Another building lost in Sheffield.

I went to Liverpool yesterday, and it's great to see a city taking advantage of the buildings it has. The urban fabric is so dense and well-used in the city center it makes Sheffield look like a warzone with so many demolished buildings and so much underused land. Liverpool still has the threat of demolitions under the Pathfinder scheme hanging over some areas, but other parts of the same scheme aim to rebuild and restore the existing urban makeup. Sheffield seems content to lose buildings one by one, slowly letting the fabric of the city disintegrate, with no good plan for knitting it back together. The main roads into and around the center speed up this process, cutting the city into smaller chunks that no longer fit with one another in a meaningful way.

The lastest casualty of these process is the large white art deco building on Penistone Road, on the site of the old Philadelphia Works. Previously an industrial workshop, it has become run down and mostly abandoned. Plans to demolish the building and 'redevelop' will be decided on Tuesday. The proposed replacement is four throwaway buildings, built in cheap industrial estate style that will bring little activity into the area. This isn't redevelop at all, as the buildings will be used up in 25 years' time, and we'll be back to where we are now having missed the chance the first time round.

This site deserves more. It's a riverside plot, near to the Kelham Island developments, and only a couple of hundred meters from the tram. It should be easy to find a new use for the main building, and there is enough space for a new build also. So why is it to be demolished, with a less intensive replacement in its place? Well, three reasons will probably suffice.

The first is that the area is cut off from the rest of the city, bounded one two sides by busy roads. It doesn't connect with either Kelham Island or even theother side of Penistone Road. It been isolated by poor traffic planning which values cars above people and the city.

The second is that there's no overall plan for this area, and so when one plot like this becomes available, it's simply recycled into industrial use. A wider vision for this part of the riverside and the lower end of Penistone Road would put it into a context where its value was easier to see.

The third, and probably the worst, is that the city council has allowed residential and office property to become overbuilt. Rather than restrict developments in size so that the market would keep pushing for new sites to be developed, both are quite saturated, and even the new schemes in the city center won't immediately find tenants.

I know it's only one building, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem in Sheffield, and we'll keep seeing buildings lost until it's put right. The city needs a better vision for its future, and not just a patchwork of development that fails to deal with the current fragmentation.

Former Sheffield Tramway on Google Maps

A Google map I've created shows the routes of the former Sheffield trams about mid-1900s, a decade or so before the system was closed.

View Former Sheffield Tramways in a larger map

The map is based on one found on Wikipedia, plus some old street maps. The main routes should be mostly accurate, though the terminus of each line may be a little out. I didn't have enough information to put depots and stops on the map. If I had that information, along with the actual routes served, then a neat system map would be doable.

Another UAF rally, but where next?

Well, Saturday saw the latest anti-BNP rally by the UAF, and it was much better in some ways, but much worse in others.

First the positives, of which there were quite a few. The range and diversity of speakers was far greater this time, with all the main parties in Sheffield represented, as well as several minority ethnic groups, LGBT, students, and with unions being no longer dominant but a welcome part of the mix. The stalls and handouts were still mostly socialist kinds of material, but I gather the organizers have little control over which groups turn up to flyer an event. The crowd also seemed much more diverse, and I think at times I was surrounded by people who probably don't go to that many protests.

Some of the speakers were excellent, and some even managed to avoid over the top description and hatred against the BNP, concentrating instead on the people who voted for them and the need to reconnect with these people. One speaker in particular stressed that the situation of some people in the Sheffield area meant the BNP had fertile ground for their views, and had more attention been paid to these people's needs in the past the BNP would not had gained so many votes as they did.

However, there were several negatives, and one glaring fuck-up in the form of an illiberal and very misguided speaker. The first problem was frankly the turnout: the official organizers said only 150 people came to the rally, which is potentially less than the previous two. I would be more though and say the crowds were roughly equal, but when this was organized well in advance and was supposed to be something larger, it's very disappointing. Perhaps part of the blame can be laid with the location, having been shifted from Barker's Pool to the Town Hall at a late date, and then further onto Fargate without any prior notice. Maybe one or two people got lost and could find it, which is unlikely, but I'm being generous here as I won't be so in a second.

