"Underlying health conditions": the Brewer-Hitchens argument

There have been many sceptics, doubters and conspiracy theorists in the face of the Covid pandemic. Some said that the whole thing could be solved through 'herd immunity' without vaccination. That's to say the 'herd' (us) would become immune by virtue of us producing antibodies and/or the virus becoming 'weak', simply by being everywhere. Yes this would kill the 'very old' but - it was implied or stated - this wouldn't matter very much. The argument also turned on ignoring what happened with e.g. the Black Death, myxomatosis, or Dutch Elm Disease). A version of this argument suggested that the 'vulnerable' should be shielded. 

This argument developed into the 'underlying health conditions' argument. This states that as Covid mostly affects those with these conditions, then the precautions we're taking are too severe and risk many other people's lives in the process. This argument comes from e.g. Peter Hitchens and Julia Hartley-Brewer. For the argument to stick, though, we need a good picture of numbers of who has these underlying health conditions. What seems to have happened is that the argument has implied that 

a) very few people are dying from Covid anyway and that 

b) most of this few are people with these conditions.

So the argument rests on statistics. 

And to be fair, they have a remedy: shield these vulnerable people along with the 'very old' (that's Brewer - though as her stats only included the 'under 60s', she may think that the over-60s are therefore 'very old'. Not clear from her statement.)

Let's unpack that.  What are these 'underlying conditions' that correlate with death from Covid? If you go  online you'll find a wide range of these from asthma to high blood pressure, from rheumatoid conditions to obesity. This is important. The Brewer-Hitchens argument and remedy can't be put forward,  if we don't know what range of illnesses are 'netted' by the term 'underlying health conditions'. And once we're sure which conditions probably put us at risk from dying if we contract Covid, we need a sense of what numbers are we talking about. After all, Brewer and Hitchens are advocating a radically different policy from the one(s) that the government is suggesting: namely, shield these people and the 'very old'.

Responses on twitter have ended up with figures from between 20 and 50 million. Perhaps you can do the sums of people of all ages who are obese, asthmatic, suffer from cancer, high blood pressure (more than 140 diastolic), etc... It's a lot. And now add in, let's say, the over 75s as the 'very old'. 

And now let's apply the Brewer-Hitchens remedy: shield them.  I think it's fair to ask, where? how? Or why wouldn't shielding these millions not in effect be the same as some kind of lockdown? Or do they have another plan in mind? At one point in March, Robert Peston seemed to be passing on a government plan to put hundreds of thousands from these categories into army-style camps. No one took up what he claimed was an inside story so perhaps it was quickly dropped. 

In other words, we have to keep asking, what underlying conditions put Covid patients at risk? How many people are there in the population who have these conditions? How would we shield them without also in effect limiting the movement of millions more on top of that total? 

Surely, it's for them to flesh out the details, the stats and the proposals? 

Quentin Blake's 'Clown' and Covid

 What does a picture book with no words tell us about Covid? 

The story is of a toy clown who is discarded along with some other old toys. However, this 'toy' has a life, and so wakes up out of the bin (trash can). He has a scary time avoiding dangers but in the end arrives in the room of a girl struggling to keep a baby happy. The clown is able to entertain the baby, help the girl clean and tidy the room. The mother of the girl and the baby comes back and all is well.

This wonderful book - which I recommend to anyone and everyone of any age is in its own way a morality fable. Why is the clown discarded? Is he too old, or is he too much connected with someone's childhood. Originally I interpreted it (my reading) was that Quentin was saying something about the dangers of discarding our childhoods (which the clown represents). Or perhaps why neglect the arts (which the clown could represent)? 

In the light of Covid, and as an example of how interpretations can change over time, how the arts can apply in different ways in different conditions, the clown  now represents for me, the dangers of throwing away experience - old age if you like. This is precisely what was done when a group of scientists, journalists and politicians flirted with 'herd immunity' without vaccination in the first weeks of 2020. They were prepared to sacrifice the old, sick, vulnerable and high risk on the grounds that the 'rest' would be saved as - supposedly - immunity through exposure would spread through the rest of the population. This was a theory that had been shown to be either false or lethal for millions, on countless occasions through history e.g. the Black Death, Dutch Elm Disease, the rabbit disease - mixamatosis and so on. 

