Theatre d'Hygiene - Version francais

 Publié dans le Guardian  12/07/2021 par Sirin Kale

Le Covid-19 est une maladie principalement aéroportée. Alors, notre désinfection sans fin et notre désinfection des mains servent-elles à quelque chose - ou pourraient-elles être pires qu'inutiles ?

Claudia, une esthéticienne de 26 ans, redoute que ses clientes demandent à aller aux toilettes. "C'est une toute autre chose à nettoyer", dit-elle. « Ils auraient pu toucher n'importe quoi là-dedans. Je dois tout essuyer avec un spray antibactérien et des lingettes.

C'est son travail de maintenir des protocoles de nettoyage rigoureux à la clinique de soins de la peau de Londres où elle travaille. Lorsque les clients arrivent à leurs rendez-vous, Claudia les enregistre, leur propose un verre – la clinique n'utilise que des gobelets jetables ou des bouteilles d'eau en plastique – et les conduit jusqu'à la salle de soins.

Une fois que son collègue a effectué son traitement, Claudia commence à frotter furieusement toutes les surfaces que le client aurait pu toucher.

Après le départ du client, Claudia récure la salle de soins et remplace toutes les serviettes avant d'essuyer le distributeur à pompe du gel antibactérien pour les mains que les visiteurs utilisent à leur arrivée. Puis, lorsqu'un nouveau client arrive, le processus recommence. "J'ai eu quelques clients qui disent qu'ils se sentent vraiment en sécurité ici", dit Claudia, "parce qu'ils savent que nous sommes très prudents et prudents lorsque nous désinfectons tout."

Ce qui rend étrange que la seule mesure qui contribuerait le plus à la sécurité des clients et des travailleurs de la clinique de Claudia ne soit pas mise en œuvre : la ventilation.

Covid-19 est une maladie aéroportée qui se transmet principalement par des gouttelettes respiratoires, ainsi que par des aérosols, qui peuvent persister dans l'air pendant plusieurs minutes après qu'une personne infectée a quitté une pièce et parcourir des mètres. Le moyen le plus efficace de minimiser le risque de transmission de Covid en intérieur est d'ouvrir autant de fenêtres et de portes que possible et d'imposer le port du masque.

Mais, bien qu'une fenêtre à l'arrière de la clinique soit ouverte, la porte d'entrée est fermée. « Nous ne pouvons pas ouvrir la porte de devant », dit Claudia, « car nous sommes sur la route principale. C'est plus l'élément de sécurité qu'autre chose. Quelqu'un pourrait simplement entrer directement… ce n'est probablement pas aussi bien aéré que nous le souhaiterions.

Ce que Claudia réalise pour le compte des clients qui fréquentent sa clinique de soins de la peau, c'est du "théâtre de l'hygiène". Le terme a été inventé pour la première fois par l'écrivain atlantique Derek Thompson dans un essai de juillet 2020, dans lequel il définissait le théâtre d'hygiène comme des protocoles de sécurité Covid « qui nous font nous sentir plus en sécurité, mais ne font pas grand-chose pour réduire les risques, même en tant qu'activités plus dangereuses sont encore autorisés ».

Le théâtre d'hygiène est constitué de visières faciales en plastique qui ne protègent pas les porteurs de l'inhalation d'air infecté ou de la contamination des personnes qui les entourent. Ce sont des couverts à usage unique et des menus jetables dans les restaurants et des boucliers entre les tables. C'est le personnel qui nettoie méticuleusement les points de contact communs dans les pubs tandis que des groupes sans masque chantent des chansons de football à plein volume. Ce sont des fonctionnaires en tenue de protection contre les matières dangereuses qui fument des rues entières avec du désinfectant. Ce sont les gymnases qui obligent les gens à essuyer chaque pièce d'équipement qu'ils touchent, mais ne leur font pas porter de masques. Il met votre courrier en quarantaine près de la porte d'entrée et essuie vos courses avec de l'eau de javel. Tous des gestes bien intentionnés, mais pour la plupart inefficaces, qui nous font nous sentir en sécurité, mais ne nous protègent pas de la menace posée par Covid-19.

Alors que l'Angleterre se précipite vers la suppression de pratiquement toutes les restrictions de Covid le 19 juillet, les autres nations décentralisées étant susceptibles de suivre, bien qu'à un rythme plus prudent, un mantra de responsabilité personnelle est promu par le gouvernement. Les masques seront volontaires ; distanciation sociale supprimée; les entreprises n'ont plus l'obligation d'augmenter la ventilation de leurs locaux.