The reason why not to be generous is well, to be honest, having been to all three rallies/protests since the elections, I don't think they have much of an answer to the BNP problem. There are only so many times you can say, 'Down with the BNP!' and 'We need to work together!' before you wonder what the next step is. I'm happy to come out and protest against the BNP, and maybe that will be really useful in the run up to the next general election, but what else? I hope that over the summer they'll formalize and organize a more solid campaign to deal with why people have voted BNP and to persuade them not to in the future. I would like to be part of that, as I really would like to do something, because otherwise attending UAF rallies just feels like a sticker for being a good person. That's nice, but ultimately gets us nowhere.

Okay, I'm far too harsh on the UAF. I'm sure they're good people and try hard, I would just like to see so much more as the BNP are increasingly coming to define the political debate for some parts of the population, and that's where the real fuckup from this rally comes into play. There was a speaker (I won't name him, sadly) who decided that the best way to deal with the BNP was to withdraw their political rights, specifically the right to free speech. Yup, he thinks that a political party which already leans hard on its 'outsider' status should be handed the biggest free gift ever. Not only will it cement its place as an anti-politics party, but it will make their supporters so much harder to reach. Such a move will signal to their supporters, the people whom we most need to reach out to, that they're completely denied access to the normal political processes. Damn right we need to avoid debate with the BNP on their, and we need to oppose their hate, but in order to challenge their analyses of problems you don't engage with their supporters by first labelling them unconscionable. I want to see current BNP supporters another way of understanding why they are having problems with housing an employment, but you have to be willing to speak to them, and to let them speak to you. The speaker was heckled, and I wish I had heckled him too. I refused to clap his suggestion and consider him just as dangerous as the BNP. There, I said it.

Sheffield Pride 2009

Sheffield Pride was held in Endcliffe Park this Saturday. It's the first Pride event I've been to this year (I'm also going to Doncaster's to protest the new mayor), and the first time I've been the to one in Sheffield. My previous experience of Pride has been in Manchester, where the approach to the festival is strikingly different.

The Pride this year was still fairly small, as it is only its second year. Organizers say nearly 6000 attended throughout the day, compared with about 4,000 last year. This relatively small number of people in a fairly large park gave it an open and spread out feel. Even close to the main stage there was nothing really approaching a crowd, just a jumble of people sat in small groups on blankets or chairs. Everybody had their own bit of space, and could lie down or move about without being in anybody's way. The edge of the park was lined with stalls, mostly public sector organizations doing their community engagement bit, though there was also a few people selling the odd thing. There was also a bber tent towards the back of the area, and seemed to get good trade, though many people brought their own drinks with them. I didn't see any drunkenness at all, unless some people's attempts at dancing count...

The most important aspect of the event was the diversity of people there. I know it's Pride and there's supposed to be "diversity" just from the LGBT people alone. But there was more than just a diversity of sexuality and gender, there was a real mix of different people. A large minority of the crowd were (probably) non-LGBT, and whether they came out for the music and sunshine or because they support the community doesn't matter. Because it was free and held in the local park, it was open and accessible to them, and they were welcome. Likewise, many people brought their children, and some even brought their parents. The youngest person I saw was just a few months old, and the oldest easily over 80. You didn't have to be "into" the LGBT scene to want to be there, it was just a nice day out.

Manchester Pride is so very different though. Thousands of people are cooped up in just a couple of streets around Canal Street, with Sackville Park a tiny in comparison the Encliffe Park, and the main stage held on waste ground. Entry into the Pride area is by ticket only, costing about £15 (cheaper early, dearer late). Entry into various bars and clubs can sometimes be charged on top of that, and bringing your own alcohol in is not allowed, but must be pruchased on site. The total cost of going to Pride in Manchester is high, and probably only makes sense for those who are committed to going out that whole time. This makes the attendence less diverse, with fewer young, old, poor, or simply non-LGBT people.

