Labour: Rebrand Not Revolution

Another post where I'm tired as I've just got home from work, but I feel I need to make a few notes.

Firstly, there were a few little stories that would suggest it is indeed rebrand rather than revolution for Labour.

1) A Guido Fawkes story stating that Tory personnel have been instructed not to attack Andy Burnham too much: https://order-order.com/2026/06/05/

2) Another story stating that Andy Burnham will keep Rachel Reeves as chancellor if he becomes PM: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/

3) A third story noting that Andy Burnham has an "open mind" on drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/03

They all suggest my instincts were correct.

Question Time

The other thing I wanted to make a quick note about was last night's Question Time.

It was fascinating to watch. Reform's Robert Kenyon - the plumber! - appeared, and he was completely uncoached. So much so that in parts he actually came across as idiotic - a few times the audience even laughed at him. I don't really know very much about him, so this was my first real introduction, and it was difficult to make a judgement. He obviously isn't a professional politician, and appearing on Question Time really is being thrown in at the deep end. As the show went on he began to find his feet. He even managed to nail a key soundbite when he asked the Green Party candidate if she believed immigration affected housing. Most people don't watch Question Time in full, but they will see clips, so this moment probably made the appearance a net positive.

Again, it was really interesting to watch, as we're so used to seeing politicians who can give a sales pitch. People that have that spokesperson way of speaking. This was like watching a normal bloke thrown in amongst professionals. I'm sure I'd look like an idiot if I was put in that situation ..but, of course, I'm not an idiot. If I do say so myself. So I suspect it's similar here. It's like a bad job interview where you're put on the spot and you haven't rehearsed your answers. Only national TV. So it was hard to watch at times, but also refreshing.

In contrast we also had PM-in-waiting Andy Burnham on the show. He is very personable. He's likeable. He's one of these people that can have a chat with the girls in the office. He's not socially awkward. Much more so than most politicians. Most politicians have their smooth sales pitch, but they look like salesmen, he comes across as sincere when he does it though. You could see all the dopey women in the audience hanging on his words a bit when he spoke. (I'm only calling them dopey as I'm jealous they don't fawn like that for me ..they are a bit dopey though, and easily charmed by empty words.)

On top of this his years in national and local politics means he knows the ins and outs. When questions about housing and funding for flood defences and whatnot cropped up he knew which body was responsible for which bit of spending and all the other little details that being immersed in that world means you know.

So we saw quite an interesting spectacle. I'd like to see a 'Round 2', to see if Kenyon grows into the role. I can imagine he'll get a bit more coaching after that, but at the same time you'd rather see someone find their voice naturally. It also brings to the fore some of the things that cropped up during Brexit. That contrast between articulate people with ideologies and inarticulate people with common sense.

This old observation: https://freckledmonkey.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-remain-brain-vs-leave-perceiver.html

The next dozen days of so are worth keeping an eye on for many reasons.

I'm Kyle from South Park

My recent spurt of posts have been a touch mean-spirited. Describing the "types of people," in not altogether flattering terms, that exist in the various UK political parties. I don't like being cynical and overly-critical, (though I definitely have that in my character), so I was wondering why I'm being like that at the moment.

When I thought about it I realised it was because I'm annoyed about the shenanigans!

When I think back to how I was after the last general election I was in zen mode. It wasn't the result I wanted, but I was happy to accept the result and show some good faith. "Four or five years of Labour. It's not the end of the world," I thought, "In four or five years' time we might get Reform. So let's just make the best of it."

I didn't think there would be any shenanigans, because the political class had gotten their own way. They wanted Starmer. He was their darling. In the previous years we did have shenanigans. Boris, elected with a huge mandate, ousted before he could serve his term. Then Liz Truss got a similar, but speedier removal. Of course, before that we had Theresa May and the Brexit goings-on.

Now, alas, we have another round of musical chairs. Any thought that we might go back to electing a guy, letting him govern for a full term, then appraising him after that, quickly dashed. It is annoying, and, of course, anyone with any basic degree of intelligence can see that it looks a bit dubious. Even if, like me, you're not entirely sure what's going on. People kind of know that this isn't the normal way of doing things.

So, though I don't want to be cynical, I do think I have a bit of an excuse. Although, saying that, it might now be time to dial it back down again and be a bit more forgiving.

One final observation though..

Let me make one final little observation. I can't really resist this one.

Recently I've questioned the role of Restore. The other day I saw this post on Twitter. (You can see from the little blue mark in the corner that I bookmarked it.)

Note the image. Carl is wearing a brightly-coloured, vaguely-Hawaiian style shirt. The guy in the suit has bright, clearly dyed hair. This is 'clown' apparel. Anyone who's watched the Lotus Eaters will know that Carl always wears a suit, including a tie. He understands the importance of presenting an image. Yet out with Restore he's in the leisure wear.

I should say that I'm not saying these things look bad in general. The orange shirt looks perfectly nice, and the young gentleman with the floppy hair would look the part at some avant-garde indie night. But in politics, especially on the right, this is the equivalent of wearing a bright red nose and clown shoes.

For instance, if you were up in court and your lawyer turned up wearing the shirt Carl is wearing you'd have your head in your hands.

So they're definitely not getting 17% of the vote. That's for sure.

A Window into the Mind of New Labour

I don't regret the post I made last night about the Andy Burnham logo, however, I probably was a little bit mean. After all, it's just a logo. That initial disbelief on seeing it though, lol.

Today I want to talk about something else I saw yesterday. Yesterday morning I watched the following interview, where Camilla Tominey interviews Tony Blair's former Director of Political Operations, John McTernan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa2swxfjb1w&t=1915s

It was incredible to watch, as he seems to embody to perfection the type of person that lives at the heart of New Labour. And not New Labour in the full Blairite sense, but genuine New Labour in the round - i.e. he exists on a spectrum somewhere between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He's the New Labour equivalent of white van man, which is fitting as they talked about white van man a bit in the interview.

If I was better at YouTube I'd do a reaction video, and give my responses blow by blow. As I'm not I'll just make my observations in bullet point. I do urge people to watch it though.

• Firstly, as he's from those New Labour circles you get a bit of inside baseball. He mentions that he thinks Tony Blair is backing Andy Burnham. You get the sense that he's high enough up to know this, but not quite high enough up to know he's not supposed to give the game away. Then later, when the question of Keir Starmer's life after being prime minister pops up, he says maybe he'll do a David Cameron and come back as foreign secretary. Giving another sense: that this is basically a Tony Blair reshuffle, rather than a real Labour revolution. As if the role of PM is just another cabinet position that the actual party leaders can shuffle people in and out of. (I'm being a little cynical and conspiracist again here, but it's hard not to be.)

