End of the Road

10.45pm on Wednesday 6^th October 2004.  My life was about to change and I didn’t even realise it.  I sat down and watched a documentary by the respected journalist John Pilger on the British Television channel ITV.  The content was on something I had only come across once in my life before, when my dad alerted me to a court case that had taken place some four years earlier.  The documentary was called “Stealing a Nation” and it was about the depopulation of the Chagos Islands and the injustice that continued up to the present day.

The following day I looked on the internet for more information and came across contact details for the UK Chagos Support Association (UKChSA).  It was the beginning of my time as an activist for the Chagossian quest for justice and a right of return to the islands they were illegally removed from.

Today that chapter comes to an end.  It feels weird.  It feels strange.  There are emotions of guilt and sadness, but deep down I know it is the right decision to take.

I had previously warned that working with the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) after leaving the UKChSA could be one of those complicated scenarios.  It could be a situation where you have the best of intentions but ultimately cause more damage or at best add to the problem.  It is not why I got involved in October 2004.

Last summer I lifted the lid on the reasons behind why three senior members of the UKChSA left the organisation simultaneously.  I have always maintained that the organisation is not fit for purpose and should be closed down immediately.  It is not a message that I have ever deviated from over the past eleven months since that now watershed AGM in April 2014.

It is true that the UKChSA experience did leave a bitter taste in the mouth.  A long working relationship which came to such a thunderous end amidst recriminations, I would not be human to suggest that I did not have a sense of anger at the way things ended.  However this was always been so much more than individuals or a clash of personalities.  This was about good, honest people who sympathised with the Chagossians’ fight for justice and donated money believing that their contributions were being used to benefit a community that had been treated so shamefully.

I refused to sit back in silence while the UKChSA continued to plead for donations, when I knew that I had seen for myself practices which were borderline criminal.  Whether anyone listened to me, that’s their prerogative, but at least I knew that I had enabled them to make an informed decision.  If they still wanted to donate, well as the cliché goes: some people really do have more money than sense sometimes.

It is my insistence on ensuring that everyone knew the truth about the UKChSA that is a big reason behind things coming to a head recently.  They were not allegations fished out of thin-air, and every point can still be substantiated by the mountain of emails I have retained to this day.  Like the one from the treasurer asking for receipts for a football team which never existed.

Sadly it is not a view that is shared any more.  Others feel that because the long awaited Feasibility Study has been completed, it is a delicate time and I should effectively refrain from repeating the truth.  This doesn’t sit easily with me.  My experience of working on this cause at different levels, including the executive committee of the UKChSA, means I know precisely how things work.

I know that when the Chagossians are in the news, as they have been recently, there is a natural spike in interest.  Inevitably this leads to the UKChSA being contacted in the same way that I found them all those years ago.  To suggest my silence under such circumstances would be unethical would probably be the understatement of the decade.

I cannot do it.  I will not do it.

I got a lot of stick down the years from friends who never got their head around my passion for helping the Chagossians fight back.  My response to them was always that I thought that maybe one day it would help me get to heaven.  To ask me to be complicit in a conspiracy to bury the truth from my time at the UKChSA completely undermines that.

Olivier Bancoult and Sabrina Jean are good people.  Whatever they’ve done or continue to do have always been in the best interests of Chagossians all over the world.  I understand the reason why they think it’s for the best for me to tone down my vocal opposition to the UKChSA.  I strongly disagree with their view, but I understand completely the reasons for their position.

I am just sad that it means I can’t continue to work on this cause anymore.  I can’t highlight the Chagossian quest for justice under those restrictions because I know that my efforts will benefit the UKChSA by raising awareness and they will reap the rewards of that.  It doesn’t matter that I am not personally financially benefiting from the arrangement, I would be no better than anyone who I had spent the past year exposing.

It was an unbelievable dilemma to be placed in.  On one side I could break a promise I made to Sabrina years ago that the only way I’d stop being an activist is when the Chagossians had the right to return the Chagos Islands.   Alternatively I could keep that promise, but help to conceal a dirty little secret about an organisation I no longer worked with or the reasons why I believe that the organisation should be closed down.

Today it is the end of that road and I am officially a former Chagossian activist.  I hope the Chagossians secure a right of return and I wish everyone connected to the CRG well.   If anyone asks me about the cause, I will be unable to help.  This will be the post that I circulate as my response to the questions that will inevitably arise.  I just hope that everyone understands the reason behind why I have taken the decision I have.

An Alternative Utopia

It’s been almost three weeks since I returned to Britain after spending 34 dazzling days on the tropical island of Mauritius.  Perhaps the most satisfying element of the holiday revolved around the fact that even after ten years across twelve visits, I still explored new experiences.  Whether it was catching a bus on Christmas Day, enjoying a party on a Catamaran late into the night or raving in a sugar cane field under a full-moon.