The organizers of Manchester Pride claim that the money they collect for tickets is given to charity, and so even if the cost is high, it is at least for a worthy cause. But charities and groups have also been squeezed in the past, having to pay to have a stall on site, or to take part in the parade. More room is given to stalls selling good who can afford the charges, thus removing the community and replacing it with commerce. There were protests last year about the commercialization and direction of Pride, and some have also held their own alternative Prides (such as Twee Pride) in previous years.

If an event held to celebrate a particular group is not only being protested but even boycotted by members of that group, then something has gone wrong. I don't want to analyze every part of Manchester Pride's problems, just to show that their way is not the answer. Sheffield should be glad to have something different for its Pride, and should build on that as it continues to grow. It needs to keep Pride free and open, so that all LGBT people, and all non-LGBT people too, are welcome.

The EU as North America GDP map.

This is my reponse to this map showing US states as countries with similar GDPs. I felt the map was a little, um, wrong. It clearly attempts to show just how large the US economy is, but misses out several economies such as Italy, United Kingdom, and Germany, simply because they're too large for any one state. In order to correct this, and to prove that the EU economy is by far larger than that of the US, this maps shows all the states of the EU mapped onto comparably sized states in North America by GDP.

The first thing to note is that it takes the whole of North America to map the EU's GDP, and not just the US. Moreover, the EU is already slightly larger by GDP, and becuase the states don't map perfectly, there is about half a trillion US dollars missing between the cracks. In a few years' time this map won't be possible unless the Carribean states and Latin America is included, as both the EU and its economy continues to grow.

A few more things to note: the figures used are nominal GDP because subnational PPP GDP is impossible to find; some smoothing of the coastlines and removal of lakes has taken place to make it more visually appealing; and Hawaii has been shoved much much closer to California, though that should be obvious. It wasn't any easy map to work out, especially as I chose to respect the national borders, and sometimes (such as Greece spanning Tennessee and Mississippi) the results are not so great. Lastly, the map needs a coloured background to maintain the borders which are white in many areas, especially in the far north.

(Oh, and yes, I deliberately put the French flag over Texas. I know they'll appreciate that.)

Sevenstone slowly slipping away.

I'm only too happy to hear bad news about the Sevenstone development. Of all the 'Magnificant Seven' projects in Sheffield, this is the only one that will do more harm than good (I'll explain why another time). When the "New Retail Quarter" was put on hold due to the economic problems we've been having lately, that made the idea of its eventual death a possibility, even if not very likely. But a council meeting in May addressed the issue of the empty retail units, and decided to fund the refurbishment and temporary reletting of some of the units, bringing Sevenstone's demise a little bit closer.

Why? Well, it means that it's really not going to happen any time soon. The council will spend about £5,000 to £10,000 on some of the units which currently have green hoardings to bring them back into a usable state. The first units will likely be relet by the beginning of July, intially about eight in the Grosvenor block, with more coming back over the next few months, including the Pepperpot. The council seems wary of letting to businesses though, preferring charities and community groups. Financially it would be more sound to let to businesses because of the rates they pay, but I think the fear is that they'll prove too successful. If a good number of units have thriving businesses in them by the time building recommences, it'll provide another argument against Sevenstone going ahead.

The length of time these lettings are expected to run is also revealing. Not just six months or a year, but all the way to the end of 2010! Sheffield City Council must have asked the developer Hammerson's when they expected work to restart, and received the answer, "2011". Of course, that's no answer at all, as the main bulk of their planning permission dates from November 2006, and will last 5 years. If Hammerson's hadn't said 2011, then they would have as good as admitted that Sevenstone won't be built in it's current form - or even by them. They really don't have a firm date for when they're going to build Sevenstone, and it's becoming increasingly likely that something will give (say, funding) and the whole scheme will be dropped. Let's hope that happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if they hung on for a while longer.