• Getting to the debate, there was a bit about immigration. He was labelling Reform 'far right' for wanting to 'forcibly' deport 'two million people' [an addendum to this next bullet point]. CT (Camilla Tominey) was pushing back against this. He was very reluctant to concede any ground on the issue, but at the same time he didn't want to just advocate open borders. So he kind of accepted that illegal entrants into the country had to be dealt with, but in a very 'having his cake and eating it way.' CT asked, surely you have to use some force to remove people? What if they refuse to leave? He replied, well then the government can "assist" them. Which is incredibly wormy language. He just couldn't bring himself to use the word force, like it went against his sense of self in some fundamental way and his brain just wouldn't allow it. This is why the video is such an eye opener as to why these people shouldn't be running the country. They can't take responsibility. Obviously, none of us particularly like the idea of forcibly detaining another human being and removing him or her from the country, but someone has to do it at some point or you don't have a border. It's almost insane that someone in a position of power can't acknowledge this basic fact.

• [Addendum] I have to note here that the efforts to push Reform to use more extremist language on immigration, such as "Mass Deportations," has indeed damaged the party. As deporting two million people does just sound crazy to people. It was the one part of the interview where CT couldn't own the position. Again, because it sounds mad. Why put yourself in that position when you can just say, "We want immigration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, and we will completely stop the small boats, sending any illegals who arrive back." Why get into hypotheticals about people that have been here for years before you've even fixed the core problem?

• [Anyway, back to the interview.] Another telling moment came when the issue of Chinese investment into Britain came up. He was pushed to acknowledge China's human rights record, which he did. However, he did it in such a blasé, unemotional way. He basically said, "Yes, they do have a terrible human rights record, and we always raise that with them, but they also have a lot of money." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the vibe. You would admire the pragmatism, were it not for the sentences that followed. As he then said, "China has a lot of capital, but America has a lot of capital." As if, in his mind, America and China are equivalent. The fact that America is a democracy, with the rule of law and free speech, that intimately shares our values, completely absent. Just a, "Well, if it wasn't China, it'd be America investing.. what's the difference," attitude.

• There was another bit where he touted the idea of having a public-private partnership scheme that helped every white van man in the country get a new electric van. The public-private partnership thing is obviously so New Labour. The fixation on green energy a more recent, but equally clichéd theme. I'm not against electric vehicles, but the thing is with this is that it's yet another example of focusing energy and money on things that don't need doing because of ideology, and because these people like the idea of doing something that feels modern. White van men already have vans, they're called white van men because they have the vans. They're not carrying their tools on the tube because they don't have a van. At some point in the future their vans will end up on the scrap heap and they'll have to buy a new van - maybe an electric one. This isn't something we desperately need government involvement in. Of course, I'm sure it would be very nice for the private companies in these public-private partnerships if perfectly fine working vans were prematurely scrapped and some fancy new electric ones prematurely entered the market. It's harder to imagine such an unfrugal use of resources being genuinely good for the environment though.

• Finally, there was also a bit where CT suggested that the high immigration levels have put pressure on younger people when it comes to finding jobs. McTernan was asked how Labour should help these younger people. He completely avoided answering the actual question and went off on a long-winded speech that ended with him sharing an anecdote about how a doctor he knows is using AI to help take notes on consultations with patients. Saving time and making things more efficient. It was another example of not being able to focus on the real world and instead wanting to stroll off into talking points that the political class find fashionable. In the last example it was green technology. In this case AI.

I think that's it. I don't want to be too harsh. I don't think these people are evil, or have bad intentions or anything. They're just very secluded in some weird, modern ivory tower, that makes it impossible for them to get to grips with actual reality. And it's eye-opening when you see it on plain view.

They're Running Their Comms From A Microbrewery

Apparently, (and I can't stress this apparently enough), this is Andy Burnham's logo for the Makerfield by-election.

It's not often I'm genuinely shocked. "Surely this must be a joke," I thought.

I like my music, but I'm not a huge fan of Northern Soul, so it's not something I'm overly familiar with. Still, I vaguely recognised the design the minute I saw it. A quick Google search, up it popped.

So it's not even a subtle reference. It's a full on, "We're leaning into this. This is what we're going with."

(As I type I keep returning to that apparently. It's been tweeted by a Times journalist, and now Beth Rigby. So it must be the logo - unless I'm having some kind of major mental health issue at the moment and this is all some surreal fever dream. Still, it just seems too much like a joke. Like a satire that wouldn't be all that funny if it was just satire. As if a comedian did a bit where he impersonated Andy Burnham and part of the character was that he was into Northern Soul 'cos he's northern. You'd say, "That doesn't really ring true. It's a bit too literal and over the top to be genuinely funny." So if this is really real it's not just beyond satire, but beyond bad satire. It's crazy. Surely this alone rules him out of being prime minister ..and I'm not even joking here.)

The shock and amusement aside, I can't help but think how appropriate it is as a symbol though. As I can easily imagine the type of mind that thought this was a good idea, and the type of people it appeals to. It smacks of trendy (but not dangerously cool) gentrified areas that pop up where government regeneration money has been invested. And Manchester is kind of the poster child for this. Though you'll find it in most big northern towns and cities to some degree - that area of the town centre that's had a taxpayer funded face lift and building spree. (Maybe it's the same in the south too, I don't know, but it's definitely up north.) 

It's trams, micropubs, little boutique pop-up markets; intersecting with local art grants and whatnot. Those types of people. Middle class people, but middle class people that need the government. They're not working class, they're not on benefits, but their job or trendy little local pub or record shop needs some kind of government or council subsidy. Either directly, or just indirectly as they swim in that semi-socialist aquarium. They might be a teacher, or have a partner that's a teacher. They really hate Farage. Their political opinions remain largely uninfluenced by either real life or the internet. They're the audience for Have I Got News For You and Channel 4 alternative comedy shows. They're the sort of people that read reviews. They like and trust things that come through expert filters.

They're also incredibly white. The whitest people you'll ever meet. And I'm saying this as I know how much they'll hate it being pointed out. They believe in diversity, but they don't really live it. Again, this is why the Northern Soul thing is beyond satire, as it actively reaches for connotations of that. Leaning in to this notion that they like black music. When they don't. They like Elbow and the Beta Band. I'm being mean, but I'm also being accurate.