I booked the flight for my adventure in July, so it was something of a treat when I realised that the Mauritian General Election would be taking place during my stay.  I had of course experienced my first Mauritian Election during my 2010 visit, but it was something I observed from a distance.  I witnessed some local canvassing in and around the Grand Baie area, but the event largely passed me by.  I was distracted by preparations for my impending birthday party and not even my Politics-addiction would impose upon that.

This time around was a completely different story.  I ensured that I explained to as many friends as possible from the moment I arrived that I was eager to experience how elections were conducted in the land of my father’s birth.  Fortunately for me, a friend of a friend (Kugan Parapen) has been involved in working with a relatively new Political Party called “Rezistans ek Alternativ”.  I was invited to come along and assist in their preparations a couple of days before polling day, an opportunity I seized without a moment’s thought.

As the name suggested, Rezistans were aiming to offer a new and alternative vision for the people of Mauritius.  They were firmly entrenched on the far-left of the political spectrum, so it didn’t take long for me to quickly find myself on the same page as the Party.  Pro-wealth redistribution, anti-communalism, protecting workers rights and measures to combat global-warming: this was a Manifesto that I could fully subscribe to without exception.

Although formed in 2005, this was the first time that their members could stand because candidates were not required to declare their ethnicity.  This was a huge step in the right direction- moving the Republic away from the perils of communalism, the origins of so many problems during the first three decades following Independence.

I was deeply impressed observing this refreshing voice in Mauritian politics.  Not just because they had produced a list of policies which I found myself in full agreement with, but also because they had captured the imagination of younger voters and engaged disenfranchised parts of the electorate across the country.  Everything about them reinforced a notion that they were a breath of fresh air.

The crucial element here was that it represented something new.  Not simply the same personalities rebranded under a sparkly redesigned logo, but a genuine collective of individuals who thought they could offer an alternative way of running Mauritius.  They were not ex-members of MMM, Labour or MSM who had left (or been expelled) for example.  They were a welcome relief in a Republic which had been dominated by two families, the Ramgoolams & the Jugnauths, who had shared power since Independence from Britain in 1968.

Rezistans went on to secure 3.5% of the vote on polling day, a remarkable achievement considering this was the first time they had contested elections nationally.  Kugan himself secured 6.5% in his seat of Quatre Bornes and the organisations most experienced figure achieved over 8% in their constituency.  It is an incredibly solid platform to build upon in years to come, not just in 2019 but in subsequent contests as well.  I had to explain to Kugan and his friends that in Britain a relatively new political faction, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), had taken far longer to make such an impression on a national scale.  Indeed it is only some 22 years after being created that they are on the verge of making an impact at a British General Election, which is scheduled to take place in May 2015.

Aside from the fact that both parties are relatively new, Rezistans and UKIP couldn’t be more different.  UKIP positions itself very much on the hard-right of the political spectrum.  They would screech in horror at the policies offered by Kugan and his colleagues.  Naturally this relates to the idea that in the UK the political debate has for over three decades taken place on the right of the spectrum.  In Mauritius, as I have noted previously, the opposite is true where a traditional culture of political debate on the left exists.

I saw Kugan again around a week after the Mauritian Elections and I explained that I felt inspired by how he and other like-minded individuals had shown such tremendous initiative to work so hard to project their alternative vision of what Mauritius should look like.  Kugan had spent some time living in the UK during a period studying at Warwick University, and I joked that he should consider visiting us again in the UK soon to show us how we too could replicate what they had achieved in Mauritius.  But just how feasible is such a prospect anyway?

Britain has been dominated by two parties for almost a century, albeit not quite the family dynasties that exist in Mauritius.  Nonetheless, they are two very imposing institutions which would initially suggest that what Rezistans did in Mauritius could not possibly be replicated in the UK.

Or could it?

Data from the 2010 British General Election suggests that maybe Britain is crying out for a Kugan or a Rezistans to offer a new direction.  I have written previously about the need for a break from the consensus-style politics which have poisoned the British political landscape since the mid-1980s.  Yet even more alarmingly is the fact that the number of people on the electoral roll register who did not even register a vote in 2010 would significantly outnumber the tallies of every other political group on offer in the UK.  That would include UKIP who stood in the same election.  This is a shocking revelation and shows just how many people are currently disengaged from the political process in Britain.

Kugan and Rezistans showed how offering an alternative message, entrenched in strong left-wing values, can reach out and invigorate sections of the electorate to become involved in the process again.  This was especially true of younger voters.  It’s a proportion of the electorate which poses an enormous problem in the UK, for example: at the last election fewer than 50% of voters under the age of 35 actually voted.  This was part of a national turnout of 65%, and if we analyse the figures for voters between the ages of 18-24, the figures are even more astonishing where the figure falls to below 45%.  Even that was propped-up by male voters because a snapshot of female voters under the age of 24 shows the figure slipping beneath 40%.