Mais les infections augmentent de façon exponentielle et seulement un peu plus de la moitié de la population totale du Royaume-Uni a reçu deux doses du vaccin. Désormais, les décisions individuelles que nous prenons sur la façon de rester en sécurité dans les espaces publics auront de puissantes conséquences dans le monde réel. Alors que nous entrons dans la troisième vague de la pandémie de Covid-19, nous nous précipitons vers une nouvelle phase dangereuse dans laquelle le théâtre d'hygiène peut faire encore plus de dégâts qu'il ne l'a fait.

Le théâtre de l'hygiène s'appuie sur un concept lancé par l'expert en sécurité Bruce Schneier dans son livre de 2003, Beyond Fear. Schneier a inventé le terme « théâtre de sécurité » pour décrire les mesures de sécurité mises en œuvre dans les aéroports après les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre, telles que l'interdiction des ciseaux à ongles et des briquets. En réalité, ces mesures étaient inutiles : une mascarade compliquée pour rassurer les passagers nerveux plutôt que quelque chose de fondé sur la réalité. Ils ont également coûté très cher aux contribuables – les États-Unis ont dépensé plus de 100 milliards de dollars pour la sécurité aérienne depuis le 11 septembre.

Schneier convient que Covid-19 a inauguré une ère de théâtre hygiénique. "Comme le théâtre de la sécurité", dit-il, "le théâtre de l'hygiène vient d'une mauvaise analyse des risques - vraiment, de l'ignorance." Au début de la pandémie, dit Schneier, cela était compréhensible. « Personne ne savait rien », dit-il. « Nous étions tous confus quant à la bonne chose à faire

Le théâtre d'hygiène peut être activement dangereux car il empêche les gens de faire des choix éclairés sur les niveaux de risque qu'ils sont prêts à accepter dans leur vie. "Vos sentiments de sécurité doivent être fondés sur la science", explique Peters. « Les gens peuvent porter leur propre jugement sur les risques qu’ils sont prêts à tolérer, mais la clé est que les gens comprennent comment Covid se propage. » Elle craint que le théâtre d'hygiène incite les gens à éviter de prendre les mesures d'atténuation qui réduiraient réellement les risques, comme ouvrir les fenêtres ou investir dans des purificateurs d'air à particules à haute efficacité. "Dans un restaurant", dit Peters, "au lieu de regarder combien de désinfectants pour les mains il y a sur la table, les gens devraient chercher à se rassurer autour des échanges d'air." Avec toutes les restrictions sur les contacts intérieurs susceptibles de cesser en Angleterre le 19 juillet, il sera crucial d'évaluer correctement le niveau de risque dans un environnement donné. Bref, il est temps d'en finir avec le théâtre hygiénique.

De plus, toutes ces lingettes antibactériennes et plastiques à usage unique sont néfastes pour l'environnement. «Ce sont les déchets que nous créons que je trouve ennuyeux, plus que toute autre chose», dit Claudia. Goldman dit que les institutions publiques dépensent des sommes considérables en désinfectants et nettoyants. «Pendant un an, le métro de New York a fermé tous les soirs pour un nettoyage en profondeur», dit-il. « Cela a coûté des centaines de milliers de dollars. L'argent ne pousse pas sur les arbres pour les institutions publiques.

Transport for London a installé plus de 200 appareils de désinfection aux ultraviolets sur 110 escaliers mécaniques du métro de Londres, alors même que l'autorité des transports doit trouver 900 millions de livres sterling d'économies ou de nouveaux revenus au cours de l'année à venir. Les vendeurs de désinfectants, de lingettes antibactériennes et de produits de nettoyage affichent des bénéfices records : les fabricants de Dettol et Lysol ont enregistré leur plus forte croissance des ventes en 2020, en grande partie en raison de la pandémie.

Cela vous fait en quelque sorte vous sentir plus en sécurité. Même si c'est complètement illogique. Hughes est un médecin généraliste en exercice. "J'ai vu beaucoup de gens qui ont . eu une très mauvaise dermatite et une irritation de la peau à cause de cette obsession de l'hygiène des mains. Et pour les personnes sensibles aux troubles obsessionnels compulsifs, en particulier en ce qui concerne l'hygiène, cela a été absolument dévastateur », dit-il. Pour les personnes polysensibilisées aux produits chimiques (MCS), également, une sensibilité extrême aux produits parfumés - tels que les désinfectants, les savons ou les détergents - le théâtre de l'hygiène de la pandémie de Covid-19 a été un cauchemar.

Comment expliquer cet attachement déroutant au théâtre d'hygiène quand on sait qu'il ne nous protège pas de manière mesurable, a un coût exorbitant et peut être dommageable de manière mesurable pour certaines personnes ? "Les gens le maintiennent parce que c'est en grande partie auto-apaisant", explique Schneier. "C'est comme ça que je me sens mieux."