But back to 'Clown': I see the 'old'  Clown showing us that he is still 'useful', he shouldn't have been discarded, and that through his kindness, fun and solidarity with the other discarded toys that he has a social conscience that we can't afford to lose. Of course he also shows that kindness in what he does for the girl and the baby. 

I always loved the book. I now love it even more. I think Quentin Blake is a great artist in both senses of the word; someone who draws and paints, but also as a great creator of the arts. 

The book is now my Covid morality fable. Thank you Quentin. 

Destructive forces: in King Lear and the Odyssey

Two forces:

the one where you destroy things;

the other when things destroy you.




King Lear destroys the love

Cordelia had for him

but he is destroyed by bigger forces

coming from Goneril, Regan and Edmund.

Unlike Odysseus’s hubris

where his destruction of Polyphemus

brings on the destructive powers of Poseidon,

Lear’s destruction of love

doesn’t bring on

the destructive powers of

Goneril, Regan and Edmund.






You can say

that through facing their destructive powers

Lear comes to see that

he was wrong to have destroyed

the love he had.

The cause and effect of the Odyssey

is reversed.

And then

interwoven into that

Lear comes to see that ‘pomp’

- wealth and power -

needs to ‘take physic’

it needs to be taken down,

be made more merciful, kinder

and more egalitarian:

‘Shake the superflux’,

he says.

King Boris and the Gas Army

King Boris is informed that a new and dangerous army is on the borders and approaching.
This army uses a gas that attacks everyone. They’ve been using it in other countries on civilians.
He takes advice.
Some (plan A) tell him that every single one of the people must be given gas masks and given the means to equip their dwellings with gas proofing
Some (plan B ) tell him that the gas only kills old people and people with underlying health conditions so the best way to deal with this army is not equip everyone but to lure the army in as it attacks, yes the old and sick will die, but the gas ‘dies’ of its own accord, leaving this foreign army isolated and defenceless.


Meanwhile in the Red Lion, some people are discussing the threat. Some say that it's a hoax. There is no army. It's just a trick invented by King Boris to get control over the people. Some say that they've heard that there are different plans afoot and the best thing to do is put pressure on King Boris to equip everyone.


Meanwhile in the offices of Daily Boris, top journalists are writing articles echoing (mostly) KIng Boris's Plan B: the old, sick and disabled are a worthy and necessary sacrifice.


Back at the court, King Boris has disappeared. It turns out that he is seeing a ‘friend’.


The army arrives on the borders.Throws gas about.The first civilian deaths (mostly old and disabled and sick) occur.


Back at the Red Lion, people say that it's a hoax: they died of schizophrenia. Or asperger's. Or mixamotosis. Or watermelons.


Chaos at the court with the Plan A vs the Plan B people arguing. King Boris is still away. A message comes from him saying that he's going with Plan B. And that's it.


The army is prepared and more troops recruited.


BAck at the Red Lion, people prepare to resist being recruited for what, they say, is a hoax.


The enemy troops invade further in to the country. More and more people are being gassed.


The Daily Boris says things are going well...

How can poems speak to us out of the past about what's going on now?

This is 'Strange Meeting' by Wilfred Owen:


It seemed that out of the battle I escaped
Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped
Through granites which titanic wars had groined.
Yet also there encumbered sleepers groaned,
Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred.
Then, as I probed them, one sprang up, and stared
With piteous recognition in fixed eyes,
Lifting distressful hands as if to bless.
And by his smile, I knew that sullen hall,
By his dead smile I knew we stood in Hell.
With a thousand pains that vision's face
was grained;
Yet no blood reached there from the upper ground,
And no guns thumped, or down the flues
made moan.
"Strange friend," I said, "here is no cause
to mourn."
"None," said the other, "save the undone years,
The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,
Was my life also; I went hunting wild
After the wildest beauty in the world,
Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,
But mocks the steady running of the hour,
And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.
For by my glee might many men have laughed,
And of my weeping something had been left,
Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,
The pity of war, the pity war distilled.
Now men will go content with what we spoiled.
Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.
They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress,
None will break ranks, though nations trek
from progress.
Courage was mine, and I had mystery,
Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery;
To miss the march of this retreating world
Into vain citadels that are not walled.
Then, when much blood had clogged their
chariot-wheels
I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
Even with truths that lie too deep for taint.
I would have poured my spirit without stint
But not through wounds; not on the cess of war.
Foreheads of men have bled where no
wounds were.
I am the enemy you killed, my friend.
I knew you in this dark; for so you frowned
Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed.
I parried; but my hands were loath and cold.
Let us sleep now..."