It’s unrealistic to suggest that a new Party could be created tomorrow and would have enough time to make an impact at the British General Election in less than 15 weeks’ time.  However it is not so outlandish that a Political Party started soon could make an impact in 2020, in time for another General Election.  Rezistans ek Altenativ offered a brand new vision for Mauritius and came from nowhere to snatch 3.5% of the vote in their debut national poll.  It wasn’t a stroke of fortune and may provide hope for us all.  It can inspire like-minded individuals to come together and work towards offering an alternative direction for Britain, something that resonates with left-wing voters who otherwise feel ostracised.

It might amount to a proposal which inspires many of the near-16 million voters to engage once again.  

A Tropical Earthquake

Voters in the Republic of Mauritius went to the polls earlier this week to vote in the tenth General Elections following independence in 1968.  There was a lot at stake.  The governing Labour Party led by Dr Navin Ramgoolam sought to become only the third Prime Minister of Mauritius to secure three consecutive election victories, something first achieved by his father almost forty years earlier.  More significantly, huge constitutional changes were on the table which potentially would have led to the creation of a second Republic.

Mauritius has had a President since becoming a Republic in March 1992, a role which had largely been ceremonial and was a position appointed by the serving Prime Minister.  In many ways it was a role like a Monarch in many other countries,  with duties confined to receiving guests and dignitaries during official State visits.  Ramgoolam proposed fundamental changes to the role which would have included more powers, immunity from prosecution and critically would have resulted in the President being directly elected by the Mauritian electorate with a seven-year term of office.

Opinion polls and most people on the island that I had spoken to since my arrival at the end of November suggested that Ramgoolam was on course to secure a comfortable victory.  However, as results begun trickling through on Thursday lunchtime, it was soon becoming apparent that a stunning upset could be on the cards.  One by one, declarations showed that an Alliance led by Sir Anerood Jugnauth's Militant Socialist Movement (MSM) were securing emphatic victories across Mauritius.  By mid-afternoon it was clear that Jugnauth would indeed be forming the next Government of Mauritius and that ambitious changes to the Republic's constitution had been overwhelmingly rejected by Mauritian voters.  Jugnauth's Alliance had won 47 of the Parliament's 60 seats- a landslide of earthquake proportions.

Yet an even bigger story was brewing, one that even two days after the results were announced leaves most Mauritian's still scratching their heads in disbelief.  Late afternoon on Thursday, reports began emerging that Ramgoolam was in danger of losing his Parliamentary Seat of Pamplemousses and Triolet- one of the safest seats for the Labour Party in Mauritius.  Initially it appeared that Ramgoolam had hung on but by early evening it was clear that the Prime Minister was in severe danger and facing a crisis of monumental proportions.  Confirmation finally arrived at dawn on Friday that the defeated Prime Minister had lost his seat by almost 3,500 votes: a huge margin.

I have attempted to relay the significance of the events to friends and family back in the UK, highlighting the landslide of 1997 as being comparable to the verdict of Mauritian voters this week.  But even this example does not truly illustrate the devastating nature of the result since despite the Labour Party's huge 179 seat majority in the British Parliament, they were never able to unseat the outgoing British Prime Minister John Major who held on in Huntingdon.  These are "safe seats" and it is unthinkable that a Prime Minister can lose his own Parliamentary seat.

Astonishingly this is not the first time that such a dramatic punitive act has been dished out by Mauritian voters.  Back in 1982, Jugnauth ended the political career of Ramgoolam's father, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, with an unprecedented "whitewash" as the Government were swept from power securing no seats in the new Parliament.  The election is referenced as the "60-0" and was the last time a Mauritian Prime Minister was unceremoniously evicted from his own Parliamentary seat.  The irony has not been lost on many since the Ramgoolam family must collectively be sick of the sight of Jugnauth due to this being the second time such a historic outcome has been secured by a party led by him.

I have been disappointed that the news from Mauritius has not received wider international media attention, with little reports on the events so far.  It is true that Mauritius is a relatively small nation, but this was not a routine election and the ramifications of the week's events will be felt for many years to come.  Prior to publishing this post I checked the BBC's website to establish if the story had finally made its African news section.  I am incredibly surprised to learn that some 48 hours later, the story has still not been circulated on the platform.

As political earthquakes go, this is one of the biggest I have ever experienced.  I was too young to personally witness Ramgoolam Snr losing his Parliamentary Seat.  I did however watch live on BBC Television as the outgoing Defence Minister Michael Portillo lost his seat at the 1997 British General Election.  Up until now I would say it was the most historical political event I had ever witnessed although for me personally, the events of 48 hours ago eclipse that moment.  Mauritius has decided and I had a front-row seat to witness a very tropical earthquake.  Watching the declaration at Triolet will be something which will stay with me for the rest of my life.

Why Do We Tolerate Mental Health Services Reaching Crisis Point?

