This is the last article I wrote for the Guardian. I said we need a grown up debate about ‘welfare’. I meant it. The Guardian are currently unable to host such a debate, their priority is Labour’s austerity priorities and the perpetuation of an echochamber which supports many healthy careers and disenfranchises an awful lot of people to do so. The Guardian’s role in political debate is to keep parameters narrow and maintain the status quo.
When I said I would have the debate on my own if I had to, I meant it. When I encountered ‘the left’ as they exploited austerity as a career opportunity, I explained clearly that my purpose in meeting them was not to further their careers but to address something happening to me and millions of others. They educated me in how the issues I want to discuss had never been addressed, and in their behaviour showed exactly how an elite echochamber is maintained.
I am grateful for this education and wish to be clear. This debate will be had. One of the benefits of political consensus, is that the narcissism of small difference that defines our party and press system does not afflict those who bear the consequences. We can wander freely through walls that are defined only so a homogenous culture can differentiate themselves from each other and maintain their preferred status quo.
I will write for the Guardian again when they are able to clearly state in their political editorial that a mother should not be defined by her relationship status and her children be punished with poverty because of it. For a newspaper that sees itself as the home of feminism, it beggars belief they are unable to do so. Discussion about the extent to which women should be disenfranchised is not political discussion, I told them this during the selling of Blue Labour and I am using this post to tell them this again. If they cannot do this, their continued exploitation of the misery they perpetuate for poverty porn is unacceptable.