I think this is one of the great poems of the 20 th century. A poet could see - in spite of the triumphalism and phony sorrow - that out there on the battlefield, people who could and should have been friends, were killing each other.

I feel it speaks to me today about the triumphalism and phony sorrow about Covid. In my mind, I have 'strange meetings' with the victims of Covid. They explain to me that they were the 'enemy' of a government who in February and the first part of March (before lockdown) was toying with 'herd immunity' entailing the inevitable deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of people.

No Politician Said

 No politician said:

'And now we're doing herd immunity,

now we're going to let Covid spread

however it wants to.

That way, some people will die

(tough)

some people will be maimed

(tough)

but the rest of us will become immune.'

They didn't say that.

Some scientists said things like

'We''re going to have to generate herd immunity'

(and this was March so they

weren't talking about vaccination then.

Some journalists told us in March

'Herd immunity will be vital to stopping

Coronavirus'.

And they didn't say

'Some people will die

(tough)

Some people will be maimed

(tough).'

What they did was

not have enough PPE for health workers

not insist we mask-distance-handwash

not put in place test-trace-isolate.

That's how they did

'herd immunity'

without saying they were doing

'herd immunity'.

I was bad...

 I was bad.

I took a wrong turning in life:

I got old.

I didn't mean to.

Perhaps someone led me astray.

Perhaps I was weak.

I just got into bad ways:

and I kept doing it:

kept on and on being old.

So I got my punishment.

Fair dos.

I was caught.

Sentenced to death.

Part of herd immunity, they said.

But I got a reprieve

thanks to doctors and nurses

who seemed to think I shouldn't swing for it.

You never forget things like that.

I'll always be grateful to those people

who saw a bit of good in me

in spite of everything.

I'm glad I've been given a second chance.

I'm trying not to be old now.

But it's hard.

I get tempted.

I look in the mirror

and see wrinkles

and start to stay to myself,

'You're old.'

But you have to stop yourself

don't you?

because being old is dangerous

when you're around people

who say your time's up,

you've got to go...

 If you want to know how fascism happens,

remember how nice people talked of 'herd immunity' as if they didn't know it would entail the deaths of thousands and when it happened how soon it is that it's been forgotten.

Covid UK in tweets (up till Lockdown Mar 2020)

 History of Covid in tweets (Dec 24 2020)

They say 'herd immunity', we say 'Black Death', let's call the whole thing off.

Thailand, South Korea, Japan. We stand or fall in comparison to those countries. We fall.

Without vaccination, herd  immunity is a myth. Scientists who talked of it as a fact were deceiving themselves or us or both. They had the Black Death as a prime example to draw on: successful herd immunity, population ravaged over hundreds of years.

From Wuhan to  Lockdown: how the UK government toyed with the idea of 'herd immunity', deliberately failed to implement track-trace-isolate, and mask-distance-handwash with the result that thousands died or got seriously ill with lifelong consequences.

Anyway, they gave us a choice: people's freedom to not mask, distance and wash, versus our deaths and lifetime damage. They went with 'freedom'.

There are campaigns and there's legislation to highlight hate crime, racism, antisemitism etc. Quite right. But what's happened here is a form of discrimination against a group, (the over-70s),  that is seen as separate from other forms of hate. We were defenceless. Literally.