The area covered by Sevenstone does need investment, that's undoubtable, but this is the wrong way for that to happen. Hopefully another scheme which is more sensitive and thoughtful will take Sevenstone's place, and Sheffield will see greater benefit in the long term.

A united front?

There was another anti-BNP protest today, organized again by Unite Against Fascism (UAF), who also organised the recent egging of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons outside Parliament. The meeting was slightly different and better organised, as there were stalls, more leafletting, and thankfully a PA system. The turnout was a little lower, maybe around 150-200, but I didn't recognize many there who were at the previous protest. I heard all the speakers, and definitely agree with the sentiment, though more or less with the arguments.

The aim of the meeting this afternoon was about recruiting people to distribute leaflets much more widely and get the message out for a large rally to be held on 27 June at 11am in Barker's Pool. That square can easily hold 1000 people without looking near full, and it would probably take three times that amount to get a crowd that looked like it dominated the space and not the other way round. Sadly, I don't think they're going to get more than 1000 people, and maybe many less.

Why? Well, it's not that the UAF is a terrible organization, it isn't, as it has been taking the lead on this issue since well before the European elections, and that's to their credit. The problem is that isn't able to connect beyond the audience it already has. There are three points where I think it must improve if it's going to build the level of support needed to be successful. The order is deliberate, with the first being the easiest and the one they could implement within two weeks.

1) All three of the stalls and all but one of the seven speakers were from socialist groups or unions. (I'm including the UAF in this count, as although it does have broad support from the three major political parties and various independent groups, its main backers and organizers are from unions.) Of the three stalls, one was for the UAF which is expected, but the other two were for the Socialist Party and the Socialist Worker. Of the speakers, one was UAF, five were from unions (although one of these was a local students' union, which is not exactly the same thing), and the remaining one from an Irish community group.

I don't want to sound harsh, or dismissive of these groups, but they simply don't provide a full spectrum of citizens in the city. I understand that the three main political parties have agreed in Sheffield not to campaign against the BNP to avoid the impression that they're 'ganging up' on them, and instead leave it to community and other groups. But why where these groups not better represented? Maybe they had been invited but turned it down? I don't know. All of the speakers mentioned the need for those threatened by the BNP to come together, to build a coalition of faiths, enthicities, sexualities, political beliefs, disabilities, but only one speaker actually represented any of them. The non-UAF groups and literature present was not only tangential to the cause, but created a 'branding' for the protest that I feel would put many people off.

The UAF shouldn't tell these groups not attend, as that too would prevent the creation of a broad coalition. But it should work hard to get other groups to come along too: promise them a chance to speak, space for their stall, and that they won't be second play to the socialists and unionists. Relevant groups must exist in Sheffield, and they too will have their own supporters and networks from which the campaign can benefit. I don't know if this lack of diversity in groups is the same all over the country, or just here, I haven't been to meetings elsewhere. But there needs to be all kinds of people and speakers at the next rally, as these groups must represent themselves in the campaign.

A Socialist Worker flyer handed out at the meeting.

2) The language used in attacking the BNP sometimes seemed misplaced. Not all speakers, but one or two in particular, spoke in a way that I found alienating due to its hyperbole. Nobody should shrink from calling the BNP fascists, and racists, and xenophobes: because that's what they are. Nor should we apologize for campaigning vigorously against what is, admittedly, a small and relatively powerless political group: because we know that they're dangerous and need to be tackled now. However, the continual use of the phrase "Nazi BNP" strikes me as ill-considered. Making the statement once that the BNP are linked to the Nazi party, is important and necessary. Reminding listeners that they share ideology and beliefs allows for an obvious and useful comparison. But constant repetition, the unfailing preceding of "BNP" by "Nazi" as if though we don't know who the BNP are and we can't remember what they stand for is not only insulting, but likely to lead to a devaluation in its rhetorical power. We use wisely what we use sparingly.

