credit: Rex/Shuttershock). The second is from the women’s march in Washington DC last week (photo credit James Jackson).

1970s-war-protest-sexuality-and-the-city-blog-sam-miles

This is not a new protest poster – far from it. Made in 1966 as an anti-war image, it got the message so perfectly right that it’s been used ever since. I remember a version of it my mum stuck to the wall of our downstairs loo when I was young, so when I saw the print in the V&A exhibition ‘So You Want to Start A Revolution?’ exhibition the day after the London women’s march I was amazed. Over 50 years on and we’re still having to make the same kind of public demonstration.

Graffiti

politics-graffiti

How about graffiti? Whether it’s art or vandalism is a separate issue (my personal nightmare is seeing good graffiti covered by sloppy work), but graffiti is uniquely placed to make a visual impact in what are often high-footfall urban environments. The above piece is a chillingly relevant image to accompany the way that Trump (and increasingly, Theresa May) works to turn opinion into pseudo-fact through dogged repetition. Many attribute the above to Banksy, but the tag suggests it’s by Mogul, a Swedish-based stencil graffiti artist. Stencil graffiti may not represent the cutting edge of street art any more, but as a platform for expression, it is well suited for communicating powerful political messaging because it lends itself to text information and is so easily decipherable.

Donald-Trump-L-kissing-the-Former-Mayor-of-London-and-Conservative-MP-Boris-Johnson

The weird thing is that I used the above piece in an article about the run-up to the EU referendum, back in June, yet now it feels more real than ever. Boris Johnson ‘managed to’ secure free passage for Britons who hold dual nationality with countries on Trump’s banned list: therefore the UK, we are encouraged to believe, has nothing more to worry about. How about us working as allies to those in less privileged arrangements? Not likely.

Advertising

When it comes to advertising, I’m not naïve enough to believe that corporations work without their own ulterior motives when they respond to political situations – their image is their brand, and by capturing some of the sentiment of what the public feels, they are managing to be ‘on side’ with that public at times when scrutiny of consumption is at its very highest. That said, it’s a good feeling to see advertising that responds to political unrest and resists those things that most agree are problematic or dangerous. It doesn’t have to wade into international relations and come ‘out’ as partisan; the fact it does means that it is confident that a significant proportion of viewers or consumers will share the viewpoint.

Take this Danish TV advert on ‘all that we share’. I defy you not to feel moved by it (and jealous that the Danish once again get this kind of thing right). Click for the video.

Danish TV ad sexuality and the city blog Sam Miles.png

The below advert really caught my eye as I cycled past it in a drizzly Victoria Park this morning, where LOVEBOX festival runs every summer. The double meaning is clear – people get lost at music festivals all the time; in fact I think I must have spent half of every music festival I’ve ever been to lost and with a dead phone – but the political ring of the statement is strong too. In times of dangerous geopolitics we can find resistance in being there for each other.

lovebox-advert-sexuality-and-the-city-blog-sam-miles

Another brilliant image comes from the New York Times magazine cover. It’s from 2015, not now, but it’s doing the rounds on Twitter because of its prescience in predicting Trump’s isolationism (I say prescience, but the hands don’t quite match; Trump’s are famously small). As a magazine cover this just blows the competition out of the water. I love it. Look at that blue paint colour, and the erasure it indicates. The position of the globe, how it contrasts the global with the local, and how the whole composition feels old-fashioned, even retro, makes for a striking piece.

ny-times-globe

In fact, the New York Times has received a lot of media attention for its scrutiny of Trump’s dystopian regime presidency, resulting in appeals to subscribe to its news in the interests of maintaining independent journalism. I’m in two minds about this idea – if you read the content, great, but you might look closer to home for this kind of exchange support model; for example the Guardian has a similar fundraising scheme and rapidly dwindling reserves in the age of online news which is free to access. Better yet would be to fund civil liberties organisations or human rights charities who employ trained policy advisors, researchers and legal teams to investigate human rights abuses and lobby government accordingly. Liberty and Amnesty International are good starting points.

