Not the G8 – digital activism in Leeds

Posted on by symonhill

I am on a train that’s just pulled out of Leeds, following a great day at ‘Not the G8’, a conference run by the World Development Movement (WDM).

I was there because WDM invited me to speak at a session on digital activism. But I’m really glad they did, because the whole event was very good and I learnt a lot.

The day included a really helpful talk about food sovereignty by the writer Raj Patel. I have realised recently that WDM are very good at drawing the links between different issues – poverty, the environment, banking. In particular, they make clear that environmentalism is not simply a lifestyle choice for the middle class in the West but is an urgent concern for anyone who wants to tackle poverty.

I was asked to give a talk based partly on my new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age. As usual, I Iearnt at least as much from the participants as they did from me.

At these sort of events, I fear that the attenders will expect me to be some sort of technological whizzkid, with answers to all sorts of questions about computer use. Anyone who’s watched me struggle to get my DVD player working will know that I am not that person. My book is not a book about technology; it’s a book about activism. It looks at the ways in which the internet has been used for activism in recent years.

I am not a net utopian – technology won’t save the world. Nor am I someone who dismisses the usefulness of the internet. Digital activism is an important part of many campaigns. It can also draw people into other forms of resistance. But digital activism is almost never sufficient on its own. When talking today, I focussed on examples of campaigns that have effectively combined online and offline activism. Examples include:

  • Tax justice campaigners who petitioned Olympic sponsors online to give up their tax exemptions at the Olympic Park. Several companies quickly agreed, probably because they feared physical occupations – which had greeted many tax-dodging stores the previous year.
  • Boycott Workfare, who have persuaded dozens of companies and charities in the UK to withdraw from workfare schemes. Some withdrew after physical protests and economic pressure. Others withdrew when bombarded with tweets and faced with humiliation online.
  • Disabled activists in York, who found a provision that required the City Council to debate any petition with over 1,000 signatures from York residents. Their petition and the council debate meant that cuts to local disability services became the lead news item on BBC Radio York – making many more people aware of them.
  • Lovers of peace in Israel and Iran, who set up “Israel Loves Iran” and “Iran Loves Israel”, two Facebook pages that built understanding across the divide and allowed Israeli and Iranian citizens to tell both their governments that they were “not ready to die in your war”.
  • Minority language activists as far apart as Wales, east Africa, Australia and south Asia, who use web-based resources to promote linguistic diversity and the rights of their communities.
  • The paradox of the Occupy movement, which combined the modern image of web-based communication with the old-fashioned image of debates in public squares. Both of them, at their best, are far more inclusive than mainstream political processes.

I was delighted that so many people got stuck into discussion about these issues. As my book has not long been published, this was on the second time that I’ve given a talk based around it. I will be doing so again at the Greenbelt festival in August. However, I’m very open to speaking with other groups. If you’re interested you’re welcome to email me at symonhill@gmail.com. I would love to hear from you!

———

My book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, can be bought from the publisher, New Internationalist, by clicking here. It costs £9.99 (0r $16.95 in the US). 

We must condemn murder – in both Woolwich and Afghanistan

Posted on by symonhill

In a bitter coincidence of timing, Barack Obama announced the scaling down of drone operations by the US government just after the horrific murder of an unarmed man on the streets of Woolwich this week.

It remains to be seen how real or effective Obama’s new policy will be. His assertion that drones should not be used to kill civilians is absurd. Drones have killed civilians time and again. They cannot be used in a way that avoids civilian death. Time and again, claims about the targeting ability of new weapons prove to be untrue.

Nor does the British government plan to cut back on drones. Quite the reverse. They are now operating drones directly from the UK. Previously, UK drones were operated by RAF staff in the US.

Cameron, Clegg and their colleagues have rightly condemned the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Neither the fact that Rigby was a soldier, nor any policy of the UK government, can justify this vicious attack. Almost everyone, including all the major Muslim organisations in the UK, has condemned the killing.