I can totally imagine someone sat in some Manchester micropub thinking this logo is clever. It even has that graphic design cleanness, unlike the grubby original. No doubt printed by the printers that do other microbrewery artwork (apparently the logo's being printed on beermats). What I couldn't at first imagine was someone higher up in the Labour Party giving it the green light. However, seeing the tone of the retweets from Beth Rigby and so forth I'm now thinking they feel it has some earthy allure.

A lot of the replies on Twitter are also pointing out how communist it looks. Which adds another element of comedy. They've somehow managed to perfectly marry the aesthetics of Northern Soul and communism in one single image. I was thinking that Burnham, with his leftist rhetoric, might win back some of the Green Party voters that Labour have lost. However, this might all be a bit too dated for the greens. They're a bit too blue haired and modern to be swayed by Northern Soul.

Anyway, it's nearly 2:00 am in the morning, so I better call it a night. I felt I had to pen my thoughts on this one instantly. Perhaps I'll regret it in the morning.

Conservatives wooed by 'hint' of ankle.

I've just got home from work. It's warm, I'm tired. Far too tired to be a fiery conspiracist. So I'm resigned once again to the fact that ..I just don't really know what's going on. Today Starmer published a response to Blair on SubStack. The title suggested confrontation: "Blair might not like my plan, but he's wrong." The first few paragraphs suggested synthesis. "Ah," I confidently thought, "..more Punch and Judy."

However, as I read on (or rather scanned on, as I half-heartedly speed-read it on the bus home), it did appear to be a defence of his term so far. Meaning, if I'm being honest, it kind of rang true. Like there was a genuine underlying division.

(Incidentally, I also saw footage of Keir Starmer taking a penalty on Twitter. He's a left footer. Bottom corner. Nicely taken.)

These are the things I saw on my bus ride home. They're not why I'm posting though. What I want to note is how people on the right, especially conservatives, are all swooning over Tony Blair again, following his mildly right-leaning essay. He only has to show a flash of ankle and they get all giddy. In fact, in the essay he hints at leaving the ECHR. He doesn't actually say it. He says that Britain needs to do whatever it takes to stop the small boats (I think, I didn't actually read it fully. It's way longer than the Starmer substack and I'm not going back to check.)

Either way, I've seen right-leaning commentators say, "He even hinted at leaving the ECHR !😍" They didn't include the exclamation mark and the heart-eyed emoji, they were my additions, but that was the vibe. Showing that he does indeed only have to show a hint of flesh to get them swooning.

It's so funny to me.

Especially when the wider context is apparent. Back in 1997, when Blair first became PM, conservatives at the time thought, "It won't be so bad, he's kind of a Tory anyway."

This was because Blair presented himself as an heir to Thatcher. Of course, that wasn't really the case, and his government turned out to be quite radical. So radical that people are now saying we have to literally reverse half the changes he made just to do something as basic as manage the border.

Yet, after all this, in the year 2026, conservatives somehow manage to find themselves thinking the exact same thing.

"He's kind of a Tory really."

It's like watching Satan give Saddam Hussein yet another chance in an episode of South Park. 

We already had a mini version of this two years ago when Starmer was elected. He was Blair's protégé, and Zero Seats "wouldn't be so bad," as at least the pragmatic (non-Corbynist) Blair regime would get the potholes fixed. This is partly why I was initially so sceptical of Starmer's substack rebuke. Starmer is Blair's creature, isn't he? He probably told him to hire Mandelson, lol.

So why are people applauding Blair for attacking a government he helped bring to power just two years ago?

(Though I must remember that we had the whole Sue Gray issue at the start of Starmer's term. Suggesting there are indeed factions within Labour.)

Whatever's going on it's quite the spectacle when taken on face value. Why are these people so dumb? They have goldfish brains.

Okay, maybe if there's some 4D chess type thing going on, I might be the dumb one. But if all these people really are just genuinely wooed this easily, heaven help us.

Again, it is funny though. Watching people that have made hours of content saying we need to upend every constitutional change that's happened since 1997 suddenly join Team Blair because they've been presented with a left/right dichotomy of Blair versus Burnham. Which, in reality, is Blair versus a Blairite. Or, at best, two very slightly different shades of New Labour red.

I Know I'm Paranoid

I'm now at the scrawling graffiti stage.

Last night we had the poll. Today it's all been about Tony Blair's intervention. Basically, he's published a report where he's said Labour need to be more based. Focus on the economy, put rejoining the EU on the backburner, ditch some of the net zero stuff. Lots of juicy red meat for people on the right. Along with some criticism of Labour's lurch towards the left.

And now the leadership hopefuls are hitting back.

Meanwhile, I'm in full conspiracist mode. My reading of all this is as follows.

• Burnham is the planned Labour saviour.
• (If something goes wrong in Makerfield, they'll have to make do with Wes Streeting.)
• Blair's intervention is basically a call for the Labour Party to pivot towards policies more appealing to the general public.
• The spat with 'the leftist hopefuls' gives them an allure of representing something new.
• However, once Burnham (or Streeting) is installed he'll adopt the Blair manifesto, and reposition towards the middle.
• By this time the rest of the party (at least the cabinet level types) will have been primed by this Blair push to know which way the wind is blowing.
• Then it's election time.

Further more.

• This puts them closer to alignment with the Tory Party repositioning on such issues.
• After the election, if it's a messy hung parliament, the possibility of Labour and Tories working together (purely in the national interest, of course) becomes an option.

This last one is very conspiracist. In fact, I call it the unthinkable. As it is unthinkable to most people. It's like Cowboys and Indians working together. They're just on different sides. That's how the movies work. Even though people now use the phrase 'uniparty,' the outward duopoly of it - the unwritten rule of the theatre - remains sacrosanct. Though I have seen the possibility mentioned a tiny, tiny bit recently.

I'm out on a limb, but I just feel the uniparty will do anything to keep Reform out.

People reading may opine, "But Reform are the Tories! Look at all the bloody Tories in there!!"

However, they're the Brexiting Tories. The faction that got pushed out with Boris. You need to ignore the label and sort the individuals by vibe. The "I agree with Nick," uniparty types don't really like the brexity types. This is not to say that some uniparty types haven't genuinely shifted opinion on some issues. It's perfectly possible that Blair himself has came around to the idea that Britain needs to get a grip on the border and start digging energy out of the ground. The pivot may not just be cynical. After all, we all swim in the same social currents. However, the fundamental differences must surely remain. It wouldn't have taken them this long to get to these positions otherwise.