The people who articulated the 'herd immunity' theory have never been called to own up to it for having endangered us:  John Edmunds, Patrick Vallance, Graham Medley, Robert Peston, Toby Young, Jeremy Warner. 

We have very public mourning for the awful random multiple deaths of major accidents and acts of terrorism. Quite right too. The Covid deaths are just numbers. No collective public mourning for tens of thousands of deaths.

How did politicians, journalists, scientists soften us up to accept 'herd immunity' without vaccination?

24 December 2020

How did politicians, journalists and scientists soften us up to accept 'herd immunity' without vaccination? 

Feb 3 Boris Johnson's Greenwich speech in which he counterposed what he called 'market segregation' and 'freedom of exchange' as alternatives in how to deal with the Coronavirus. He favoured (of course) 'freedom of exchange' over - what I think he means - state intervention in dealing with the virus.

Here are two more examples:

Daily Telegraph:

“Not to put too fine a point on it, from an entirely disinterested economic perspective, the Covid-19 might even prove mildly beneficial in the long term by disproportionately culling elderly dependents.”

Jeremy Warner Daily Telegraph

March 3 2020

In March 12 2020

Robert Peston explained here in the Spectator why we had to go with 'herd immunity' but without him mentioning the inevitable toll of deaths and permanent damage it would inflict. 

(copy and paste the link into your browser)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-stopping-coronavirus

Also in March 2020 we have Toby Young writing a tweet:

"The cost of the economic bailout Rishi Sunack has proposed is too high. Spending that kind of money to extend the lives of a few hundred thousand mostly elderly people with underlying health problems by one or two years is a mistake."

And in March 2020, at least three scientists came on TV to tell us that 'herd immunity' (with no mention that they meant 'with vaccination') was the right approach:

Graham Medley, Patrick Vallance and John Edmunds.

Medley said on BBC 'Newsnight; (March 13) '"We're going to have to generate herd immunity...the only way of developing that in the absence of a vaccine is for the majority of the population to become infected..."

1/ 13/03/20: Sir Patrick Vallance (UK Chief Scientific Adviser, SAGE member): "Our aim is to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity"

(Today programme, March 13 2020)

"The only way to stop this epidemic is indeed to achieve herd immunity" - John Edmunds, 13th March 2020 (not referring to herd immunity through vaccination)

I am the medical experiment

I am the politician’s dream 

I am the scientist’s calculation

I am the journalist’s headline

My eye is the collateral damage

My ear is the necessary wound

My blood clots are the inevitable consequence

My toes are the concomitant contribution

We are here to give you herd immunity

we are here to save your business

we are here to save the politicians’ skins

we are here to say nothing

We are the dead

we are the long covids

We are the there-but-for-grace-of-god-go-you

We are you.  

Epitaph by Merrit Malloy

 Someone called David Joyce posted this on Facebook and it popped up on my timeline. (As it seems to be circulating on the internet, I'm not sure of the rights in the poem) 

This poem is stunning. Just wanted to share it. It is used in the Reform Jewish liturgy, as an optional reading, before Kaddish

”Every once in a while, a poem or song is so well constructed, so clearly conveys the author's meaning and is so precisely expressive that it becomes something of an anthem. The poem below, Epitaph, was written by Merrit Malloy and as one of those poems, has become a staple of funeral and memorial services…for good reason.”

Epitaph - By Merrit Malloy

When I die

Give what’s left of me away

To children

And old men that wait to die.

And if you need to cry,

Cry for your brother

Walking the street beside you.

And when you need me,

Put your arms

Around anyone

And give them

What you need to give to me.

I want to leave you something,

Something better

Than words

Or sounds.

Look for me

In the people I’ve known

Or loved,

And if you cannot give me away,

At least let me live on in your eyes

And not your mind.

You can love me most

By letting

Hands touch hands,

By letting bodies touch bodies,

And by letting go

Of children

That need to be free.

Love doesn’t die,

People do.

So, when all that’s left of me

Is love,

Give me away.