Many have also condemned the predictable response of the EDL, BNP and other far-right thugs. There have been several attacks on mosques, as well as verbal and physical abuse of Muslims, since the Woolwich murder. Two years ago, when Anders Brevik claimed that Christianity had motivated his murder of 77 people in Norway, there were no attacks on churches. Today, the organisation Faith Matters reported that they had chronicled 150 incidents of anti-Muslim abuse or violence since Wednesday. 

This is just the sort of conflict that violent Islamic fundamentalists wish to promote. Islamic fundamentalists and the British far-right need each other. Attacks by one provoke attacks from the other, perpetuating senseless violence, usually against people who are neither fascist nor fundamentalist. Each group pretends that the other is representative of what they are fighting – be it Islam or western society. Hatred feeds off hatred.

In the midst of this horror, we are faced with the image of Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, the woman who calmly spoke with the killers, risking her own life but possibly preventing further bloodshed. I am sure that many people have this week been challenged by her inspiring example.

Unfortunately, some of those who praise don’t follow through on the example of active nonviolence that her behaviour represents. Although mainstream politicians condemn the anti-Muslim violence, few of them are doing so as loudly as they are speaking about Woolwich. Worse still, there are many murders that they do not condemn at all. The drones that rain down death on innocent Afghan civilians are no more justified than a murder with a meat cleaver in Woolwich.

There are those who say that this is not the time to talk about the UK government’s foreign policy. But how can there be a time when it is not right to talk about the killing of innocent people? We would all be disgusted if someone told Lee Rigby’s family not to talk about his death. Are we prepared to tell the mother of a child killed in Afghanistan that this is not the right time to be talking about it?

This is precisely the time to be talking about it. Indeed, if we are to be consistent and act with integrity, then we must talk about it. The Woolwich murderers appeared to believe that the killings in Afghanistan and elsewhere justified a killing in London. They do not. Nor does Rigby’s killing justify attacks on Muslims in Britain. And none of these events make it acceptable for people on any side to be killing innocent people on the other side of the world.

This week’s newspapers have been full of pictures of Michael Adebolajo, his hands covered in blood. The hands of David Cameron and Barack Obama may look a lot cleaner. This is only because they kill at a distance. When it comes to responsibility for death, Cameron and Obama are up to the waist in blood. If we are to have integrity as we condemn the vicious murder of Lee Rigby, we must be prepared to say so.

My eviction from an arms dealers’ AGM

Posted on by symonhill

I’ve just returned from the annual general meeting of BAE Systems, one of the world’s largest arms companies. I was forcibly carried out of the building after challenging the board on BAE’s arms sales to the brutal regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

On 364 days of every year, BAE’s bosses are able to live in a world in which they are rarely challenged on the reality of their deadly business. But as a shareholder company, they are legally obliged to hold an AGM. They give the strong impression that they hate it. On this one day each year, power is confronted with truth.

BAE are so keen to avoid scrutiny that this year they moved the AGM from central London to Farnborough in Hampshire. Predictably, there were fewer journalists in attendance than usual. But if BAE had been hoping that their critics would be deterred by the venue, they were disappointed. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) hired a coach to take people from London, and other CAAT supporters joined us on site. There were at least as many as usually turn up when the AGM’s in London.

Like many other opponents of the arms trade, I own a single share in BAE so that I am legally allowed to attend the AGM and question the board (I make no profit from this share; the eleven pence I made from it last year was donated to CAAT).

The meeting began with a presentation by Dick Olver, chair of BAE. He sought to give life to a fantasy world, in which BAE are “global leaders” when it comes to “ethical behaviour”. Such absurd claims from a man who sells weapons to tyrants were interspersed with meaningless corporate jargon about “total performance” and “going forwards”.

Olver was jeered as he claimed that BAE make the world “a better place and a safer place”. Try telling that to the peaceful pro-democracy campaigners in Bahrain, who have been attacked and killed by their own government with BAE’s weapons. Of course, Olver would rather we didn’t think about BAE’s victims.