Likewise, one speaker made a brilliant thought out argument about hate crimes. She spoke about how the presence of a locus of hate in a community (in this case a bookshop) lead to a normalization of hate, and a consequent rise in hate crime. This is understandable, this is something I can connect with and take with me when I think about why I want to stop the BNP, and inform any actions to stop even the seeds of hate from being scattered. But another speaker ruined this message. She sledgehammered the Holocaust into her speech, almost promising that it was only one election away. It was out of proportion, and it wasn't something I could use. I felt that were genocide really to be taking place I would be powerless to stop it, yet I knew the likelihood of it actually happening soon was ridiculously small. Her words and her images demotivated me, but not because I disagreed that genocide is a bad thing, rather because they stripped me of power and credulity.

Language must be moderate and careful, and it must reflect in the listener their own understanding of both what is happening, and what can be done.

3) There seemed to be little reconciliation with those who voted for the BNP. Only one speaker mentioned that their success was partly a protest vote against not only mainstream political parties but the conditions they find themselves living in. She recognized that they have to be offered something else, something they can grab onto if they are to let go of the BNP. I agree with this, very strongly. Racism and intolerence is undoubtedly present in those communities where the BNP was strongest, but so is poverty and deprivation. The idea of scapegoating others must be very appealing to those who see problems all around them, and this is why the BNP succeed in capturing so many votes. The number of people primarily motivated by racism is probably small in comparison with those who just want to feel like there is some kind of solution to their situation.

Without giving these voters another way of conceiving of the social and economic landscape, attacking the BNP is akin to attacking them, and that could make matters worse. Ignoring the reasons why they voted BNP for fear of validating their worldview won't lead anywhere. Of course no campaign against the BNP should debate on their terms, but it should address the very real greivances people have, and seek to offer an explanation that doesn't rely on scapegoating.

----

Well, another very long post. I hope the rally on 27 June goes well and is well attended. I aslo hope to be there myself, and will be looking and listening to see how they intend to move the campaign forward.

Edit: There was a member of a faith group present at the Monday protest, which goes partly to my first point. Obviously though, the fact that I was at that rally and wasn't aware he was there still makes the point more or less valid.

Sheffield ≠ BNP heartland

I arrived back in Sheffield yesterday from a week away. I had watched the European election from a distance, and was dismayed when the voting figures for BNP in the Sheffield area were released. Nearly 17% in Barnsley, 15% in Rotherham, and 12% in Doncaster (though over 20% voted for either the BNP or the English Democrats, which may be relevent). I suppose the city of Sheffield came off rather well at "only" 10% supporting the BNP. Of course, we shouldn't think ourselves any better with that level of support, with that many people in the city who believe the BNP's message.

It was this 10% figure I was thinking about as I left the train and started the long walk up the hill to the city centre. I had thought Sheffield was a fairly well integrated place, comfortable with different cultures and different races. Perhaps even somehow special, like out of all the places in the north with a diverse population, we had managed to be especially tolerant and accepting. But I was wrong, and feel not only stupid for being wrong, but also ashamed for not taking those who said this could happen more seriously, and working to prevent it.

As I lugged my case up Surrey Street, along the side of the Town Hall, I thought to myself, 'Where are these people? Do they live isolated out on an estate or in a suburb, in an enclave where they can ignore the reality of the people and the city around them?' I just hadn't seen that much racism in Sheffield ever, even though I guessed there must be some somewhere. Perhaps there were whole areas I didn't frequent where racism was the norm. But 10%? As I entered the top of Fargate I thought, a little foolishly, that one out of every ten people I see is a racist. I knew it wasn't true, at least because the turnout meant that maybe two thirds of people hadn't voted, but it was enough to make me want to be among the other nine.