What can we do?

What exactly can we do? I’m not sure I have answers. I missed the London march against Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ because I was teaching, so I wrote to my MP, Meg Hillier, asking her to lobby on behalf of constituents for government to act more decisively than Theresa May’s mealy-mouthed statement calling on Trump to rethink his travel ban (truly an exercise in tautology). Lest we forget, May’s first take on Trump’s bombshell read as follows: ‘immigration policy in the United States is a matter for the government of the United States’. Wow. Judging by the popular and media response, May thought it time to hire a new comms chief, and did just that, choosing – aha! – the Daily Mail’s political editor.

It’s hard to know what else we can do to be effective. Figuring that the ACLU was getting much-needed attention from the U.S side of things, I donated money to the UK Refugee Council and signed a petition calling for the U.K to postpone Trump’s state visit until he reverses his discriminatory travel policy. But how can I be sure that a petition actually works? It seems an awfully easy way to be an activist. Writing to your MP is (slightly) more likely to result in action, and the brilliant They Work For You finds your MP and gives you a template. But my MP is up to her neck in Brexit negotiations (cheers electorate for that time and money drain) and besides, as an inner London Labour MP, I can be pretty sure she already shares her constituents’ views and is lobbying accordingly.

Donations are better yet, as crowd-funding work in America has shown over the past week. And marching is a highly visible form of protest that also brings people together. As this article by Owen Jones points out, Trump is a threat to structures of democracy and grassroots campaigning may be the best strategy to adopt.

But this Medium article is essential reading, expanding on the theme I touched on earlier of manufactured crisis as a way to make larger, more ominous legislative changes; as I say, I’m not sure funding newspapers is more effective than specialist NGOs. But the writer makes a good point that protest is only covered by the media who are interested in covering it; a large swath of American media is in favour of the current administration and won’t promote coverage that impinges on that narrative. Just take a look at the results: Americans actually report feeling safer with a ‘Muslim ban’. As I’ve written before, we all absorb our news through media filters of like-mindedness, and it means we consume often completely different stories to those who are politically opposite-leaning. The gulf is widening all the time.

Through all of this we need to be allies to those in more precarious social situations than us. Migrants, whether documented or undocumented; minorities; those experiencing job insecurity; and those who experience disproportionate police harassment: these groups most need advocacy and representation and are also least likely to receive it. Talking and communicating across the spectrum – from blogging to protest to conversations with friends, students and family – can help maintain momentum and political engagement amongst us ‘normal people’ at a time when the bigger picture can feel overwhelming.

Post-Brexit Trade: Or, As EU Like It

suffering fools sexuality and the city blog sam miles.jpg

Tom Miles/Motelism, 2014

This week has brought a new chapter in the convoluted Brexit saga, as a much-anticipated public speech by Theresa May sought to lay out a framework for what comes next. The whole Brexit portmanteau-ed mess feels more and more like a Shakespearean tragedy; I’ll leave you to allocate MPs to the parts. Spare a thought for those of us who have to watch the play.

In case anyone was in any doubt that the government have little clue of how to actually enact Brexit, May’s speech testified to the hopelessness of progress so far, and as far as I can see, some considerable hopelessness about what comes next. I know I’ve mentioned it before, but lest we forget: this whole costly, lengthy, conceptually blurry political impasse grew from David Cameron’s pledge for re-election as Prime Minister in 2015 to ‘let the people’ decide whether they wanted to remain in the EU, terms somewhat unspecified. As academics and policy experts warned at the time (but who listens to academics and policy experts, right?) the full rationale and information for any such decision went far beyond anything that a simple ‘yes/no’ binary could hope to address.