We are all responsible for what goes on in the world. When Jesus was asked “Who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10,29), he told a story about a man who saved a stranger from a different ethnic and religious group. This is a story that is meaningful to people of many religions and none. If I see someone being killed in front of me, I have a responsibility to do something about it. The fact that the killing in question is in Bahrain does not lessen my responsibility – especially when the weapons involved are manufactured and promoted on my own doorstep.

Of course, I am complicit. Of course, I do not do enough. Of course, like most people, I avoid uncomfortable truths. I do not claim to be less sinful than Dick Olver. Recognising this does not lessen my commitment to speaking out when truth and justice are distorted. It increases it.

Many of us began to challenge Olver as he talked, confronting his absurd fantasy not only with jeers but with comments about the reality of his business. When somebody criticised the “troublemakers” for their noise, I called out that the real troublemakers are those who sell weapons to dictators.

Despite ten years as head of one of the world’s most deadly companies, Olver still looks surprised when he is challenged. He has the expression of a disapproving headteacher and you could almost expect him to say “It’s your own time you’re wasting”. If only only Olver were a headteacher, he would be contributing to society instead of harming it.

He responded to the heckles by saying that he would answer “any questions” when the reports had finished. This being my seventh time at a BAE AGM, I knew very well that he would dodge most of them. He has many ways of doing this: talking about something else, aggressively criticising the questioner, waving an issue aside by saying it’s a matter for the government. He has a particular line in patronising older and female questioners while ignoring what they say.

So, like many others, I was not prepared to confine my questioning to the hour when Olver chooses to allow it. One hour a year is not enough for such a powerful person to be held to account. I had not gone to the meeting with the intention of getting thrown out. I have never been removed from the BAE AGM before. But I was not going to sit there and be ordered into silence by the chair of BAE Systems. I shouted out that we would continue to challenge him, as he is not being held accountable and is refusing to recognise BAE’s complicity in oppression in Bahrain and elsewhere.

Several shareholders tutted. There are those who are happy to arm oppressive regimes but who disapprove of interrupting the structure of a meeting. For some, it seems, morality is about order, not justice.

Dick Olver pointed at me and said “Remove that gentleman!”. Four security guards did so. They were suprisingly gentle, but resisted my attempts to engage them in conversation about BAE’s ethics. One of them, when I asked his views on selling arms to dictators, said “I don’t think it’s anything to do with me”. The others didn’t answer.

The security guards were verbally polite as they removed me, and I was (I trust) polite in return. One of them even went back to fetch my jacket. Protesters in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and other recipients of BAE weapons are not so fortunate.

Twelve other people were also removed, and I understand that many challenging questions were asked, particularly about Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and corruption. Several people staged a singing protest and others were thrown out while seeking to present Dick Olver with an award as “Whitewasher of the Year”.

As the meeting was finished, Olver was heard to say to a colleague, “That was a lot worse than usual”.

This was Olver’s last AGM as chair. His successor has yet to be announced. Having failed to avoid scrutiny by running away to Farnborough, perhaps the board will host the next AGM on the Isle of Skye at three o’clock in the morning. If they do, we’ll be there.

———-

For more information on the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), please see http://www.caat.org.uk.

My new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, can be ordered from the publisher, New Internationalist, by clicking here.

The Christian lobby group and the far-right party

Posted on by symonhill

I blogged earlier this week about statements from the homophobic lobby group Christian Concern ahead of the local elections. They encouraged people to vote for candidates opposed to same-sex marriage. Most of these candidates are likely to be UKIP or on the right wing of the Conservative Party. They are therefore likely to be very right-wing on economics. Until now, Christian Concern have largely avoided taking a stance on economic issues.

Today, Christian Concern sent out their weekly email bulletin, which includes a message from the group’s director, Andrea Williams, about the local elections. She writes in a celebratory tone. This is not, of course, because Labour have taken so many seats from Tories, but because UKIP have done so.