Again, I'm being very suspicious in my thinking. Perhaps I'm just underestimating how messy and truly factional politics is. Maybe this current split in the Labour Party is as genuine as the split over the EU was in the Tory Party. The timing is so convenient though.

I guess only time will tell.

////

Actually, a little addendum to my earlier post about Restore looking clownish. I've seen a lot of that today as well. For instance, Steve Laws - who kind of plays the, "I'm the most openly racist person," role in UK politics - is publicly associating with Restore. Which suggests Restore do have the unelectable clown role. Though I guess you could read it in other ways. Maybe if they're just stealing votes to hurt Reform looking edgily racist is enough?

I'm returning to my uncertainty of earlier now, aren't I. Again, time will tell. We'll see what happens.

Now I'm going to watch a few episodes of The X-Files before I go to bed (fittingly). Actually, maybe just one, I've spent far too long typing this nonsense.

I Think I'm Paranoid

I'm up very early today. 7:00 am. It's one of these rare early morning posts. Let's crack on..

We had this poll about the Makerfield by-election doing the rounds on Twitter last night.

It shows Restore Britain on 17%, which just seems a bit silly. 5% would be nearer the mark, 7% at a push. But what do I know. I'm not there, and prominent media-type talking heads have been sharing this poll. So maybe it is right. Likewise, (again I only know this from Twitter), it seems Restore have a busy ground campaign in Makerfield, with lots of leafletting, door-knocking, etc.

Reform have also been openly attacking Restore, which is always a risky move, as whatever the line of attack you're still essentially using your platform to advertise a much less well known party.

On top of all this, I'm paranoid.

I'm worried this is deliberate sabotage to split the vote, to open up the red sea for Andy Burnham.

(Yet, I'm also worried my ego may be sabotaged if I get into a tizz about all this. Again, Restore seem silly. So maybe I'm being silly?)

The Clear Clownishness of Restore

The brings me to the clown-like nature of Restore. It's so bad it could be scripted. For instance, the current story is that Rupert Lowe's son has married a Libyan woman, and that halal food was an option at the wedding. Given Lowe's outward edicts against halal this is like being hit in the face with a custard pie for his supporters. Restore were supposed to be the 'Mass Deportation' whiter-than-white, hardcore alternative to Reform. Now the royal house is marrying the infidel

I'd like to watch some of the bigger accounts squirm as they justify this stuff, but sadly I can't as most of them have blocked me, lol. Seeing the little minnow accounts make excuses is pretty pitiful though. You almost feel sorry for them, assuming they're not bots.

On top of this, the female Restore candidate always has that slightly bewildered look of somehow who's been roped in to take part in something they have no interest in. I'm probably being unfair here. I haven't watched much of her. Still, it all suggests there's nothing to worry about. Restore will get less than 3% of the vote, and they'll make Reform look electable in the process.

But..

But there's that but again. Why the poll showing 17% ?

Such polls have the effect of saying, "Look, it's worth voting Restore. They're building momentum, they could actually win."

Then again, perhaps the Restore supporters are being marched up the hill just to be marched back down again? Another humiliating pie in the face.

They have Elon Musk supporting them though. Plus, they're now getting mentioned in the mainstream media.

So I'm in a bind. Not that it really matters much. It's not like I actually have any influence over what's happening. Still, I'd like to know. I can't shout at people on Twitter if I don't know who to shout at.

I really am in spectator mode. A little pleb watching on.

The New Adventures of Brexit Girl..

One of the latest semi-memeable talking points in rightwards circles is the idea that mixed race people with a white father and a black mother do better in life than those with it the other way round: a black father and a white mother. I don't know if statistics bear this out, but successful sports and music stars with the first combination are often given as an example, such as Jude Bellingham or PinkPantheress - whose father is a white, middle class statistics professor (so perhaps he should know).

Obviously, you can see why the idea has appeal with the right. Either through some genetic alchemy, or just cultural influence, the sensible white father is said to put the child on a better track. In contrast to the feckless black father, and equally feckless white mother for having children with a black man, who raise (or fail to raise) their feckless offspring. It's unsurprising we're here too. We've went from 'we don't want race-mixing' to 'what type of race-mixing do we want.' (Though, to be truthful, the genuine 'we don't want race-maxing' people were always a very tiny minority, even in online right circles. It was always edgy memes and more moderate realities underneath for the most part.) Still, the memes have moved on now to reflect a more nuanced reality. The reality that we're living in a melting pot, whether people like it or not. That it's more a question of what the melting pot looks like. It's interesting to me, as it's one of these things that's racist, but also not racist at the same time. Again, there's a nuance. Like both sides are trying to take ownership of the Yookay cultural scene, or at least the good bits of it.

"Okay, some of the music is good, actually ..but that's the white dad influence."

It's like the talking points have finally caught up to modern Britain. For a long time it felt like we had 1970s talking points (from the left and the right) pasted over a very different 21st century Britain. Now, we're finally talking about now.

Anyway, watching all this made me realise I didn't quite have it fully right with the whole Brexit Girl character. There was an element missing. So she too is mixed-race now. White dad and black mum, naturally. (Yes, I know it's a bit cringe, but it made me happy knocking up my little comic strip yesterday. So that's the main thing.)

There's a continuity error in that last panel, where the background doesn't match, but I was running out of Google Gemini and ChatGPT image credits (and patience) by that point. I actually feel it's quite accurate, if not entertaining. I don't think Andy Burnham's Catholic roots have much bearing on his pro-EU stance, but I really do see it through that lens. In my head Ursula von der Leyen might as well be in a cardinal's outfit. Though I think she'd probably wear it better.

Of course, this whole Makerfield election is quite exciting for political junkies like me. At first I was annoyed by the shenanigans, but now it's just sheer entertainment. What a country.

A Little Bit of Fiction

In more fun news I've finally finished the latest draft of BOOK II of my two book Someone Else's Kingdom fantasy series.

At some point I may do a final edit and publish these books properly. For now they're available for free in PDF form.

BOOK I can be downloaded here: https://drive.google.com

BOOK II here: https://drive.google.com

I'm now just doing artwork for the book (with a lot of help from AI). If I can get the aesthetic for the characters and the scenes down in image form (and AI really does come along over the next few years) I hope to do an anime TV series. That might be a bit beyond me though 😄, so that really is just a hope. Either way, whatever artwork I end up with could help with covers if the books do appear on Amazon.

A Spectator Watching The Starmer Drama

I'm in spectator mode. Watching as I would watch a good TV show, where I'm not sure where the plot is going.