It was at that moment I heard a number of people clapping, and turned to see a rally gathered outside the Town Hall. The placards clearly laid out that the rally was against the BNP, but it probably would have been obvious anyway. I crossed the road with my luggage and joined the crowd. There was a couple of hundred people, from all different backgrounds I suppose; though I only recognised some queer people and some students, but that probably says more about me than anything else. I think like me, many who were there just wanted to get out and make a point that not only do they oppose the BNP, but that for the sake of the 90% we must be seen to do so. (Some fotos of the rally are here.)

I'll admit right now that I couldn't hear the speakers at first. When I arrived the speaker on the steps was Paul Blomfield, and unfortunately he was very quiet. I clapped along with the crowd, not through mindlessness, but because I knew that being public in my support was most important. Later I got a little closer, and the speakers a little louder, especially the local leader of Unite Against Fascism (UAF), who was quite forthright on the BNP, but I agreed nonetheless.

Near the end, somebody came up behind the crowd and shouted something, which sadly I didn't catch. The police ran him down Fargate, and a couple dozen of the crowd followed. I wanted to know what was happening, but was hampered by my luggage. Once the rally was over, I dropped my case off at my flat, and returned to the Town Hall, where some people were still milling about, and two drummers had turned up to provide rhythms...

Micrographia

I mentioned a few days ago that I went to a talk "compèred" by Paul Blomfield, the Labour candidate for the Sheffield Central parliamentary constituency. I later realised that I've also been to a talk by Paul Scriven, the Liberal Democrat candidate for the same constituency. (Yes, they look very similar; no, it's not some evil plan.) I would like to say that Scriven seemed a much better candidate when he spoke, but that's unfair as Blomfield hardly had time to set out his policies or beliefs. I can't honestly compare the two on that basis, and besides it would be just my opinion. It would be better to give an idea of how they're going to fare come the election based on something a little firmer.

Sheffield Central is currently a fairly safe Labour seat held by Richard Caborn, a former Minister of Sport. It ought not be the kind of seat that the Liberal Democrats could really hope to win in an ordinary election, even though the other parties poll so poorly there as to put the Lib Dems as the main and only opposition. At the last election Labour took 50% of the vote, the Lib Dems just over 26%, with the Conservatives the next best at just over 10%. But a number of factors make the seat much more competitive than in 2005, and a strong Lib Dem target for the next election.

The key factor is the boundary redrawing that the whole has Sheffield has undergone since the last election. The number of constituencies in the city has been reduced from six to five, with Hillsborough being abolished and the wards redistributed in a process which led to a general rebalancing of all the constituencies. Sheffield Central previously consisted (more or less) of Burngreave and Manor, which were strongly Labour areas, and Nether Edge and the city centre, which were fairly evenly split between Labour and Lib Dems, with the Greens strong in the city. The local election results from 2006 in these areas reflect reasonably well the general election figures: Labour on 41.3% and Lib Dems on 24%. The main difference is that the Greens took 18.5% of the votes - probably due to the difference between local and general elections and the constraints that voters understand to be present in larger constituencies, but quite important and worth bearing in mind.

However, the new constituency is somewhat different. While the core of the constituency is still the city centre with Manor and Nether Edge, Burngreave has been detached and replaced with Walkley and Broomhill. Both Walkley and Broomhill have pluralities of Lib Dem voters, but with significant Labour and Green support respectively. The most recent local elections in 2008 gave the following results for the areas in the new Sheffield Central constituency: Labour at 36%, Lib Dems at 37%, and Greens at 19%. Support for the Lib Dems appears to be neck and neck with that of Labour.