She writes:

“The local election results are showing massive losses for the Conservative party. This was by no means inevitable but David Cameron’s insistence on pursuing the same sex ‘marriage’ agenda has undoubtedly contributed to this dramatic result.

“His determination to dilute marriage has alienated not only Conservative supporters but voters at large. UKIP is notably the only party that supports marriage and their success in these elections is in large part due to that.”

Contrary to the above statement, there are in fact several other parties that oppose same-sex marriage (BNP, English Democrats, Christian People’s Alliance, etc), but Christian Concern seem happy to ignore them today.

Should we take this as indicating that Christian Concern is happy to support – or at least overlook – UKIP’s other policies? They include cutting taxes for the rich, raising taxes for the poor and people in the middle, increasing military spending, renewing Trident, going further than the Tories with cuts to public services, increasing workfare, banning all immigration for five years, withdrawing from the UN Convention on Refugees, scrapping human rights law and teaching children a pro-imperial view of history.

Do Christian Concern think that these are appropriate policies for Christians to support? I think they should tell us.

Same-sex marriage and the local elections: Who thinks they’re connected?

Posted on by symonhill

The “Christian Right” in Britain – inasmuch as it exists – is not like the Christian Right in the US. Over there, conservatism on issues such as marriage and abortion seems to go hand in hand with right-wing views on economics and foreign policy. Over here, we have conservative Christian lobby groups with a far more narrow focus. Organisations such as the Christian Institute, Christian Concern/Christian Legal Centre and so-called Anglican Mainstream focus largely on attacking LGBT rights. They also speak out against abortion, Islam and the supposed marginalisation of Christians in Britain.

But unlike their US counterparts, these groups rarely comment explicitly on economics or international relations. True, the tiny Christian Party adopts a right-wing stance on virtually every issue, cheering on Trident and tax cuts for the rich. In contrast, the (slightly older) Christian People’s Alliance is just as hostile to LGBT rights and Islam, but has a suprisingly good record of campaigning against the arms trade and talks quite a bit about poverty.

Shortly before the 2010 general election, Christian Concern appeared to endorse the candidacy of George Hargreaves, the Christian Party’s leader, in an email bulletin to supporters. The bulletin clearly provoked some negative reactions, as the group almost immediately issued another email insisting that they do not endorse one party or another.

This makes an email that they have sent out today particularly interesting. When giving advice to Christians about voting in tomorrow’s local elections, there is only one issue they mention: same-sex marriage.

Subscribers to their mailing list received an “action alert” today that declared:

“Please take the time to find out which of your candidates supports marriage as between one man and one woman before you go to place your vote.”

You might think that the afternoon before polling day is a bit late to be finding out such things. You might also wonder what local elections have to do with marriage law. The email declares:

“Local authorities hold a lot [of] power which they could use to penalise people or organisations who believe in authentic marriage, so it’s important that local councillors are pro real marriage.”

There is then a link to a leaflet produced by the “Coalition for Marriage” about the links between local government and marriage law. It consists largely of unsubstantiated statements. For example:

“Schools could be forced to promote the new definition of marriage in the classroom. The rights of parents could be ignored, and teachers who believe in traditional marriage could be pushed out of their careers… Churches that refuse to hold same-sex weddings may be denied grants or refused permission to hire halls from councils in the future.”

No evidence is provided to back up these claims (I hope that schools will encourage children to consider all sides of the argument on ethical, political and religious issues – as they are already expected to).

The only party that the email mentions by name is the Conservatives. Christian Concern quote a Daily Telegraph poll that shows:

“…that the plan to redefine marriage makes far more people ‘less likely’ to vote Conservative than ‘more likely’ to do so.”

Speaking personally, there is nothing that would make me “less likely” to vote Conservative, as there has never been any chance of my voting Conservative at all.

Will Christian Concern’s supporters vote primarily (or even solely) on the basis of which candidate or candidates oppose same-sex marriage? This could have alarming results. Of course, there are a few Labour, Lib Dem and SNP candidates who oppose marriage equality, but most anti-equality candidates are likely to be Tory, Independent or from far-right parties such as the UK Independence Party.