Normally I'm not too bad at reading the tea leaves, but at the moment I just don't have a clue what's going on. Consequently, I'm not sure what I want either. Will Starmer go? Will he stay? Will we be better off for him going? Will we get something worse? Will that something worse get us to a general election quicker, and therefore somewhere better in the long run?

I don't know.

I also struggle with the methods. I'm just not cut out for the whole sneaky politics thing. So, as much as I dislike the things Starmer stands for, I don't like the idea of ousting him. It doesn't sit well with me. I don't like the shenanigans. It's not cricket. We saw all this with Boris and Truss getting ousted. It was obvious the people doing the ousting there did it because they had a different political worldview and wanted their guy in. Instead of saying that and appealing to the public though we had, "..but Boris ate cake!" or, "The bond markets!!!" etc, etc.. 

In a word lies. Or rather false dealings. Maybe Boris did have some cake, but that's not why you want him gone. That's just a convenient wedge you can feign some outrage over.

I'm one of these people that believes, perhaps incredibly naively, that honesty is the best policy; and that, in the long run, it's for the better.

There are arguments in my favour too. After all, the very clever and cunning people were telling us just two years ago that Starmer would bring stability. That the 'zero seats' strategy would be fine and dandy as Starmer would fix the potholes, bring down immigration and do the sensible things that needed doing. Things the Tories couldn't do, as they didn't have the civil service onside. Now, as we sit here, that hasn't quite worked out. We have drama on a par with the Tory drama.

So I guess my instincts are to just let Starmer get on with it. Suffer the next few years. Keep fighting the good fight, and hope for a Reform government after the next general election.

However, once again, maybe I'm just naive. Maybe if you just sat back and let him govern we'd be far worse off. Plus, perhaps there are darker things on the horizon. The other story competing for space at the moment is hantavirus. (!!!) Whatever's going on with that, it's hard to imagine a response anywhere near the covid response. People are now immune to virus fear mongering, if you pardon the pun. Still, who knows what's going on?

Returning to reading the tea leaves, I should note that I've been wrong on this Keir Starmer issue. For a while now I've been saying (on Twitter) that Starmer won't go. That the method that removed Boris won't work with Labour. As things stand today that's looking quite incorrect. So I'm not someone who can bring any enlightenment. I am indeed a spectator.

Finally, I should note that the person I fear should Starmer go is Andy Burnham. He's one of those people that women and pensioners like. He comes across as sincere. By politician standards he's fairly good-looking. Of course, it'd be like putting Gary Neville in charge of the country (and not just because of the accent), but that's by the by really. The point is he could potentially win a greater vote share. Making it harder for Reform. He's also just as pro-EU as Starmer and would probably be a better salesman for it.

Iran: Talking About The Talking Heads

I've spent the morning getting blocked on Twitter. I've now managed to get blocked by an entire subsection of the British online right:

Academic Agent

Millennial Woes

Morgoth's Review

Scrump and Evelyn

The whole set. It's funny as I literally said barely a week ago that I need to start being a bit less antagonistic on Twitter (I know, I always say this). It's just so triggering though. I read the tweets and it's painful.

What's got me this time is the Iran issue again. As I said in my last post, I fully respect people that are against the war because of the human tragedy. However, these people, they're not just against the war, they're basically on Iran's side. So we see this constant refrain of, "Trump's Crazy!", "He's an idiot!", and by extension, "MAGA (i.e. regular Americans) are stupid dupes, being fooled by the Orange Man."

It's doubly triggering as it's the British talking heads. The intellectual smartarses, who think they're so much more worldly and educated than the "MAGA-tards" with their silly red hats and American flags. Even though these MAGA-tards were often awake to the problems facing America and the Free West long before any of these talking heads were. (The pandemic alone proved how late to the party these people were. We may remember the online right pouring over graphs and begging for the borders to be closed in the opening months.)

(A similar example is Aaron Bastani, who moved a little to the right as woke was "put away" (admittedly quicker and more astutely than most on the left), but who instead of acknowledging his shift just acts like he's always been right about everything. There's never any acknowledgement that, "Yes, these working class chavs and rednecks might actually have been right about a few things when I was wrong. So perhaps I may be wrong again.")

Returning To Iran

I'm being a little personal here, but I think it's justified as the commentary coming from these ivory towers has been so unbelievably low grade. There's zero acknowledgement that Iran poses any threat whatsoever. As if the Iranian regime is wholly innocent. So it really is just an endless cacophony of, "Trump Is Crazy!"

It's a bit like if someone is constantly flicking your ear or prodding you. You ask them to stop. They say, "Sure, I'll stop." Then they start flicking your ear again. Eventually after a while you lose your temper and punch the person in the face. Of course, the wider audience only sees the punch. "That Crazy Guy Just Punched Someone For No Reason!" They don't have any awareness of the constant prodding and poking and dishonesty that preceded it.

The terrorist attacks, the repressions, the false dealings, the acts of economic warfare, etc.

Again, I'm not sure if the escalation of the war by the US and Israel is justified morally. Who am I to weigh these lives? Is such bloodshed ever justified?

I can acknowledge the growing threat though. It's not hard to imagine where Iran would be in five, ten or fifteen years given the current trajectory. With the drones and missiles, and more importantly the surveillance infrastructure, the eye in the sky, to direct and detect such things.

I hate to make the comparison, but it's like World War II. Was fighting that war worth the sheer amount of bloodshed? Some people might argue that it wasn't. That we should've simply accepted Nazi Germany as a world power. Accepted their coming dominance of the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean. And then just hoped they would be somewhat benevolent towards us in their use of it once we'd been eclipsed.

Again, I don't really know what the answer is. I do know that I'm grateful not to be living in that potential world though.

I think a lot of the talking heads, who daily indulge their freedom to talk, take it for granted though.

Iran Contortions

This Iran war has caused me contortions. On the one hand, from a geopolitical point of view, I'm strongly one-sided (very much on Trump's side). However, on the moral side, I'm not so sure.

I'd liken it to dealing with a burglar.

If a burglar breaks into your home they're clearly a threat to you. If not a direct threat to you as a person, then certainly to your wealth and wider well-being. Likewise, it would be in your interest to hit the burglar over the head with a metal bar. These facts are all clear.

What's not so clear is the deeper morality. Is it right to physically harm someone if they're not necessarily going to physically harm you? Is it right to potentially take another person's life? Would you want to live with that on your conscience?

With war it's far worse, as it's not just criminals that die, innocent people get caught in the crossfire too. Though, in counterweight, innocent people could also face harm in your own country if you don't take action. So it's not easy in reality to know what's truly right.