My trip to Mauritius in 2010 was an adventure like no other and undoubtedly one of the most pleasurable experiences of my life.  A three-week break which coincided with the Mauritian & UK General Elections and included my notorious ten-day long 30th birthday party.  Yet it was a conversation with my dad on the eve of the British General Election that was almost certainly to provide the most treasured of memories.

Here we were: sitting on a balcony overlooking Grand Baie, accompanied by a bottle of mineral water which he had filled with coconut water that had been mixed with Goodwills Rum; our conversations drifted and eventually arrived onto the subject of his two late brothers- Alex and Claude.  My two uncles, practically unspoken about within the family circles, mythical creatures I had heard snippets about from time to time.  They had both committed suicide.

I adopted Alex as my middle-name in my early-teens despite knowing so little about him.  I was fascinated as my dad began filling in the vast gaps, a picture painted of two individuals that I bore an uncanny resemblance to.  Alex would take my dad to the West-End clubs and was always the life and soul of any party.  Claude was quieter but intelligent and ultra-aware of the world around him, whose ambition and focus would mean he was always setting himself targets and deadlines in life.  It was a surreal conversation: hearing about two uncles I didn’t know but somehow had cloned in terms of my characteristics.  I can still picture my dad smiling at the end of the conversation; he appreciated the irony of how things had turned out too.  The spirit of two tragic souls had somehow found an outlet in me.

Claude had taken his life long before I was born while Alex died when I was two.  Alex collected the rent on behalf of his flatmates to pay the landlord where he lived.  He had his eyes opened to gambling by my dad who introduced him to the world of horseracing.  Alex developed a taste for his newfound pastime and enjoyed some good days and bad days, but there were no obvious signs that he was in any danger.  One day Alex lost more than he could afford to lose and made a calamitous decision to use the money he had collected on behalf of his landlord to try and win the money back.  He lost that money too, was too embarrassed to tell anyone so electrocuted himself.  This became a Lebrasse family folk tale with the moral of the story being that ‘you never ever gambled’.

What was essentially a very simplistic explanation about something enormously complicated was further compounded by the fact that me and nearly all my cousins attended catholic schools as children, where such naked indoctrination knew no boundaries.  Life was deemed sacred and people who committed suicide were almost certainly doomed to burning in hell for undertaking an act they had no right to sanction.  By my mid-teens I had a very narrow grasp of suicide and a profound lack of understanding which led to me viewing suicidal people with contempt.  Shameless attention seekers who wreaked untold grief upon the people they left behind.  It was probably considering an issue like assisted suicides that really unsettled my catholic vision of the world.  I could not comprehend how it could be wrong for somebody to wish to have an end to their suffering, and yet my catholic education told me that they had no right to take their own life.  But who has the right to demand that their suffering should be prolonged?  Who has the authority to condemn any creature to such a fate?

When I was 21, my godson’s mother told me she had lost her sister in similarly traumatic circumstances, intentionally consuming alcohol while on anti-depressants to instantly stop her heartbeat.  I allowed my mind to wander beyond the rigid parameters that had defined my understanding of what suicide means and to consider in very different terms the situation that leads to somebody taking their own life.  Of course this coincided with a period in my life where I had begun to reject the catholic teachings on a whole range of issues from abortion to homophobia to birth control, so I was open to having my perception of the world challenged and scrutinised.

It’s laughable to think that if Claude had taken his life just over a decade earlier, he would’ve committed a criminal offence.  In fact it’s only relatively recently that the subject of suicide escaped its pariah status as a social taboo, and I often reference Gary Speed’s death as an especially important stage in that evolutionary process.  It was the first time I could detect the issue of physically healthy individuals taking their lives being analysed as a consequence of a mental illness.  It was reassuring and as tragic as Speed’s untimely passing was, it was a significant milestone. 

Much like the day when society realised that if somebody observes that they can hear voices from within their head, they are unwell and not possessed by Satan as had once been suggested.  We can talk about suicide and we can refer to the deceased in terms of being a victim.  We no longer have to pander to stereotypes and entertain the notion that the individual is a coward or selfish or both.  But ignorance of mental health illnesses continues to be a significant problem in Britain as I have mentioned previously.  More men under the age of 45 die from suicide in the UK than crime or natural causes and it is a problem which disproportionately affects a larger number of men.  Yet to pigeonhole the issue would be to demonstrate an inept failure to grasp how it affects far too many.  Such as the 30 women a day who attempt suicide while in abusive relationships, or the 34,500 children who contacted Childline in the 12 months to April 2014 with concerns about suicide.  Or how the current Government’s ruthless austerity programme has led to some very alarming cases of suicide surfacing, a result of the incompetent assessment procedures managed by ATOS.