This is particularly relevant at a time when UKIP is under such scrutiny. Last week, their candidate Anna Marie Crampton was thrown out of the party for anti-Semitic comments on Facebook. When the story broke, one of the first to call for Crampton’s expulsion was Sam Westrop, director of the interfaith group Stand for Peace. He said, ““UKIP, to its credit, has expelled extremist and bigoted members in the past.” It is able to have done so only because it has had so many of them to expel.

Three years ago, I analysed UKIP’s policies and discovered remarkable overlaps with the BNP. UKIP are not only anti-European, anti-migrant and anti-Muslim. They also deny the reality of climate change, support an increase in military spending and want a flat rate of income tax (so milllionaires pay the same as cleaners and nurses). UKIP believe that the Tory cuts are not going far enough. Nigel Farage has described David Cameron, the man currently presiding over the destruction of the welfare state, as “a social democrat”.

And of course, UKIP is also strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. Winston McKenzie, UKIP’s candidate in the Croydon North by-election, made this one of the main points of his campaign, targeting religious voters with the untrue claim that the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties want to force churches and mosques to host same-sex weddings.

Mackenzie also described adoption by same-sex couples as “child abuse”. The party’s spokespeople disagreed with him, but they didn’t expel him. Instead, it was the head of UKIP’s youth wing who was forced out of his job for supporting same-sex marriage.

Is this the party that Christians are being urged to support tomorrow? Are Christian Concern simply naïve about the likely economic policies of most candidates opposed to same-sex marriage, or are they actively in favour of them?

What makes an effective petition?

Posted on by symonhill

Many thanks to everyone who’s been so encouraging about my new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age. I’m really chuffed to see it in the shops at last!

Following the book’s publication, I’m writing a series of articles about related themes that will run on the New Internationalist website over the next few weeks. The first one concerns online petitions, whether they can be effective and how they become popular. It focuses on the recent petition urging Iain Duncan Smith, the UK’s Work and Pensions Secretary, to live on £53 per week. You can read the article here. Your thoughts are welcome!

 

My new book on activism is now published

Posted on by symonhill

My new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, has now been published by New Internationalist.

The book looks at recent global movements – including Occupy, the Slutwalks, the Arab Spring,  Uncut and the Indignados – along with other cases of recent activism such as the Spartacus Report, Pussy Riot and Boycott Workfare. As well as exploring these movements more generally, my book asks particular questions about the role of the internet. The focus is on interviews with activists and stories of campaigns more than on outside analyses.

The book is £9.99 and is stocked by a number of bookshops; it’s in several branches of Waterstone’s. You can buy it online from the publisher – £9.99 for the paperback and only £3.99 for the e-book.

If you’re looking for a discount on the paperback – you can get one without supporting the tax-dodgers at Amazon! You can buy it for £7.49 from Word Power Books, an independent online bookseller, or £7.99 from the Guardian bookshop.

If you read the book, it would be great to hear your thoughts. You can email me at symonhill@gmail.com, or leave your comments below.

Thatcherism is alive and well

Posted on by symonhill

I was two years old when Margaret Thatcher came to power, and thirteen when she resigned.

Thatcher’s policies led to mass unemployment, leaving my father on the dole for much of my childhood. I started secondary school the year that Section 28 was brought in, banning schools from presenting same-sex relationships as legitimate. When my father became disabled, I watched him having to go through absurd levels of testing and bureaucracy to receive benefits. People living nearby bought their council houses as Thatcher sold them off, setting working class people against each other and replacing collective aspiration for a better community with personal aspirations to own more stuff. I watched my parents worrying about paying the poll tax, trying to work out their finances at the kitchen table as I walked up to bed.

The rule of Thatcher: I saw it all and I hated it all.

Then that was that wonderful day in 1990 when my classmate ran into the classroom and shouted “Thatcher’s resigned!”. At the end of the day, the teacher was in such a celebratory mood that he let us go home early.