That didn’t stop Cameron merrily reducing the issue to over-simplified terms to get the referendum he’d promised off the campaign trail and into life. I’m sure some of you watched Charlie Brooker’s (excellent) Screenwipe 2016 over Christmas, available here. The coverage of post-Brexit politics was just stunning for showing that yep, no-one had any clue what to do. No-one. The best/worst bit of Brooker’s précis were the soundbites of different politicians describing what type of Brexit we’d have, like a loaf of bread (or sex?). Hard Brexit, soft brexit, clean Brexit… And then colours – grey Brexit (cheery) and, worst of all, Theresa May’s bizarre (un)cool Britannia riff: a ‘red, white and blue Brexit‘. It was almost as if the Conservatives regretted the whole referendum in the first place, but by that point Cameron was out to lunch permanently and the others were left to clear up his mess.

But back to the present scene. 7 months(!) after Britain voted to leave the EU, this week’s speech was Theresa May’s chance to lay out exactly what all that entailed, and show that in the absence of a government plan all summer or autumn, things were finally on track. The fact that her speech prompted more questions than gave answers seemed to go un-noticed by rightwing press, who went to town on receiving the speech as some sort of benevolent but firm mother regaining control of her borders. Forgetting that Margaret Thatcher was actually a key figure in forming the EU trade deal, enthused comparisons between the two Iron Ladies abounded (right down to their shared innuendos, suggests The Telegraph. Please god no). Not only is immigration not what the referendum was supposed to be about (migration is related to Brexit, but not interchangeable, and clearly not in regards to non-EU movement), the plan seems to me to be a wilful overestimation of both what May was promising and what May could achieve. No matter: the Daily Mail included breathless coverage of  May’s jazzy new haircut, what with that having absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Most notably, May scrapped the idea of continuing membership of the single market, which is something even the Brexiters didn’t vote for when they opted to leave the EU. In fact, David Cameron had pushed for more integration into the single market, not less. Theresa May isn’t stupid – knowing that Brexit was, for many, more about immigration than Europe – she basically said that the country will leave the single market in order to also scrap free movement of European citizens. So, the muddled and often damaging ideology surrounding migrants continues to grow. Yet when we go and live in Spain we’re called ex-pats… I know, it doesn’t make sense to me either.

Little Britain sexuality and the city blog Sam Miles.jpg

German newspaper Die Welt nailing it

This slash-and-burn approach to years of negotiation, partnership and knowledge sharing is not only wasteful, it undermines the future of young Britons – who voted to Remain in the EU on ballot day – by restricting their ability to travel, work and study freely in the EU. Why would we pay huge amounts and give ourselves an enormous administrative headache for the sake of restricting our ability for cross-country movement? It’s the 21st century! The message is that European migrants aren’t welcome here, but hey, everyone else round the globe do come and trade – although countries of lesser standing need not apply. We are once again forgetting our diminishing place in the global world order: and I say that as someone who loves my country, not least its amazing diversity (increasingly under threat). The Tory government expects countries to line up to broker expensive, protracted bilateral deals that are more necessary to us than to them, whilst wilfully giving up one of the biggest in history – the EU trade agreement. We have not been a global superpower in trade terms since the C19th century, and as this article shows we have the weakest productivity in the G7 group, but May isn’t letting that get in the way of telling (some) people what they (might) want to hear.

Why would the EU, or any new international trade partner, give us a good deal? We have no bargaining chips in either scenario. Europe does not need us more than we need them, despite the nonsense peddled by rightwing press determined to shame Remainers via bogus patriotism. Control over our relationship with the EU won’t sit with us, it will sit with them – and the potential economic loss is invariably greater for a country of 65 million people than a shared bloc of 500 million. As for global trade, the U.S and China set that agenda, and given Trump’s new revanchist position against trading with Mexico, it hardly seems likely a new partnership would benefit the UK more than it would the U.S, despite Trump’s nauseating love-in with unpalatable British talking heads (Michael Gove, Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins enter stage left).

Trump Gove sexuality and the city blog.jpg

Lovely use of ‘Playboy’ as political certification

The sterling boost that followed Theresa May’s speech isn’t much to write home about either, as a summary by The Conversation shows here. Sterling hit a historic 32 year ow against the Dollar this week – which is a joke when you consider the political and economic division currently routing the U.S.