These are bloody and horrific questions.

Returning to the geopolitics (and ignoring the morals and dead bodies) things are much more clear to me though. It's obvious (at least to me - I could be wrong) that Iran, China and parts of the western elite are all in bed together. They'd like to undermine/side-line/subsume the US, and they'd like to push the US out of the Middle Eastern waters long term (using Iran-backed terrorism). These people are effectively what we call "globalists" in common parlance. They're the people that want a one world government, ran along UN lines. A top down, bureaucratic affair.

Whereas Trump represents a more classically Anglo-American worldview. Sure, it's essentially another form of world hegemony and top-down power, but it's much more democratic and individual liberty orientated. More Common Law as opposed to Napoleonic Law. Though, as I noted in my last post, people on the other side tend to perceive this "freedom" as more akin to anarchy. Like a parent that feels discomfort when they let their unruly child out of their sight.

In fact, when the globalism-aligned Keir Starmer came to power in Britain the media line was, "The Grown-Ups Are Back In Charge." Very telling of how they view the world. Whereas someone like myself would tend to respond, "Hang on a minute, I thought we were all grown-ups here? Isn't this a democracy where everyone is equal?"

So I know what I am and I know what side I'm on in all this, and I don't like the idea of living under a totalitarian, soviet-style world order. Whether bombing is the answer, that's a harder question.

(Image courtesy of Google Gemini.

The prompt a few paragraphs of text from this post.

- Style: Alphonse Mucha. I'm impressed!)

The Alt-Wrong

One thing that's been disappointing, but altogether predictable, is how many on the "right" have just openly sided with Iran. I can respect people being anti-war, I'm half-there myself. Again, it's such an awful and barbarous thing. However, they're not just anti-war, they actually want Trump to lose and be humiliated. They likewise seem filled with glee when missiles hit Israel or other American allies in the region. (Yes, some of the glee on the American/Israel side is also sickening, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be a morally superior pacifist and then smile when bombs hit civilians.)

I think there are three main reason why so many have sided with Iran. One possibility is that these people are just more Eurasian in their outlook than I am. That is, they're more socialist and less individualist - so feel less threatened by stable, but monolithic states like China. (The online right do tend to have a bit of a communitarian vibe in general.)

The second is partly the media. We've lived in a landscape where the media have been telling us how great China is for the last twenty years or so. We saw the high point of this at the outset of Covid, when the media begged us to "copy China." So people have been conditioned to see China as benevolent and to view the lack of democracy there as nothing to worry about. Consequently, I come across people online who scream that Trump is a "dictator," yet at the same time praise "President for Life" Xi. These people have been primed for a world where China is the number one power and primed not to fear it.

The third reason is that people in the west see the lies on the western side more so. The lies at home are less distant than the lies that are far away. So they feel more outraged and angry that their own governments are lying to them than they feel threatened by distant dictatorships.

All governments lie and fake and contort. Morally it's wrong. I certainly find it very hard to stomach. Yet at the same time it's almost hoping for the impossible in expecting them not to do it. Lying is such an effective strategy. It's hardwired into nature. There's a reason the chameleon changes its colour.

So there's a real art to getting past the lies and viewing the picture beneath. In a way that isn't just focused on your own lying politicians.

Still, when you realise or suspect your own government or media is misleading you, it's going to cause conflict. It's like a relationship where one person isn't being honest. It becomes difficult to understand the other person. Who they really are. What they really want. Deep down they might have good intentions, but at some point you just decide you want nothing to do with them.

So now Trump is just a liar, and they want nothing to do with him. The idea that he might be lying for them, as part of a conflict against another bunch of liars, is lost in the confusion and emotion. If he's lying for anyone he's lying for Israel (or in other versions Putin). Whereas the lies from Iran are far away and unseen. If they say they're not building nuclear weapons, then that must be the truth. They're given a benefit of trust that western politicians aren't.

(It reminds me of the Hitler line that he liked Britain and the British Empire and didn't want to undermine or go to war with it. That's great if you just take Hitler's word for it, but it's not so great if you think Hitler is a lying dictator, who, in actuality, has other plans.)

Lastly (and briefly)

Another disappointment for me is how so many people have just viewed this as another Iraq. I've already typed quite enough, so I won't elaborate too much. I dislike the thinking by rote though. There are obvious similarities: it's an American war; it's in the Middle East. But there are also huge differences. Iraq was a rogue, but stable state. It wasn't an existential threat to US hegemony. Back then there was a naive confidence that it was "the end of history," and that America, as the remaining world power, could just walk in and erect a liberal democracy. Here Iran is part of a growing, competing bloc. That naive confidence is gone. Trump just wants Iran defanged. The prospect of regime change is a wanted, but unlikely possibility. Boots on the ground won't be used to attempt it. (I don't think.)

Nevertheless, as I've said, and it's always worth reminding myself, I don't really know for sure. This is just my reading of the situation. I do know though that when I hear people say, "This is another Iraq," nothing much insightful will come from them.

Death By A Thousand Chitchat

A week or so ago I saw this tweet:

Yes, former Conservative Party leader William Hague stating, "Social media is becoming incompatible with a healthy democratic system."

Then, this morning, I caught the following Sargon video, where Carl runs through the latest goings-on in Germany (spoiler: they're being German).

To be fair, I haven't read the linked-to Times article that William Hague was promoting - it's behind a paywall, and I still haven't forgiven the Times for Rishi Sunak. So maybe I'm being unfair. However, the tone of the tweet just suggests a man overwhelmed by the modern world.

To be fair again, it's understandable. There's so much content and opinion online. It's like a constantly churning ocean, and it can be overwhelming. Still, it reminds me of the pope that had all the birds in his garden shot because he was annoyed by their birdsong - whichever pope that was.

(I've just looked it up, it was Pope Urban VIII, apparently. I'm never sure if these little stories are true or not - it could just be an urban myth, *cough* - but my Protestant prejudice wants it to be true, so we'll go with it.)

Given the way current elites are reacting to all the human chitchat, as per Sargon's video about the German crackdowns, it's believable. It shouldn't be lost on people that these things happen on Twitter too. So the Holy Roman Empire has form when it comes to noisy little birds. Let's not remind ourselves what happened when the little birds wanted to read the bible in their own cheeps.

Though, to be fair for yet a third time, the Protestants killed a lot of people too. (I've been reading about Reformation-era Britain recently, and wow, a lot of people lost their heads, on both sides of the divide. It puts my modern day complaints about online censorship into perspective.)