It is all the more distressing when we appreciate just how stretched mental health services in England and Wales are due to funding cuts.  That should be a national scandal, but as a nation we never seem to react when these deplorable measures are taken.  Instead we reserve our outrage for when Christopher Clunis randomly attacks a commuter at a tube station.  Something has seriously gone wrong when a tax over a pasty gets more attention than the state of our mental health provisions reaching crisis point.  We’d never tolerate other healthcare services being similarly slashed, so why do we accept it for mental health services?

Was Mark Duggan Set-Up?

Ten years ago fourteen year old Danielle Beccan was shot dead travelling home from the Goose Fair which is held in Nottingham every October.  It was the latest in a series of incidents of gun crime in the city and ultimately proved to be a high-water mark in terms of how Nottingham was viewed across the UK.  It had been the subject of national attention as far back as 2000 thanks to a decision to routinely arm officers patrolling certain areas of the city- the first on the British mainland to do so.  Now it serves as a shining example of a city that has slashed the number of offences involving firearms and everyone deserves an enormous amount of credit for the impressive turnaround.

Shortly after Danielle was murdered, a memorial vigil took place in the town centre, and I think although on one level it was intended to show solidarity with the Beccan family, it also served another purpose.  It was as if the city was collectively coming together and conveyed a signal that this was a problem for Nottingham.  Not a problem for black people or certain ethnic groups of certain areas, but an issue for everyone and affected every single citizen of the city.  This was a powerful message and in many ways goes on to explain the approach of the police force which did not follow the lead set in London by introducing a new sub-autonomous unit to tackle the problem.

One of the significant things that the local force Nottinghamshire Police did was to pay particular attention to the people actually supplying the firearms into the city.  It is no coincidence that the fall in the number of recorded offences in Nottingham can be directly attributed to some very high profile convictions of individuals associated with the distribution of firearms, among other offences.

Last Saturday a public meeting took place in Tottenham, north London.  The meeting was called by Tottenham Rights co-ordinator Stafford Scott after the family of Mark Duggan discovered that the jury in the original inquest into his death were not provided with all of the relevant facts.  It was the death of Mark at the hands of police marksmen that ignited the biggest social unrest seen in the UK for a quarter of a century.

A number of highly damning revelations were made that evening, but the most astonishing related to Trident, the Metropolitan Police unit tasked with tackling gun crime within the black community.  Stafford Scott, addressing the audience gathered in Tottenham, outlined the events leading up to the shooting of Mark on Ferry Lane who had been under police surveillance during the final 48 hours of his life.  In particular he analysed the exchange between Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, subsequently convicted and sentenced to seven years for supplying the weapon, and Mark on Vicarage Road in Leyton:

“The handover of, whatever it was, took place in Vicarage Road in front of the Trident officers.  They didn’t do anything because Mark was being set-up by their man.”

This is an explosive allegation and can be substantiated by the fact that Trident officers insist that the reason why they failed to witness the exchange was because the cab carrying Mark Duggan turned instead into Burchell Road.  Yet the GPS system on the minicab transporting Mark confirmed that this did not happen and that the vehicle indeed went to Vicarage Road.  The reason this seemingly innocuous discrepancy is so important is because it adds weight to the suggestion that Trident officers had a chance to intercept the firearm before Mark left Vicarage Road.  There was an opportunity to arrest Hutchinson-Foster at the same time, so why was this not done?

The brother of Mark Duggan, Shaun Hall, also addressed the meeting and equally highlighted this crucial discrepancy and questioned the nature of the relationship between Hutchinson-Foster and Trident:

“…Trident officers witnessed the handover but deny doing so, why?  Could it be they’re desperate to conceal the identity of the gun supplier, because he’s working for them?  After they killed Mark…why didn’t they go back and arrest Kevin Hutchinson-Foster?  He’s on parole, they know his parole officer, but they fail to make contact.  Kevin Hutchinson-Foster is only arrested once the IPCC conducts a forensic analysis of the gun found at the scene. This is on October 24^th…thirteen weeks to be precise after he’s been identified as the supplier of the weapons.”

When Hutchinson-Foster was charged he was placed in solitary confinement and this potentially amounts to another piece of the puzzle which paints a very disturbing picture, suggesting that he was in need of some kind of protection.  Placing him within the general population was assessed as being a risk too great.

Trident was established in 2000 and was disbanded (as we know it) last year.  Could it be that investigations from those campaigning for justice for Mark Duggan have threatened to expose a highly toxic brand of corruption within a unit of the Metropolitan Police?  The official reason provided by the Mayor of London was that it was in order to “tackle gun crime in London and knife crime as well”, but this did little to quell the increasing concerns.

I have been suspicious of the Metropolitan Police since I was a child and it is no secret that I think the organisation is beyond reform and needs closing down.  So I am not somebody who can be easily shocked when coming to terms with new revelations about an institution which I have labelled as being the most corrupt force in Western Europe.  Yet even I found this all to be appalling and extremely distressing.  I’ve had a week to digest the news and it still resembles being hit by a truck.