But for the many people sick of the current economic order that helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer – 8  people now hold the same wealth as 50% of the global population – there was a stitch in time moment: could Theresa May’s speech really be turning to a new economic growth model? Could we be heralding a more egalitarian tax or finance system? Nope. May is essentially offering the UK as a tax haven to other countries. And spare a thought for the continuing precarity of EU citizens living and working in the UK. They are no clearer on what comes next for their livelihoods and their families, as this excellent state-of-play report by The Migration Observatory shows.

Meanwhile, Scotland are – as anyone could have predicted over the past few months – considering another referendum on independence from the UK, because Scotland (and Northern Ireland) voted to remain in the EU and are being dragged out of it by England and Wales. It’s hardly Macbeth territory when you consider Scotland’s position and its frustration. Cameron’s foolish referendum could yet spell the extended dissolution of the United Kingdom, a depressing prospect. In a supposed era of the global citizen, England looks smaller than ever. Say what you like about Nicola Sturgeon (and plenty do, with abandon), she is an intelligent, clear-headed and determinedly representative politician for her constituents; her verdict of May’s free market move as potentially ‘economically catastrophic’ is worrying.

Through it all, I ask: why would we want to impair international relations? Why would we want to cut ourselves off from Europe in favour of uncertain and unproven trade deals with other countries that aren’t even as geographically proximate? Brexit was hardly a decisive democratic mandate – 51.9% vs 48.1%. I’m increasingly perplexed at the way that Leavers and mainstream media paint those who voted Remain as ‘Remoaners’, poor citizens, or children having a tantrum.This spoof Daily Mash piece says it all. Given that nearly half the population falls into the Remain camp, it can’t really be thought of as a disparate minority, nor can the range of concerns with a Brexit be dismissed as somehow unpatriotic.

The way the political (and tabloid newspaper) rhetoric around Brexit is progressing is deeply unhelpful to the U.K’s cohesive social identity. There is a creepy return to populist/nationalist rhetoric, kickstarted by Farage’s ‘Independence Day’ (a term aimed to misguide, as we were never not independent). To suggest the UK is free from the yoke of EU oppression is nonsense – there were plenty of ways in which this country benefitted from EU partnership, and those include, y’know, UK legislation for LGBT couples who aren’t married, free movement for university students studying abroad, and globally respected human rights protection. Politics has become bogged down in meaningless imagery. Take, for example, Boris Johnson’s bizarre reference to World War II today whilst conjecturing about the way that France might deal with Britain’s exit from the EU. He’s reacting to a political situation that hasn’t even happened. (In keeping with the Shakespeare theme, a spokesperson has just clarified that Johnson was not ‘suggesting anyone was a Nazi’, just making ‘a theatrical comparison’. It’s as if he knew I was writing a theatre themed piece!)

Our politicians and rightwing media are painting us as inward-looking and isolationist when that’s the opposite of what many of us want to be – especially those who travel, and young people. In doing so, they paint the 48% who never consented to this costly political headache as unhelpfully negative, when what we are trying to express is the unprecedented shortsightedness of the political decisions made and the promises broken to areas of the electorate who most needed economic help. Now we wait for the next act.

shakespeare-brexit-sexuality-and-the-city-blog

As EU Like It

Book Review: Routledge Companion to Geographies of Sex & Sexualities

Routledge companion to geographies of Sex & Sexualities.jpg

Happy new year! I have written a review of Gavin Brown and Kath Browne’s Routledge Research Companion to Geographies of Sex & Sexualities for the academic journal Antipode.