Of course, local elections aren't general elections, and so much has happened since the local elections a year ago that these numbers can only be taken as a rough idea of the level of support parties might have. But the level of support nationally for the Labour Party has recently dropped significantly, perhaps drastically. Even if Labour support is higher than 18% (which it probably is), it isn't anywhere near 36%. A good portion of those who voted Labour in 2005 simply won't vote for them again, and many of the hardcore of Labour voters will likely stay at home come the general election, disillusioned by the recent expenses scandal and poor government performance but unwilling to vote for another party. Those that do vote may seek out minor parties, principally to the benefit of the Greens and the BNP. The strengthening of the Green vote may make them relatively competitive in this seat, although normally a portion of their local election support can be expected to go to the main parties during a general election due to tactical voting. It's hard to know if this will happen, or whether (perhaps likely in the current poltical atmosphere) they will stick with Green deliberately to avoid the three main parties. Either way, it's unlikely that they be will be able to double their share of the vote and match the level of Lib Dem support, or that their voters will preferentially switch Labour - especially if Labour voters are switching to Green.

The standing of the candidates also suggests that the Lib Dems will get the better outcome here. Though the seat is currently held for Labour by Richard Caborn, he has already announced his intention to step down so lessening the imcumbency effect. Paul Blomfield, his potential replacement, has a reasonably good profile in Sheffield through his current and previous work in the university and city services, but probably not enough to be generally recognizable. In contrast, Paul Scriven has been a city councillor for Broomhill in this constituency for eight years, and in 2008 became the leader of Sheffield City Council. His profile is undoubtedly strong, perhaps greater than some currently sitting MPs. If the general impression among voters of the city council is good (which I think it is, somewhat), this will be an enormous benefit.

So in Sheffield Central it seems that the Lib Dems are starting from a good share of the vote in a newly reorganized constituency, but with the addition of several positive factors in the weakness of their opponents and the profile of their candidate. I am prepared to be shocked if they don't win this seat at the next general election, though I have no hats to eat, sadly.

Talk, no talk

I attended a talk today at the university. It was part of a series in run up to the EU elections on 4 June and hosted by Eddie Izzard. Even though it was arranged by the Labour student group, I thought I would go because, hey, Eddie Izzard is funny, and I'm pretty interested in politics. I was sure it would at least be funny, and it's good to feel involved in the political process.

The talk was well attended, a real standing room only situation, and despite running a little late, everybody wanted to be there and was willing to wait. When the talk did start though, it was obvious from the beginning just what kind of affair it was going to be. The first person to come up on stage looked a bit uncomfortable, understandably when he introduced himself as the PPC for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield. "The Labour student group has asked me to say a few words." Which he did, and really sold himself. I mean, I now know he exists, which is great. His beliefs though? No idea. And why should I? This was meant to be about EU elections, and his presence as compere was not only awkward but damn clumsy.

Moving on, Eddie Izzard eventually appeared after a(n over)long introduction, and did his stuff. Talkig about his own student days at the university, and his political beliefs. And he's funny, real funny, I like him a lot, and I probably agree with most of his views about the EU. This was good, an hour of this would have been great, no doubt, especially had he handled the questions. But it turned out that the format of the talk was actually him handling questions to two guest from the Labour Party. Ack! I never signed up for this! Okay, the guests included Jack Straw (and some random MEP) so I suppose I should be homoured that he bothered to come and answer our questions in person. Who else gets that kind of fabulous treatment?

So, questions start coming, and they seem pretty tame. Considering all the stuff that the Labour government has managed to do in the last 12 years, a bit of sharp questioning would have been welcome. But no, just fairly soft tickling. I suppose people felt a little intimidated it being a Labour do, and there being lots of Labour folks there. That's understandable, I suppose. And there's no surprise that the answers equally tickled the audience without giving us something to grab onto. The guests spoke about their histories in the Labour Party, and how they believed in social justice and doing better for disadvantaged people, and how much they hate Thatcher. Which is nice, but I've heard it so much, so much before. I felt as though this could be anytime between 1997 and 2009, there was nothing new. Nothing they said spoke to me, answered my questions, touched my needs, really made me think, "here's the politics I want to be part of."

I left the talk. It was barely half way through. They can keep my £3 I paid for the ticket, but I'll keep my vote. I wasn't a fan of Labour before going to the talk, but I'm surprised they managed to increase my indifference.