J'accuse...a government of not protecting us

J’accuse

(I accuse)

(in tribute to Emile Zola, who called out the government of his day for disregard of human rights)

J’accuse

a government of not protecting us

J'accuse

a government of experimenting with its population

J'accuse

a government of putting profit before people

J’accuse

a government of toying with the idea of ‘herd immunity’ without vaccination

a government of knowing that herd immunity without vaccination inevitably necessitates the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people

a government of knowing how little they knew about how Covid-19 works and that how it might spread, mutate, reinfect were unknowns and therefore any idea of ‘letting it rip’ was lethal and fatal to thousands of people

a government of refusing to listen to World Health Organisation guidelines issued from February 2020

a government of dishing out contracts to friends and supporters to provide services and equipment

a government that turned away from the local public health bodies that were best placed to run services

a government that has not provided and is still not able to provide a proper test-trace-isolate system which could and would protect more of its citizens

a government that decanted thousands of old people out of hospitals into care homes without them being tested, resultng in tens and thousands of deaths

a government of failing in early March to issue strict guidelines about social distancing, mask-wearing and hand-washing

a government of underfunding the NHS for ten years prior to the pandemic so that it was not sufficiently equipped to cope with the emergency

J’accuse

a small group of scientists of peddling the idea of ‘herd immunity’ without vaccination as a viable and ethical policy even though they knew that it necessitated the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people

J’accuse 

journalists and commentators in major papers and news outlets peddling the idea that people over 70 were or are superfluous, unworthy of saving, who, if dead, would help the economy by not existing

J’accuse

journalists and commentators for helping to provide a seed-bed for what is in effect a form of creeping fascism, that a whole section of the population can be dispensed with for what is deemed to be a greater good.

(with thanks to Kevin Ovenden for suggesting that I write this)

Recent print interviews on surviving Covid

 For people not used to using links, you'll see that the links below aren't live. You can't click on them. To read or listen to the interviews, you copy the link by running your cursor over it, and press 'command' and 'C' simultaneously, and then paste it into your browser and press 'return' and it should come up. Cheers

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/michael-rosen-on-coronavirus-and-nhs-3671606

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/30/michael-rosen-on-his-covid-19-coma-it-felt-like-a-pre-death-a-nothingness

https://www.bigissue.com/culture/books/michael-rosen-on-the-move/

https://www.independentsage.org/qa-with-michael-rosen/

https://www.thebookseller.com/profile/michael-rosen-i-don-t-think-i-realised-until-maybe-august-how-ill-i-d-been-1230607

2 hours 36 minutes into this radio programme from BBC Radio 4 Today programme there's an interview with me from Martha Kearney:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000qblk?fbclid=IwAR2G5dxuZzsLb3bO6OT0UWm__dBXKKdNfn7NZNDbm5gZTd0GkXKa3_8rgSY

https://rep.repubblica.it/pwa/robinson/2020/12/28/news/non_ci_resta_che_giocare-280238889/?ref=RHTP-BH-I280255636-P15-S2-T1&fbclid=IwAR3vRpVjzZG6al9RbLVn4Q--hK48sg1hY0TK3GzWEq9oUCWchJQyVqqjt8o

Article in this  edition of NEU 'Educate'

https://neu.org.uk/educate-janfeb-2021

'The Reunion' Radio 4

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000qlzh?fbclid=IwAR3_vryq_HnBs9-MYJ0_Q6qKbAM8jdoxDYA6Zfn6jgUfn_6lSgrGK7kmd5Y

Pick of the Year Radio 4

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000qjdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9098695/Author-Michael-Rosen-74-reveals-suffering-symptoms-long-Covid-hospital-battle.html

My books for teachers, students and parents

I thought I'd put together the various books I've written for teachers, students and parents to help them advise children and school students with writing, reading and being creative. 

'Good Ideas, how to be your child's (and your own) best teacher'
published by John Murrays, paperback

'What is Poetry? The Essential Guide to reading and writing poems' published by Walker  Books, paperback

'Poetry and Stories for Primary and Lower Secondary Schools' (self-published), paperback

'Why Write? Why Read?' (self-published), paperback

'Reading for  Pleasure' (self-published), paperback

'Michael Rosen's Book of Play' published by Profile, hardback

'The Author' (self-published), paperback

'How to Make Children Laugh', hardback, published by Quercus

'Alphabetical, how every letter tells a story', published byJohn Murray, paperback

'William Shakespeare: in his time, for our time', published by Bookmarks, paperback

'What's So Special about Shakespeare?', published by Walker Books, paperback

'What So Special about Dickens?, published by Walker Books, paperback. 