But I’m not celebrating today. It would be vile to celebrate anybody’s death and those who do so are lowering themselves to the same level as the supporters of the death and destruction which Thatcher so enthusiastically handed out.

Thatcher was a human being, made, like you and me, in the image of God – however much the image was distorted. She, like you and me, was capable of repentance and redemption. She will be held to account by a higher and better authority than the Today programme or even the general electorate. So will the rest of us.

There is another reason not to celebrate Thatcher’s death. She did not carry out those foul policies on her own. She was able to do what she did because others went along with her. I’m talking not only about her cabinet and party, or even those who voted for her. We all bear some responsibility for the state of society. We are all responsible for making it better.

Today, Thatcher is dead but Thatcherism is alive and well and living in Downing Street. Cameron and Osborne are pursuing policies of which Thatcher could only dream. She died just as disability benefits were being slashed and taxes were cut for the super-rich. She would have been delighted.

I’m more concerned with the death of Thatcherism than the death of Thatcher. At the moment, that seems a long way off. So today, with all the reminiscing and obituary programmes, I’m remembering the campaign against the poll tax. It was the first political campaign that I closely followed and supported. It taught me that people can change things from below, and that change can – sometimes – come suddenly.

So today, let’s be all the more determined to resist this government and the vicious Thatcherite class war that ministers are waging in the interests of the rich. I hope and pray that the day will come when the only way in which children experience Thatcherism is when they study it in history lessons. 

————

My new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, can be ordered from the publisher by clicking here, priced £9.99.

The Daily Mail wants me to feel insulted. I don’t.

Posted on by symonhill

According to today’s Daily Mail, I should be feeling insulted this morning. “What an insult to Christians!” declares its front page.

The Mail is angry with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for issuing advice that suggests that the religions and consciences of all people, and not only Christians, should be respected in the workplace.

Sometimes, the Mail has claimed (with little evidence) that Christians are being marginalised. This is not the issue now. Today, the Mail is explicitly objecting to the notion that non-Christians should be respected as much as Christians.

The Daily Mail has campaigned in favour of Christians being allowed to wear crosses at work and was pleased when this right was upheld in court. Today, the paper declared in outraged tones, “After crucifixes are allowed at work, human rights quango tells firms: Give vegans and pagans special treatment too.”

The EHRC is saying no such thing. Recognising the right of Pagans to wear religious symbols is not “special treatment”; it is equal treatment. As a Christian, I want to express my faith and follow my conscience, not as a matter of “special treatment” but as a right enjoyed by all people.

The Mail article, by political correspondent Jason Groves, declares that “Even atheists should have their beliefs respected according to the new guidance”. Is the Mail arguing that atheists should have fewer rights than others? I hope that most people, whatever their views on religion, would find this suggestion appalling.

The paper seems particularly angry about the suggestion that “lifestyle choices”, such as vegetarianism, veganism and environmentalism, should be respected alongside people with “deeply held spiritual beliefs”.

For many people, such principles are more then “lifestyle choices”. They are, indeed, deeply held beliefs. For some, they are also spiritual. My environmental commitments are strongly linked to my Christian belief that the world is not simply there for the wealthiest humans to use for their own ends. I know several Christian vegans whose veganism is inspired by their interpretation of Christianity. I do not share that interpretation, but I understand where it comes from.

For all their regular claims about Christians being marginalised, it is clear that the Daily Mail don’t want equality for Christians. They want privileges. Such an idea should be abhorrent for people seeking to follow Jesus Christ. Jesus did not teach his followers to claim privileges for himself that they deny to others. He urged them to love their neighbours as themselves – and that means all neighbours, not only Christians. Jesus lived his life in solidarity with people on the margins of society and was killed as a result.

I am not insulted when people whose faith I do not share are accorded the same rights as me. I am insulted when the Daily Mail tries to co-opt my religion to promote prejudice and inequality.

————

My new book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, can be ordered from the publisher, New Internationalist, by clicking here.