Some people in the last three years have used the expression “State execution” when referring to the death of Mark Duggan.  If these revelations represent the facts of what really happened that fateful August evening then they were mistaken to deploy such a phrase.  This was never an execution administered by the State.  This was an unlawful killing committed by criminals.  I echo the calls made by Stafford Scott last weekend- we must have a public inquiry.  We need to establish the truth and scrutinise the nature of the relationship that existed between Trident and Kevin Hutchinson-Foster.  

Consensus Cartel

I was surprised that Scotland voted to retain the Union.  I was also very relieved because as a Labour voter in England, I knew that losing 40-50 seats in Scotland would be a monumental hindrance to overcome.  Conversely had I lived in Scotland, I would happily have voted to give independence a chance.  Apart from anything else, the prospect of having Tory rule banished forever was too big a prize to turn down.

The figures from Scotland were remarkable with some local authorities recording turnouts in excess of 90%. The unprecedented numbers led to optimism across Britain that the 2015 General Election may benefit from a re-engagement of the electorate with politicians in this country.  Could a Caledonian wind of change inspire more than 70% of the British electorate to vote for the first time since it slipped below the threshold in 2001?

It’s a romantic theory, although unfortunately a simple explanation for the exceptionally high numbers of people engaged in the Scottish Referendum comes down to two factors.  The first is that the Referendum itself was a unique opportunity, a “once in a generation” event, the result would be life-changing without the prospect of reversing the outcome in a few years’ time.  The second because the Referendum by its very nature offered a very clear choice: either for or against independence.  It was a polarising question: Yes or No.  There was no “maybe” on the ballot paper.

The trouble with the British political landscape is that it does not offer that choice.  The origins of “consensus politics” can probably be traced back to the “Limehouse Declaration” of 1981 and the subsequent repositioning of the Labour Party under Neil Kinnock in the mid-1980s.  Tony Blair may have removed clause IV, but it was the tenure of Kinnock which laid the foundations for someone like Blair to lead the party a decade later.

The result is a political debate which largely takes place on the right of the political spectrum.  It’s why issues like immigration never stray far from the heart of the national debate.  It explains how attacking the most vulnerable in society is widely perceived as acceptable, sometimes even popular with public opinion. It is also why issues like social justice and creating a fairer society has slipped so dangerously down the agenda.

So when Labour’s shadow Chancellor Ed Balls announced there would be a freeze on child benefits under an incoming Labour Government, there was frustration from grassroots Labour activists, but no real surprise.  As my boss at work described, the British electorate are not so much offered an alternative vision of how to run the country, but a question of how they wish to be harmed: death by firing squad or a thousand cuts.

It is a dramatic analogy perhaps although it does reinforce the need for an alternative vision of how to lead the country through the second half of this decade.  The obsession with pandering to the right while sacrificing ethical socialism requires an urgent re-think if we are not to repeat the mistakes of the past and offer the electorate the same bland choice which has been on the table for over thirty years.

One area where there was potential for clear daylight to be placed between the parties came in the form of the recent parliamentary debate on military intervention in Iraq.  A Conservative Government took this country into the first Gulf War in 1991, a Labour Government returned the compliment in 2003 and now a coalition of Liberal Democrats and Tories have led the way to ensure that for the third time in 23 years, British forces will once again be engaged in conflict in Iraq.

Labour seized the opportunity for yet more consensus by rallying behind the Government’s case for military intervention and helped to secure an emphatic mandate for war resulting in just 43 MP’s voting against the motion.  24 of the rebels were from the Labour Party and read like a roll call of some of the finest MP’s who currently serve as Parliamentarians.

People like Jeremy Corbyn, the MP for Islington north and long-time friend of the Chagossian quest for justice.   There was Dennis Skinner, the “Beast of Bolsover”, a moral conscience and thorn in the side of a leadership which has lost its sense of navigation.  Diane Abbott, another supporter of the Chagossian cause and representative for the constituency of my birth.  And then there is Graham Allen,MP for where I live now, somebody who I’ve not always said complimentary things about previously but someone I am now looking at in a different light.

Why did they vote against British military involvement?  Well largely for the same reasons that I opposed the push for war as well.  The British record for involvement in military escapades in the middle-east has been one disaster after another since Suez.  The latest enemy is ISIS (or ISIL or IS), a group whose very existence can be directly linked to a decision by Washington to arm and train rebel fighters fighting in Syria once a coalition including the UK fell at the final hurdle just over a year ago.

The similarities with Afghanistan and the emergence of the Taliban illustrate an all too familiar picture in the middle-east, as the rise and fall of one Saddam Hussein explicitly demonstrated.  Driven from power a decade ago, he was once on very friendly terms with London and Washington who supported him during his eight year long war with Iran.  Indeed one has to question just how vociferous the British Government’s push for war in 1991 would have been had Farzad Bazoft not been so callously executed on trumped-up spying charges just under a year earlier.