These are all available through my website or of course you can order them through your local bookshop.

www.michaelrosen.co.uk/books

Tweets about 'free speech' and Trevor Phillips

(I'm not in the Labour Party) Trevor Phillips has been free and is free to say a whole raft of things about Muslims. An organisation or institution is free to say that it doesn't want someone who writes what he writes as a member. The IHRA code works in the same way.

There are two different areas that govern free speech: the law and the noise of the mass media. The second has decided that the Trevor Phillips case is a breach of free speech and implementing the IHRA code and the 'Ten Pledges' is not a breach of free speech.


Very interesting that 'free speech' is suddenly an issue again. When the IHRA code was argued about, various people said that it raised 'free speech' questions. The fact that they did raise it, 'proved' that they were antisemitic. Apparently. Interesting topic is 'free speech'.

As only certain news stories gain prominence then there is also 'free speech in reverse' e.g. how little attention is paid to things e.g. why we haven't had the Arcuri report.

If anyone reading this sees or hears on the media the question of the IHRA code or the 'Ten pledges' being raised as part of the 'free speech' issue, could they please tweet it to me?

Now it's me, raised eyebrows, and the Jewish Chronicle...

The Jewish Chronicle on me being affirmed by Show Racism the Red Card as a judge of their children's poetry competition says:

"The choice of Jewish children’s author Michael Rosen, another well-known defender of the Labour Party against antisemitism allegations, raised eyebrows."

This is an important point. Presumably, the Chronicle's journalists have been out and about doing eyebrow checks, going up to people and saying,'Excuse me, have you heard? Michael Rosen has been chosen by Show Racism the Red Card as a judge of a children's poetry competition!' And then they stand back to see if eyebrows are raised.


Then again, I'm not sure whose eyebrows were raised. The article doesn't specify. I mean i know people who have at least one eyebrow raised all the time. Like the Everton Football Club manager, Ancelotti. Would that count? Or does the eyebrow have to go up?

Even so, who are these eyebrow raisers? And when do they get to take their eyebrows down? In my experience, I've found it hard-going standing about keeping your eyebrows raised. Is there a qualifying time? Do you have to have your eyebrows raised for a minimum length of time for it to count as raised? Or can a quick eyebrow flip - up-down - count too?

Anyway, please can you go out today and say to someone, 'Michael Rosen is a judge of children's poetry for Show Racism the Red Card' - and see what happens to the eyebrows?

Get back to me. Let me know how it goes on the eyebrow front. It's a big thing, eyebrows.

Teachers: some great notes for 'The Missing'

Hello teachers.

If you have my book 'The Missing' and are reading it with your pupils you may want to use some wonderful notes written by Nikki Gamble from Just Imagine. You can get the notes from:

http://www.walker.co.uk/…/The%20Missing%20Teachers'%20Notes…

They are also available from the following websites:

Just Imagine
Reading Agency
Schools Library Association
Read for Good 
TES

And Roving Books have hard copies.

Grand old Duke of York - English test paper

The grand old Duke of York
He had ten thousand men.
He marched them up to the top of the hill
and he marched them down again.

When they were up, they were up.
When they were down, they were down.
And when they were only half way up,
they were neither up nor down.


1. How many men did the Duke of York have? (ten thousand: one mark)
2. Where did he march them ? (Up to the top of the hill and down again: two marks)
3. Where were they, when they were up? (Up: one mark)
4.  Where were they, when they were down? (Down: one mark)
5. Where were they, when they were half way up? (Neither up nor down: one mark)
6.  Write down the order in which the Duke of York marched his men. (Up then down: two marks)
7. Why did the Duke of York march his men up? (To get to the top of the Hill: two marks) 
8. Why did the Duke of York march his men down? (To get to the bottom of the hill: two marks) 
9. What does 'neither up nor down' mean?  (Only half way up: one mark)
10. Why did the Duke of York do all this? (Not possible at this stage to assign a mark to this question.)