Back to William Hague though. Again, it's hard not to have at least some sympathy. Once was a time when he voiced his opinion and the backlash came from a few newspaper articles. Written by journalists from a similar social sphere to himself. He'd maybe then get some further backlash when canvassing near election time. Now there are hundreds, if not thousands of people voicing their criticisms all day, every day. With added dislocation coming from the fact that public fashion now shifts so quickly as a consequence.

The Internet vs The Continent

I think this feeling is even more pronounced on the continent. We've noted before how the Eurasian landmass countries tend to be a bit more top down and collectivist by nature. We, the Anglo-Viking types, tend to view individual freedom as good. They often view it more akin to piracy.

There isn't fundamentally a right or wrong. After all, there's a fine line between pirate and privateer. Plus, even the wholly well-intentioned use of freedom can come with dangers. If you let your child walk home from school alone there's the danger something bad could happen. So it's natural those at the top of society - that view themselves as the social parent - will lean towards order and restriction.

"Right, the teacher is speaking now, everyone needs to be quiet! No more chitchat."

It's also worth noting how much the advent of the internet has benefitted the privateer. The internet has massively increased Britain's soft power - and when I say Britain I don't mean the British state. I mean us, the mouthy British population. We're a highly verbal culture. We're the chit-chatters par excellence. A lot of the social trends start here (or in the US, our even louder daughter). We also have the huge advantage that English is the world language. So it all happens in our natural tongue. Whereas there's a layer of translation for everybody else.

It's no wonder that other countries, who prefer to sip their coffee at a slower pace, feel bombarded by our constant memes and opinions. It probably is overwhelming for them psychologically. Especially when they're used to a different way of doing politics.

Elon Musk is a champion of free speech over here, but he's a pirate/privateer over there. Where the eyes discern little difference between the one p-word and the other.

What's normal for us maybe isn't so normal for a country like China - that has always been bureaucratic and top-down, throughout its history.

I don't really know what the answer is. I just know what I am. I'm English, and I don't really like being told what I can and can't say or read. Maybe I should be mindful that the rest of the world doesn't always feel this way though.

Restoring me, to my rightful place

In my last post on here I was criticising Reform. Constructive criticism - hopefully - but criticism nonetheless. Now, all of a sudden, I'm back defending them. Herded by circumstance back into the fold. The reason: we have a new party in town. The long-awaited Rupert Lowe party. Its name, Restore Britain.

Naturally; instinctively; impulsively; true-to-form; I've fired off a few tweets at people.

Yet then comes the inevitable realisation:

"I'm once again getting my knickers in a twist, aren't I?"

Is this the very purpose of Restore Britain? Is it literally there to corral all the racists and oddballs into one playpen. In turn herding more moderate people like myself into the loving embrace of the real darlings.

Contrariwise, however, there's always the darker fear that Restore are there to undercut, supplant, sabotage Reform. In which case my tweets are a needed insurance.

Then, likewise, there's the more straightforward, though somewhat less plausible possibility, that all these people are just entirely sincere in their views and want an alternative political vehicle. Maybe they're all just racists and oddballs, all the way to the top? Hmm..

Either way, the key takeaway, though I've said this before, is that I need to be a bit nicer to people on Twitter. If it's all fun and games I need to play with a nod and a wink. Not with Cromwellian fury.

A Holiday For The Unemployed

Reform have a gone a bit Thatcherite. Well, they were always a bit Thatcherite, so I guess too Thatcherite would be more apt. When Robert Jenrick joined a few weeks back he was speaking about "scroungers" on benefits in his defection speech. It's not exactly loving language, is it. Now Farage is in similar mode. Though naturally his words come with an advertisement jingle charm. His latest line being that people are, "on the sick for mild anxiety." The word mild offering a nuance that Jenrick's cruder speech can't match.

I think this direction of travel is bad electorally, but more importantly, it's unfair on our population. We want a party (hopefully a government) that "looks after our people." We want a bit of care and attention. The pejorative language suggests otherwise.

It's understandable. Few, if any of these Reform politicians and ex-Tories have direct experience of being unemployed or of being on sickness benefit. They come from a different world. In short, they're not working class - and naturally it's hard to have a nuanced understanding of something without direct experience of it.

This brings us back to the mild in that 'mild anxiety' line. Someone off work for anxiety might garner some understanding and sympathy. The prefix mild renders any such sympathy unwarranted. There's nothing wrong with this person. They need to pull up their bootstraps. No sympathy required.

But this is the thing..

This is partly why the economy is so skewed in the first place. Over the last twenty-five years 'fit and healthy' unemployed people have been demonised and hounded. The endless hoop-jumping and cross-examinations. It's like army boot camp. Sure, some people survive the process, get motivated and get into work, but others end up a nervous wreck. Their sense of agency and self-value dwindling by the day or week.

Try to imagine being a long term unemployed person. When you apply for a job you're putting yourself out there to be judged. It's a lot like asking a girl out. It's easy said, but harder done. The potential rejection, embarrassment, sense of humiliation. Imagine you're applying for jobs every week and getting knocked back. At some point you're going to think, "I'm not good enough, no one needs me ..I'm never gonna get a girlfriend."

"What's the point in putting myself through this endless humiliation?"

That feeling of, "I can't face this."

Now yes, I know what you're thinking if you're reading this and you're in work, or you're one of those hyper confident go-getter type people:

"That's no excuse," you'll think, "They need to keep trying; they need to keep knocking on the door and applying for jobs ..I get out of bed every day."

However, we're human beings, we're flesh and blood, and the long term unemployed are in a weird purgatory. Endless applying for jobs and trips to the jobcentre, mixed with an endless apprehension about what the next job application will bring. An interview, be it online or in person is stressful. If you do get a job it's a complete step into the unknown, and you naturally worry about how you'll fit in or be able to cope. Along with more practical concerns, such as how you'll get there/is there public transport. Even as you're filling in the application form you'll have these concerns.

So again, imagine the unemployed person. They have a bit of anxiety or depression, or they're just going through a few bad weeks. But, as they're 'fit and healthy' it's deemed that they 'should be looking for work with go-getting vigour.' So they're given zero leeway. They have to apply for more jobs this week, and if they don't then their benefits may get sanctioned.

Obviously it's going to be very tempting for this person to go on the sick with that anxiety or depression. Or whatever other ailment it is. That way they'll get some space and some sympathy. That way their benefits won't get stopped.

So, in effect, we're pushing unemployed people onto the sick.