« Même si je sais dans ma tête que tout essuyer ne fait aucune différence », dit Claudia, « vous vous sentez en quelque sorte plus en sécurité. Même si c'est complètement illogique… c'est comme la tranquillité d'esprit.

Au fond, le théâtre de l'hygiène est une réponse peut-être inévitable à la pire crise de santé publique depuis un siècle. Parce que lorsque les événements deviennent incontrôlables, les humains réagissent de la seule manière qu'ils connaissent : en essayant d'imposer l'ordre au chaos, un Dettol essuie à la fois.

Don't listen to the Rumours - Vote Tactically in the Euro's

The cynical reader may say “this is just a vote Labour blog”. It’s not, I’ve campaigned for tactical voting for the past two general elections running the “ABC” (Anything But Conservative” facebook page. Clearly it needs to be an “Anything but Farage and Conservative leaver” page now - ABFACL isn’t such a snappy acronym but it should be the critical objective of the Euro elections.

Headlines like those in yesterday's Daily Express crying "Brexit was a 99% done deal" have hardened anti labour sentiment in remain community. Tories are claiming May and Corbyn are close to a deal, why wouldn't they? I can't think of a better way of damaging Labour.

It is a deeply improbable narrative. Corbyn would be a poor politician if he failed to realise such a course would be the end of his leadership - and possibly the end of the Labour Party. Remain supporting Labour members would never forgive him, the overwhelming majority of Labour MP's oppose Brexit, and Corbyn's personal credibility relies strongly on his commitment to party democracy, for him, ignoring a conference vote is almost unthinkable. Matthew D'Ancona gives a far more realistic assessment of the story.

Remainers should be more able to recognise the ability of the right to manipulate the narrative than pretty much any other single issue group. We saw the power of untruth, false narratives and media complicity in the Brexit campaign. Get past the emotional shock of the headlines and this looks like another “perfect storm” generated by the same toxic mix of disinformation, social media hysteria and a deeply complicit media that created Brexit in the first place. The other big sticking point is Labour's failure to offer open support for a PV.

I know a lot of remainers find Labour's equivocal policy difficult, I do myself at times, but it is underpinned by a powerful rationale that goes beyond the Labour voter divide on Brexit. Two of the justifications for the “Labour Brexit position” are democratic legitimacy and the fear that outright opposition to the referendum result would drive significant numbers of working class Labour supporters into the arms of the far right, possibly permanently.

Both still hold good. On democratic legitimacy opinions are shifting - but as the local election results demonstrated, Labour suffered most in the strong labour leave areas. Would wholesale support for a PV right now create a backlash, even reverse the softening of of leaver mood? It’s very delicate. Many working class voters teeter on the brink: "do I stick with Labour or to I express my rage with a vote for Farage". These are Labour supporters who vote with hearts more than minds. Once they fall out of love they may well never come back.

Leavers also need to recognise that at the moment a Labour switch on PV serves no rational political purpose. Right now it’s euro election time - not referendum time. Opinion on Brexit is still very volatile and an overt pro-PV policy risks handing Farage even more seats.

What really worries me is that remainers are in danger of turning a “perfect storm” into a full scale clusterfuck. Using the local elections to “send a message” was fine. Carrying the “only the Lib Dems can stop Brexit” line into the Euro Elections will be disastrous. The Lib Dems can’t stop Brexit - anyone who believes this is living in dreamland. Voting Lib Dem without considering if it gives leave candidates seats would be disastrous.

Tactical voting in the Euro Elections is essential. The argument that “seats don’t matter, it’s  votes for remain parties that count” is a dangerous delusion. 20 seats or more for Farage would give him a major PR victory. He will be lauded by the media, it would reinvigorate a demoralised leaver campaign and the press will ignore votes cast and focus entirely on seats won. It could even baulk the gradual pro-remain shift of public opinion - and it could have very serious consequences for the political balance of the European Parliament.

This is my desperate attempt to persuade anyone intending to cast their vote for overtly pro european parties "no matter what" is the best use of their vote to think again.

A far more effective strategy is to to support sitting pro remain MEP’s - even Tories. Returning every one of them will be a great moral victory for Remain. After that vote for the remain candidates most like to ensure Farage’s Brexit Party don’t win. Don’t let anti-labour hysteria, mislead you over the euro elections. Their outcome can send a powerful message. Set aside political differences and vote tactically,  for pro Brexit candidates and to defeat Farage. Don’t give leavers a landslide and don’t risk giving the far right real power in the European parliament. 

Visit https://tactical.vote/ep2019/ - to see the best options in your area

Is it wise to take Corbyn's words at face value - it's not as simple as you might think

Jeremy Corbyn's Das Spiegel interview and his single sentence answer on Brexit has caused understandable dismay in the remain community. This is an appeal to breathe, slow down and think more deeply.