The Guardian has a go at the Labour Party on Holocaust Memorial Day

Here is a paragraph from today's Guardian editorial for Holocaust Memorial Day:

"In Hungary, the prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has pursued a prolonged dog-whistle campaign against the Jewish philanthropist George Soros, whose arguments in favour of accepting Muslim migrants from the Middle East have been presented as “endangering the Christian culture of Europe”. Meanwhile, in the UK, the Labour party’s failure to effectively combat the use of antisemitic tropes by some members led to a breakdown in its relations with the Jewish community."


This leaves out:
1. The person who has repeated the Soros trope in Britain is Rees-Mogg. Not only 'repeated'! He directed his comments to two Jewish MPs, Oliver Letwin and John Berkow. 

2. Tim Montgomerie, Johnson's aide at the time, said that the UK should have a closer relationship with Orban who not only plays the antisemitic card but also has racialised IVF treatment in what must be one of the first official government pronouncements in Europe of racialised eugenics since the Nazis. 

3. Dominic Cummings (Johnson's adviser) has twice picked out Goldman Sachs as a special example of what's wrong with the EU and its financial arrangements identifying the bank having 'fingers in every pie'. By selecting a bank that was founded by Jewish financiers, I suggest that this is deliberate dog-whistling in order to racialise Cummings' real or phoney objections to international finance. We should remember that whatever arguments that we have with international financiers it's not the ethnicity or religion of the financiers that is the problem. 

4. And if we're talking about the failure of dealing with 'antisemitic tropes', Johnson himself has never had to answer for the fact that he platformed and edited 'Taki' a self-identifying antisemite when he, Johnson, was editor of the Spectator.

5. The Guardian has conceded here that the long and the short of the Labour antisemitism crisis is the use of antisemitic tropes. Is that it? Well, if that's the case, how does that distinguish the Labour Party from the rest of society? UK society and culture and politics is full of antisemitic tropes. My thought has always been: if we are combatting antisemitism but only combat it in the Labour Party, we are not combatting antisemitism, we are combatting the Labour Party. And that's precisely what the Guardian has done on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Holocaust Memorial Day song for children

Each year Holocaust Memorial Day has a theme. This year it’s ‘Stand together’. I work closely with schools in Cambridge doing poetry, song, drama and documentary, doing a variety of story-telling, poetry performance, getting the children writing and performing too. This is all under the auspices of Professor Helen Weinstein and ‘HistoryWorks’. This year they asked me to write lyrics for three songs, one for Primary, one for Secondary and one for the Community.

Here are the lyrics for the primary song. Hundreds of children will sing this in the Cambridge Corn Exchange on January 26:


A child wanders through the ruins

A family fears a knock at the door

A grandma looks for her old home

They know they didn’t start this war



We are better

when we stand together

When we stand together

We are better



The child is ours, we must make it safe

The family’s ours, we must hear their call

The grandma’s ours, we must find a home

We know we have to stand with all



We are better

When we stand together

when we stand together

we are better






The music is here:

https://audioboom.com/posts/7470401-we-are-better-when-we-stand-together-singing-guide-by-bethany-kirby-composer-for-historyworks?playlist_direction=reversed

Oh dear, I shouldn't have been at the vigil

Over the last 60 years I've been on hundreds of demonstrations in support of people or in solidarity with them and then last week along came an issue where I was actually demonstrating on behalf of myself: the antisemitic daubing in Hampstead - about two miles from where I live.

I now find that instead of being told that this or that issue (as with the last 60 years worth of demos) was not really my issue and that it was e.g. a matter for the government to decide which country to invade or it was a matter for the police to decide which group of fascists could walk down which street, this time I find that there are people saying that I wasn't entitled to be at this demonstration because it wasn't really to do with me. This seems to be because the graffiti (apparently) wasn't attacking me, it was attacking them.