If Bernie Grant had been alive, I’d like to think he would’ve voted against the intervention too.  The generation of children who (like me) were born under the Tory tyrant's eleven year Premiership are sometimes referred to as “Thatcher’s Children”, a phrase I loathe.  I take huge pride in the fact that I lived in Tottenham for every year of Bernie’s tenure as the MP.  We are “Bernie’s Children”:  a generation inspired by his brand of socialist principles, desire for social justice, providing a voice for the disenfranchised and marginalised while espousing the complete opposite of Thatcherite values.

Bernie Grant passed away fourteen years ago, but wherever he is now, I’m sure he gave a nod of approval to the 24 Labour MPs who voted against military action in Iraq.  That select band of rebel backbenchers represents the fading heartbeat of a party which has been insulted with all sorts of derogatory terms in the immediate aftermath of the Scottish Referendum.  I am always at pains to stress that while the party leadership may frustrate me endlessly, the party itself still has many good MPs and even more activists who share core Labour values.

The key that unlocks the potential to increase voter participation lies within that group of Labour MPs.  That their influence is so marginal is tragic and is the real reason there will be no noticeable spike in the number of people voting in May.  The momentum created by the example set in Scotland will fade away before the Christmas decorations are up on Oxford Street.  An opportunity for change is smothered by a cartel promoting consensus, cruelly crushing all of the new found hope and optimism.

Carnival Tax- One Year On

It’s the end of another summer and the end of another carnival season.  The majority of us who attended the Notting Hill Carnival last Monday are fighting off cold and flu in one form or another, the inevitable price to pay from participating in the wettest event in over thirty years.  Of course in hindsight it was a tiny penalty to pay when balanced against the uniqueness of the occasion.

It was whilst wrapped up in my duvet (with my hot orange juice on the sofa) that I stumbled across the BBC’s “Sunday Morning Live” earlier, and observed a discussion about fracking.  It made me smile because I was immediately transported back twelve months when I was very angry with the city I lived in and at the community who had allowed this to happen.  One of the things I suggested a year ago at the height of my fury was that if the Government wanted to introduce fracking, they should look no further than Nottingham as it was a community that would offer “no opposition” and would “roll over” and allow the intrusive activity to take place without any resistance at all.

Just over a year ago I launched a boycott against the Nottingham Caribbean Carnival following their hugely controversial decision to introduce an admission fee to the event.  It was a move I scornfully derided as the Carnival Tax.   I made alternative plans to take my seat at the Emirates Stadium and to be as far away from the city as possible.  It was a horrible day for me.

Things were compounded further when to my horror, my Monday visit to Notting Hill Carnival the following week to watch acts performing on the Mastermind stage, coincided with a performance from none other than Ms Dynamite.  This was the same Niomi who I had clashed with on Twitter decrying her decision to perform at the treacherous festival which was bastardising the name of carnival.  Having highlighted to the fellow north Londoner about what the organisers behind Nottingham Carnival had lined up with their plans for a tax, she blocked me and then spoke of her pride of being part of the sham.

So when I heard Ms Dynamite being introduced to the stage, I left the area.  I had no interest in watching someone I had labelled a “scab” for even a split second.  And I wasn’t going to allow her presence to infuriate me and spoil what is such a special weekend for me. This was quite a turnaround.  Only a few weeks earlier, a picture of Ms Dynamite took pride of place in my front room.  It was taken with my cousin in Ayia Napa who had mutual friends at the time.  We all did.  We were all roughly the same age and her secondary school was approximately 15 minutes’ walk from where mine was.

I’d always been proud of her accomplishments, someone from our corner of north London who had achieved a significant level of success.  Being mixed race from a single parent family, she was a role model for lots of us.  That all changed when she committed such an unforgivable betrayal.  This was someone who shot to fame on the back of being a break from the contemporary artists at the time.  Her track “It Takes More” contained lyrics about the exploitation of the third world back in 2002.  Eleven years later she was happy to participate in the exploitation of one of the poorest cities in the UK.

About a month ago I was contacted by some very distressed residents of Nottingham who realised that the “voluntary contribution of £1” which had been introduced to the Nottingham Carnival in 2013 had now evolved into a compulsory admission fee of £2.  More worryingly, neighbouring Leicester had also pushed ahead with its own Carnival Tax and was charging patrons £3.

It’s fair to say I did my fair share of “I told you so” and proudly reposted my piece from July 2013.  Practically everything I had warned had come to pass.  That the fee wouldn’t stay at £1, that it was compulsory in all but name and that the disgraceful idea would be copied by other events around the UK under the guise of coping in times of austerity.  But once I had savoured my moment of posturing, I knew that the most important thing was to communicate to everyone why boycotting the Leicester and Nottingham events was so important.