I enjoyed reviewing Garth Greenwell’s What Belongs to You for Pan Macmillan last year (which you can read here), but this was a different endeavour as the review was for publication in an academic journal (this article in the ever-excellent Thesis Whisperer covers some of the debates). This review took me a while to write as the book itself is enormous – it could almost sit on a coffee table, although alas, like most academic volumes, it’s absent of those arty photos we all love – but it was nevertheless a really interesting experience. It proved to be a good way of consolidating my own knowledge of the research field whilst also writing for other readers. That sense of consolidation is key, because in a field that is changing all the time (especially in terms of new technology) the researcher needs to keep on top of new ideas or risk becoming out of touch in their own research.

I’d recommend the book to cultural geographers, sociologists, and political scientists certainly, and it deserves a place in any university library because it covers a very wide range of topics: from sex work to transgender life in small-town America. You can read my full review here, but below is an extract of how I introduce the topic, as a way of sketching out some of the most interesting parts of this geographical topic for those of you not familiar with the area:

‘What is the relationship between cities and sexualities? Is the Pride parade dead as a form of political expression? How does urban governance influence sex work? These are the kinds of questions raised at the intersection of geography and sexuality, and they bring with them debates from queer theory, sociology, and science and technology studies.

The Companion takes as its starting point the historical lethargy in geography regarding the study of sex and sexuality beyond a heteronormative focus on couplehood and the family. This has shifted over time to incorporate approaches that attend to the influence of place, space and mobilities in shaping sexual desire, and how sexual identities including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are represented across the world. The perceived “naturalness” of heterosexuality means that it has long been accepted as the default expression of sexuality in public space, so non-heterosexual or queer identities and practices in public space are easily marked as other (and sometimes punished).

Following an initial focus in the 1980s and 1990s on gay male spaces, scholarship grew to consider lesbian experiences, and, more recently, bisexual and trans people. Today, the field is healthy and expanding, exploring not just sexual identity but also biopolitics and sexual health, migration, surveillance, technology, the value of home, the visibilities and exclusions that mark public and private space, and the life (and possible death) of the “gayborhood”.’ (Miles 2016: 1-2)

And you thought geography was all ‘colouring in’.

But there is a serious point here: in a global context where 74 countries actively punish LGBT people, and where LGBT safe spaces are still subject to violence, social science research on sex and sexualities is more important than ever.

Love wins sexuality and the city blog.jpg

 

Merry Christmas

img_3846

With things finally winding down for Christmas, it’s time to put the news away for a moment (hard to do with all the excellent lists of 2016 doing the rounds, like this list of best music albums and this list of 2016’s unsung heroes) and sit back and reflect on the year past.

For me, it’s been a fascinating first year of blogging, and I’d like to thank you for coming along for the ride with me. My aim was to discuss some of my work as a PhD researcher, but as well as technology, it was politics that caught my eye this year – and with so much going on across the globe, who can blame me?

Yet my two most read posts by far were a piece on why the Orlando shooting in June was so important for the LGBT community, and my recent post on the UK’s mental health crisis and suicide rates. After all my discussion of Brexit, Trump, and London, it goes to show that actually some of the more personal stuff resonates: not just with friends and family, but strangers too (hello, readers in Belarus, Angola and Nepal!)

The sentiment in the Lora Mathis poem Kiss Your Friends’ Faces More is truer than ever, and I’m going to carry it into 2017. Until then, enjoy a digital detox.

Merry Christmas!

all-i-want-for-christmas-sam-miles-blog

 

2016: A Year in Review (Darker than your Facebook version)

 

without-rhyme-or-reason-motelism-sam-miles-sexuality-and-the-city-blog

Without Rhyme or Reason. Tom Miles 2014

2016 will in many ways be seen as an annus horibilis. To take just a selection, we’ve seen: austerity measures, Brexit, the consequent resignation of the prime minister whose whole re-election campaign was, you know, based on a referendum, a replacement Conservative Prime Minister who wasn’t elected but was at least less revanchist than her competitors, the Nice terrorist attack that killed 86 festival-goers, acceleration in climate change and the progressive destruction of the great barrier reef, Zika virus, the ongoing destruction of Syria, a redoubled effort by SNP to separate Scotland from the UK, a refugee crisis, the Calais ‘jungle’, the election of Donald Trump as president of America (truly an example of the power of post-fact politics), Russian hackers infiltrating US voting protocol, North Korean nuclear weapons testing – and the deaths of David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood, Prince, Harper Lee and Muhammad Ali amongst others.

