Lottsathoughts

For those feeling buffeted by current politics and angst, it is relentlessly tempting to seek a universal theory of everything that could explain the zeitgeist in one fell-swoop. In all honesty it's highly unlikely that such a thing exists, and if it does, it almost certainly won't be discernible before a few decades, at least, have passed.But, if one were to indulge the mind's craving for a simple story, could the decline of authenticity be a contender? I recently attended a concert which featured a remarkable singer, a soprano who wowed the audience into enthusiastic cheering and foot-stamping. I, however, was left cold. The singer had an undeniably impressive technique and performed dazzling acrobatics but this was coupled with what seemed a self-conscious attempt to be a remarkable performer. It's hard to find the words to describe it exactly, but rather than portraying a passionate woman, betrayed by a feckless lover, she appeared to portray what a singer wo

I can't stop thinking about the so-called Windrush scandal. I say so-called, because I think there's a danger that we have got hold of the wrong end of the stick if this is 'only' about the Windrush generation. Or rather, we have grabbed firmly on to the twig, but if we run with that, it will snap away, leaving the main branch, the bigger point, unmoved. Don't get me wrong - the Windrush scandal is certainly shocking. The way individuals have been treated correlates with my definition of criminal. But these individual cases are but twigs from a thicker branch of systemic hostility to "the other". If we allow ourselves to be focused on individual cases, we allow Theresa May and the Government and, in fact, ourselves, off the hook. If the concern is that person A is deported in error, an apology can be made, decisions reversed and even, potentially, compensation made. And there the story dies, with no hint of "lessons having been lear

"If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas." That's what David Lammy said to Amber Rudd in Parliament yesterday and it has haunted me overnight. I keep hearing that sentence on a loop in Lammy's own powerful voice. It was an incredible speech and I really urge everyone to watch it - just two minutes long, but astoundingly on point and emotionally compelling. But back to those dogs and those fleas. The dogs he referred to are the figures of the far-right and the fleas are their disgusting policies, in this case, specifically, racism and immigration-centric exclusion and hatred. You have to hear it in his voice to get the emotional power. He's a big man yet you could feel the hurt and the pain along with the fury. It was a speech that couldn't have been given by a white man. This is a seismic moment for us as a nation. Nothing has changed - the Windrush scandal isn't the result of a new policy - and yet, potentially everything has. Since

I do not accept the false dichotomy that being anti-bombing is to be in some way pro chemical weapons, pro Syrian war or pro Russia. It is possible to oppose war with every bone in your body simply because it is a never-ending cycle of suffering, destruction and terrible waste. In a practical way, it is also possible to oppose action that has no long-term plan attached. We have seen over and over and over again in recent times that bombing is the "easy" bit. It's the rebuil ding and recovery that takes insight, thoughtfulness, courage and patience.  I have been devastated by Syria since day one and have done what I can to help directly with the refugee crisis and to try to raise awareness of the evil unfolding there. It is dismaying to read elsewhere the suggestion that opposing bombs now is the equivalent of not caring about Syrian civilians. That's nonsense. Having said that, I am certainly NOT joining the bizarre excitement that Putin has threate