It's such a dumb thing to do as well, as sick people are so much more expensive to the state than your standard unemployed. The healthcare, the medications - that they have to take, as it justifies the sick status. (Again, if you have anxiety and you're on the sick you can't exactly turn down the tablets, as that's like admitting you're not sick enough to be on the sick. It's a vicious cycle: medication dependencies develop, when a bit of time off and space to breathe would've ameliorated the problem.)

Then once people go on the sick it becomes a lifestyle. It becomes habit. So it becomes even less likely the person will enter employment, as now they have two hurdles to jump. They first need to make the leap from being "On The Sick" to being "Unemployed," something that will naturally come with anxieties and apprehensions.

These problems could be avoided by simply giving regular unemployed people a bit more leeway.

Holiday Entitlement For Unemployed People

One of my ideas is to give holiday entitlement to unemployed people. Just as workers get approximately five weeks a year, so too should the unemployed.

I know, anyone one millimetre to the right of Jeremy Corbyn will be screaming right now.

"WHAT !! 😡 ..holidays for people who don't even work !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

I'm not here to appease an audience though, I'm here to solve problems. If someone spends three or four months solidly putting themselves out there and looking for work then a break at some point will be great for their headspace. Once more, it's the endless sense of purgatory that makes unemployed people seek refuge in sickness benefits. If you can avoid that by giving them a break and a sense that they can switch off at some point, why not do that?

UBI is a whole year of that, and that's in the political dialogue, so why can't my more practical option be considered?

[And no, before you ask, I'm not unemployed myself 😅 I'm not arguing for my own freebies ..though I have been unemployed in the past. In fact, I've been in my current normie job for about five years now, which is my all time record. So I'm worried by writing about it I'll jinx things. Hopefully I won't wilt like a delicate flower again and end up back in purgatory. I am writing from experience.]

Conclusion

I've went on a bit long now. [You can throw the label "scrounger" around all you like, but somehow I've ended up correcting Reform's homework, on my day off work, for free. Perhaps some of these politicians need to work a bit harder ;) ]

Anyway, the conclusion is: politicians need to stop seeing unemployment as a cancer that requires zero tolerance, and instead need to start seeing it as a natural part of the economic bodily system. Yes, ideally there'd be less of it, but life is messy. Modern economies are very complex and messy. So fitting every human into the perfect slot, for every single day of their lives isn't going to happen.

The incentives need to be right. People need to be financially better off in work. Likewise, we need to stop pushing the unemployed towards sickness benefits. I compared being unemployed to being in boot camp earlier. A healthier comparison would be army reservists. Politicians would fare better if they viewed unemployed people as a reservoir of potential workers that can be used when needed - that need looking after - rather than viewing them as a group of people to be despised and hated.

They need to stop trying to purge unemployment with fire; they need to start manging it with intelligence.

"I am ..these words"

Why There Are No New Music Subcultures in the 21st Century

In the 20th century there were countless well defined and easily recognisable subcultures:

Goth; Punk; Soul; Hip-Hop; Dance; Indie; Britpop; Emo; Grunge; Heavy Metal; Hippies; Jazz; Funk; Blues ..the list goes on.

In the 21st century, not so much. In fact, so far it seems people are happy to just rehash and pick 'n' mix the fashions of the 20th century.

Why is this? Why has the originality died?

I think the reason is the Internet.

Before the Internet people lived and met and signalled their "coolness" in public (sorry, a very 20th century word there - insert whatever the modern equivalent is young reader). Music was played "in the room" - in clubs and pubs, at parties and festivals. So fashion, appearance - how you looked - was important. You went to physical places where music was played, and appearance was the primary way in which you communicated your coolness, credibility, desirability. It was your billboard of communication.

However, after the advent of the Internet, people met more online - so the online billboard became much more important. Avatars, memes, selfies, values (i.e. politics, views, likes/dislikes). Of course, selfies somewhat blend the physical appearance with the online appearance. With filters and artistry being used to enhance the ever-more-important need for online appeal. The fact that reality often doesn't match the image almost fails to matter.

So subcultures have moved away from real world physical appearance and much more towards online imagery and ideas. Subcultures aren't "in the room" anymore. They're somewhat more aethereal. Things conveyed in the abstract, in online spaces. So Goth and Punk have been replaced by Gamer, Incel, Woke, Tradwife, Alt-Right, Truther, and so forth. All these online labels and scenes. Often centred not around fashion and music, but around political values, online aesthetics and lifestyle (albeit presented-lifestyle perhaps more so than actual lifestyle).

Conversely, music has became more private. With people listening through AirPods and headphones. In their own little world as they sit on the bus. No longer in the room, but in the private space. On top of this, as views/politics (your bio) has became more important, music has been forced to take second place, as the person who shares your political identity might not necessarily like the same music you like.

So we don't group around music as much. Meaning music and physical fashion simply aren't as central to social life as they were in the 20th century. It's not that the originality has died. It's just that it's moved into a different medium.

[Art expresses itself in the technology of the era. Just as portrait painting (the original selfies) and sculpture were once the epitome of high art, only to later take a backseat as photography, radio and movies came to the fore.

A person living in the 20th century might well have asked:

Where are all the Raphaels and Michelangelos?

But it wasn't that art and creativity had died, it was just that the modern Michelangelos were making Rock 'n' Roll records and Star Wars movies by that point.]

Online Music Scenes

People may argue that there have indeed been new music subcultures in the 21st century. Things like Vaporwave and Sea-Punk spring to mind. (No doubt more clued-up people will be able to name other genres.) I'm sure this is somewhat true. There's never a hard line in the sand where one era ends completely. However, these exceptions tend to prove the rule, as:

a) they're very online

..and b) they're very derivative of 20th century fashions

Sea-Punk obviously taking some of its elements from Punk, and Vaporwave harking back to 80s and 90s aesthetics.

In fact, it reminds me of something my friend told me that always makes me laugh. He was on a course and there was a young girl in her early 20s with dyed green hair. He asked her if she had green hair because she was into Sea-Punk 😅. Of course, the girl had no idea what he was talking about and just thought he was a weirdo.

(I doubt the girl on the course

looked quite like this)

It's so funny to me that he would even ask that. The online world and the real world are not the same place.

An even better example of a modern music genre could be Bardcore - where popular songs are remade in a medieval or renaissance style. Naturally it comes with medieval visual aesthetics and avatars. However, the people listening to and making this music aren't going out and dressing in medieval garb when they get on the bus (though it might be privately playing in their headphones). So, again, it's largely tailored for an online world.

It'll be interesting to see how things go as we move further into the digital world. A world where people often see your "bio" before they ever see you in person.