Hey, it’s not been all bad, but as the year I chose to start blogging on technology, politics and the media, I certainly haven’t been short of stories to follow. I don’t want to end the year on a down note, but I really do think 2016 is key in global politics: a series of interlinked events that can be seen as eruptions resulting from the breaking point of unbridgeable gaps in equality, politics, and wealth. Angry people do all sorts of reactionary things; the depressing thing is that so many of these protest actions ultimately end up hurting themselves more than they will ever hurt The Establishment.

I’m focusing on just Brexit as synecdoche for the larger picture, because there are questions that are still not answered. Six months on from Brexit, how much more do we know? Well, laughably little, basically. The fact that we don’t know how to leave the EU rather suggests that inviting us to do exactly that without preparation wasn’t David Cameron’s brightest idea. The way that the Conservative government have handled not just the planning of how to extricate themselves from the union but also how to deal with the associated political fallout has been farcical, although Labour and Liberal Democrats haven’t done much to shout about when it comes to post-Brexit planning either.

It feels like the whole political establishment has yet to pick their jaws up off the floor at the result, and to be fair, I can see why. This was a serious step-change for British politics, with implications for an unbelievably wide network of related issues, from immigration to banking. It goes to show that what many people suspected is reality: Westminster didn’t have any back-up plans in place for the possibility that the referendum would result in a ‘Leave’ vote.

Six months on and in the absence of a concrete procedure, we’ve witnessed various political gags. Having confirmed that, yes, ‘Brexit means Brexit‘ (which means, what, exactly? Inquiring minds want to know), one would think that Theresa May might refrain from soundbytes to define the seemingly undefinable. Nope: she now promises a ‘Red, White and Blue Brexit’. I know, right. I told you 2016 was a strange year.

andrea-leadsom-sexuality-and-the-city-blog-sam-miles

It could have been worse!

 

The UK’s ambassador is now warning us that Brexit could take up to ten years due to the complications of finessing a trade deal. Not only could negotiations limp into the mid 2020s, but the deal reached might still be rejected by any of the 27 other countries involved during the ratification process. Still, David Davis – actually one of the better Conservative cabinet members – is more optimistic, citing 2 years as a reasonable target. This optimism overlooks the fact that the remaining EU member states can now reasonably be expected to make an example of us and could easily do so via soul-crushing bureaucracy.

It all testifies to how manipulated the debate became in the run-up to the election, with the false promises of funding for the NHS that still anger me now, and dog-whistle speeches designed to foment ethnic tension in the electorate. Sure, the EU wasn’t perfect, but extricating ourselves from an imperfect relationship with its rather downplayed benefits, from cultural exchange to trade collaboration, makes so little sense economically and politically it’s a wonder the idea hasn’t just been put out to die. Of course, it can’t: there was a referendum, remember! Meanwhile, Cameron is back to enjoying the piece and quiet of North Oxfordshire, whilst his pet project for re-election in 2015 threatens to mire the British government and taxpayer in debt and stasis.

As The Guardian notes, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, did warn us all before the referendum that if Brexit came to pass, it would happen slowly and painfully. He estimated it would take 7 years, with no guarantee of success in coming to a new arrangement in the partnership. The fact he isn’t shouting ‘I told you so’ to anyone who’ll listen shows how miserable the whole fiasco is to all involved, whether members of the leave or remain camps.

Through all this, while government stay tied up in Brexit, there are bigger fish to fry – not least the future prospects of Russia, a country capitalising on our European destabilisation episode in order to boost its hold on Eastern Europe for future collateral. I’m reading The Next 100 Years by George Friedman, published in 2010, and some of the predictions didn’t take 100, they’re happening now. So, 2016: it’s been newsworthy.

British EU desks