However shortly after recommencing the boycott campaign, I was deeply alarmed that the local radio station Kemet FM wanted to support the boycott.  I maintained last summer that the station were complicit in the implementation of the Carnival Tax because of their support for the 2013 event, despite me pleading with the station to change their stance.

This is the radio station that I had proudly supported since its creation, a broadcaster I told family and friends in London to listen to online as they were the natural successors to Choice FM.  It was a local community station who upheld the values of that original south London radio station from 1990.  I will never forgive Niomi Daley for what she did and she has forever lost my respect.  I hope whatever she was paid for sacrificing her ethics was worth it but I struggle to understand how she can sleep at night.  But her damaging actions only formed part of the problem and it would be wrong to place all of the blame at her doorstep.  Reya El Salahi, Marcia Griffiths, Kemet FM & every performing artist must share equal responsibility for the role they played in the betrayal of carnival values in 2013.

I was horrified to learn that Kemet FM now wanted to play the role of local saviours after proclaiming that they would now boycott the 2014 event.  This was what I urged them to do in 2013.  I stopped listening to the radio station on the day the 2013 Nottingham Carnival took place and vowed never to tune in again.  I felt the position they were trying to adopt in 2014 was deeply offensive, not to mention incredibly hypocritical.

Some might argue that they saw the light in the end and tried to make amends for the mistakes or error of judgement they made in 2013.  It’s an argument which also extends to the majority of the people who supported the 2014 boycott but attended the 2013 gathering.  But I think we need to make a distinction here.  Yes the local community were duped, “sold a dream” as I described at the end of July this year.  It is easier to understand why they were conned, but less so for the broadcaster, who I had been in direct contact with right up to a couple of days before the 2013 event.  I only stopped engaging with them at that late hour when it became crystal clear that there was no way they would back down from their stance to support the Nottingham Carnival and therefore the Carnival Tax.

The 2014 boycott was much more successful.  I explained to fellow campaigners straight away that it was a waste of time communicating with Renwick and the rest of the Nottingham Carnival Committee; I cited the email exchange from July 2013, the campaign I had pushed a year ago and the piece I had written.  I explained that the best course of action was to contact the local authority instead.  Nottingham Council still allocated an annual funding grant because the event was being promoted as a carnival, even though this was a festival in all but name due to the Carnival Tax policy.  It was essential that the local authority was lobbied on this basis.

About two weeks after I began actively promoting the boycott again, the alcohol licence for the 2014 event was withdrawn.  It was to be a significant act because it eventually led to Nottingham Carnival organisers altering their policy overnight.  John Holt had been advertised as being the lead act to perform at this year’s event, and was immediately pulled from the bill.  In addition the Carnival Tax was cancelled.

Nobody from Nottingham Council has ever communicated with me directly to state that the pressure I applied and helped to mobilise to its doorstep was responsible, partially or otherwise, for the alcohol licence being withdrawn.  So it will remain open to speculation as to whether or not our pressure really did achieve anything.  But I think most who followed the campaign last year and again this year will probably put two and two together and with the absence of any definitive evidence to the contrary, it is a fair conclusion to reach.

Of course the late shifting of the position of the Nottingham Carnival organisers was incredibly amusing.  A year ago I contacted the committee and Renwick in July, a full three weeks before the event was taking place.  Among the reasons offered as an explanation as to why the Carnival Tax would stay in 2013 was because it was “too late” to change the literature for posters etc.  So imagine my laughter when Renwick and his ghastly committee members scrambled to change their stance (and literature) with barely a week to go until the staging of the 2014 event.

On the day of the carnival, once again I was 144 miles away in north London.  Although unlike the events of summer 2013, this time I was basking in the joy of an opening day victory as I commenced my fourth season as an Arsenal Season Ticket holder.  I even had a picture of Chris Hudson smiling, the fan I sit next to and whose rant after the defeat to Aston Villa twelve months ago epitomised so much of the pain that I suffered that weekend.

The 2014 event was not a success and this was down to the resolve of local campaigners who helped to ensure that the boycott was widely publicised ahead of the weekend.  As an aside, I would have been at the carnival in Nottingham under the revised plans, but not while it was being administered by Renwick and his colleagues.  I think it is time for a new committee to step forward in Nottingham.  Renwick and his fellow committee members have no credibility left and are a part of a toxic brand now, contaminating anything they organise.

I was furious with Nottingham a year ago and said some things which I now recognise were not accurate.  The people of Nottingham will stand up and resist when something very wrong is brought to their doorstep.  At the height of my distress last summer I suggested that the people of Nottingham would allow anything to be imposed upon them.  Perhaps I was partly right last summer, but I am definitely wrong this year and nothing makes me happier. The community has fought back and once again I am so proud to live in a city that has been my home for over a dozen years.  Nottingham is once again free from the Carnival Tax and that is something we should all be immensely proud of.