I had no idea that antisemites were so careful and nuanced in their choice of Jew.

I'm in another mainstream Jewish tradition

Sigmund Freud was Jewish but he didn't affiliate to a synagogue and, as far as I know, wasn't in any way 'observant' in terms of Jewish customs and worship.

In the present climate of labelling Jews as 'mainstream' or 'not mainstream', if Freud was alive today he would be 'not mainstream', 'not in the community', 'not part of the Jewish community'. This way, whatever he had to say about e.g. fascism and Nazism (which he wrote about by the way), could be dismissed as 'not representative' and if (in this little fantasy I'm running by you) he signed letters to the paper in support of a candidate for election or if he didn't go along with 'mainstream' opinion then he would be vilified as e.g. a 'used Jew' or even a 'kapo'.

We might imagine Freud would say that he never sought to 'represent' anyone and that he is 'his own man'. More than that, that he feels he has inherited and studied traditions of thought from many cultures including those expressed by people of Jewish belief and/or origin. Or more than that, perhaps, that he expresses a kind of culture or sensibility that developed in Europe over hundreds of years as part of the encounter between Jews, Christians, Muslims and people of no religious belief but in his case, it's 'flavoured' or is intertwined with specifics to do with the Jewish beliefs, customs, habits, communal life of his predecessors and people around him in Vienna and later Hampstead, London.

And more than that (!): now that Mr Freud's own ideas have had a huge impact on how people all over the world think about consciousness and what it is to be human, then talking about Freud as either 'mainstream' or 'not mainstream', or 'representative' /'not representative' misses the point. No statistic represents his impact. No attempt to minimise him by excluding him from the 'mainstream' deals with the fact that his ideas have spread.

Now, if you multiply Freud by all the other secular Jewish thinkers, and add in anyone and everyone who has led their life in some respect or another in acknowledgment of their Jewish background without being religious, we have a picture of something much bigger and much more significant than an entity that can be dismissed as 'not mainstream'.

And, importantly, its claim - if ever one were to be made - is not to counter it by saying, 'o yes we are part of your mainstream'. Its claim is simply that it exists, that it is diverse, multi-voiced, does not have to be corralled into specific categories or given labels that reduce it to this or that minority.

What is absurd is that the media (in the fullest sense of the word ie the whole Fourth estate' or 'republic of letters') has plenty of such people working in it and yet the media as a whole has repeatedly trotted out the fib that there is just 'the Jewish community'. It's as if Freud (and Marx and Kafka and Walter Benjamin (you add thousands more!) had never existed and that there is nothing for those of us alive now to read, be inspired by or to draw on in our lives, politics and action from this huge tradition!

We need another word: a word to counter this reductive matter of 'mainstream' or 'not mainstream'. The word 'secular' doesn't do it. For the moment I can only think of whole sentences along the lines of 'inheriting some of the many diverse traditions of secular Jewish thought - and that there are millions of people, Jewish and not-Jewish who are part of this.' (Not much of a sound-bite, though!)

Every time someone uses phrases like 'inferiority complex', 'Kafka-esque', 'class war', and thousands more, they come from the minds of people who were born into some kind of Jewish tradition and have been taken up by millions of people since then.

I, for one, am delighted and proud to be part of this, both as someone who was also born into one aspect of Jewish tradition but also as someone who lives and works in a world which shares these ideas (along with the ideas of course of many other cultures and traditions).

Perhaps - thinking aloud here - I (we?) should reclaim the 'mainstream' word and say, 'I'm part of the "mainstream secular Jewish tradition", thank you very much.'

I'm not in your mainstream perhaps (seeing as you keep telling the world I'm not!) , but I am in another mainstream Jewish tradition...

The history of the UK in the 21st century in one statistic

Stat put up on Twitter by Matt Thomas:

Between 2010 and 2018, aggregate wealth in the UK grew by £5.68 trillion:

6% went to the poorest 50% of households.
94% went to the richest 50% of households.

Source: ONS Total Wealth Dataset

There is an argument for saying that the history of the 21st century in the UK so far is written in this stat.