Class: It’s about power and wealth, not tastes in music

Posted on by symonhill

This week, I completed a survey on the BBC website to discover which class I belong to. In reality, I don’t have much doubt about which class I belong to, so I was really discovering more about the people who designed the survey than I was about myself.

Over the last few days, there’s been a brief flurry of media interest in new research that suggests there are now seven classes in Britain. The survey was based on this idea. It declared me to be part of the “precariat”. This is odd, because even on the survey’s own terms, I didn’t seem to meet the criteria for it. It may be because I’m self-employed.

Then again, the questions were so bizarre that I doubt  many of the findings are likely to be useful at all. I wasn’t asked what work I do, but was asked what work my friends do. This varies considerably. I was asked what I enjoyed in terms of entertainment. For these researchers, it seems that class is not about money and power, but about whether you go to the theatre.

Of course, such things might be an indicator of how much disposable income you have. But the cultural associations of a particular activity often have little to do with the income needed for it. Just think of the cost of going to a Premier League football match.

Associating class with culture and recreation gives the impression that class is some sort of lifestyle choice rather than something structural. This sort of attitude makes it easier for some people to dismiss the whole notion of class. Examples include Jill Kirby of the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies, who appeared on the Today programme to argue that “class has eroded almost completely”.

I was disappointed that nobody on the programme asked her to explain how it is that the majority of finance directors, QCs and senior journalists went to fee-paying schools, even though 93% of people in the UK are educated at state schools. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mayor of London and Archbishop of Canterbury all went to some of the most expensive schools in the country, which between them educate less than one percent of the UK population. How can anyone argue that this is a country without class?

Another argument that is often heard is that “we are all middle class now”. Those people who go straight from Eton to Oxford to well-paid jobs in investment banks are certainly not middle class. Nor are the million people working in supermarkets and the even greater number working in call centres, many of whom are on zero-hours contracts with little legal protection and far less job security than in the “traditional” working class jobs they have replaced.

I’ve seen class from various angles. My father was a manual worker and I grew up on a council estate. Studying in Oxford, I realised that the “middle class” people – the sons and daughters of teachers and junior managers – had far more in common with me than they did with those who had been to fee-paying schools. Indeed, even people who had been to the less expensive private schools were at a considerable distance from the old Etonians. The big difference was clearly between the people from the “top” schools and the rest of us.

Of course, someone on a middle income who also has a fulfilling and flexible job is likely to have more power over their life than someone on a low income with a demeaning job. I’m not suggesting that there are no nuances or sub-divisions. But let’s not use this as an excuse to mask the reality of the most important distinction. As the Occupy movement has put it, this is between the “one percent” and the “ninety-nine percent”.

Some people point to the blurring of the boundary between the middle and working class as evidence that class does not matter. They say that it shows that people such as Karl Marx were wrong. However, you have only to read Chapter One of The Communist Manifesto to discover that a blurring between the middle and working class is just what Marx predicted. He argued that the increasingly important division was between a tiny number of very rich people and everyone else.

This should not come as any surprise in Britain today – or, indeed, in most of the world. The poor and people in the middle are being told to pay for an economic crisis caused by a system that served the rich. The poorest are suffering the most, with swingeing benefits coming into force only days before the Centre for Policy Studies claimed that class had been eroded. People on middle, as well as low, incomes are facing job losses and pension cuts, just as the NHS is part-privatised, university fees are trebled and local services destroyed at every turn. 

People who object to all this have been accused by David Cameron and George Osborne of waging “class war”. It is Cameron and Osborne who are waging class war. They have slashed taxes for the rich, defended millionaire bonuses and turned a blind eye to corporate tax-dodging at the same time as taking a slash-and-burn approach to public services. The Conservative Party are continuing with their three-hundred-year tradition of promoting the interests of the wealthy. Surveys that define class by tastes in music are not going to help us to resist them.

————

My new  book, Digital Revolutions: Activism in the internet age, can be ordered by clicking here.