What follows may sound like hanging onto hope by a thread - but is it?

Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party. He's bound by collective responsibility and the position of the Shadow Cabinet is that Labour respects the referendum result. As party leader has to support that position. If his answer to Das Spiegel's question had been "until the ECJ rules on the reversibility of article 50, no one can stop Brexit" he could have avoided a lot of flack,  but he's an inexperienced leader, and navigating these kind of situations is hard even for the very best.

Perhaps before we go too far with the wailing and gnashing of teeth it could be helpful to reflect a little on the underlying political realities. Just for a few minutes, forget about what Corbyn is saying and think about what he can do, if he manages to win power.

The political reality Prime Minister Corbyn would face is that the overwhelming majority of Labour MP's are pro remain. While Tory remainer MPs would never back Corbyn to bring down May in opposition, they wouldn't hesitate to find common cause with Labour rebels, the SNP and Lib dems if he was in power. Corbyn must know this and that it would be almost impossible for him to deliver brexit, even if he wanted too.

There's more. Corbyn's power base in the party depends on the membership, who are overwhelmingly pro- remain,  pro-Corbyn members especially so. His survival depends on retaining their support. It's why the people's vote motion was heard at conference. The leadership had no option, they knew if they had tried to suppress it Corbyn would be seriously weakened within the party.

You may well ask, "in that case why did he say we stop can't stop Brexit"? It seems like a fair question but we are dealing with complexity.

Is it good tactics to commit right now to a course of action that risks alienating a significant number of Labour voters? Don't be mislead by the "all leave communities are at least 50% remain" headlines. That says nothing about the voting intentions of Labour supporters - who were the main leave voters in Labour's northern stronghold seats. There's a genuine fear that not only could a remain position jeopardise a significant number of core seats but that a significant number of Labour supporters would be driven into the arms of the right. Why do that before the ECJ has even ruled?

I do understand why remainers are frustrated with Labour's position, I've been on the brink myself a few times - I have to keep reminding myself this is a multilayered, deeply political situation  that goes far beyond Brexit or crude vote winning policies.

If we are going to back off from the referendum it will be an act with far greater ramifications than Brexit. We can't afford to ignore the fact that Labour's working class support has a fairly direct view of democracy - and that the right are moving with a deeply anti-democracy agenda. It would be so easy to push people into saying "what's the point of democracy - look what happened to Brexit" - and the party that continues the ultra right xenophobic rhetoric will be the place they go. There's a real fear in Labour circles of boosting an ultra right cause and it's not groundless - you only have to look how that kind of mentality has been manipulated by Trump in the USA to understand the risks

Personally I've always felt that, if we are going to step back from the brink, people need to peer over the edge to justify re-running the referendum. I suspect a lot of politicians feel the same way. The public need to see for themselves just how bad it really is. I think there is a genuine change of mood but it's not enough - yet. At the moment Corbyn is keeping his powder dry. Until we know how the ECJ is going to rule on stopping article 50 it's far better for Labour to stick to the agreed position, the closer we get to the brink the less likely there will be a backlash if it changes - and if the court rules Brexit is irreversible, Labour still need to beat the Tories.

We seem to have a deep lack of understanding of how elections work in this country. Social media "Blame Corbyn threads" are a simplistic response to a complex and delicate situation, and they are just as likely to make Brexit a reality as the man himself. So many remainers are now insisting the only way of stopping Brexit is to vote lib dem - I'm old enough to have seen the tories win many general elections because the anti tory vote has been split.

I've a strong hunch Jeremy is playing grown up politics and he's playing them pretty well.  We remainers should be wary of jumping on the anti-Corbyn Bandwagon. We have to appreciate this is not a simple situation, and that in the end Labour is the only party that can beat the tories. If we do - Brexit is a dead duck - as long as the ECJ plays ball.

an open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn

Dear Jeremy,

I'm not “anti-Corbyn”. Far from it, I voted for you twice, and have been vocal in your defence. Your election as party leader has provided a counter narrative to the new right agenda that's been desperately needed for 30 years, but loving your politics doesn't mean I agree with everything you do – and on Brexit you have pushed me over the edge.

I defended our policies of triangulation and constructive ambiguity on Remain social media sites in blogs and debate. I understand the delicacy of Labour’s electoral position in some seats but I can no longer defend Labour's position, which has moved from “keeping options open” to active support for Brexit.

This is a suicidal path.

As a party our membership are at least 70% remain. Where's the mandate for you to take this route? What are the rational arguments for a complete reversal of our democratically agreed position? It's absolutely clear that Brexit is going to be an economic disaster. It's said you are in favour because “if we remain in Europe re-nationalisation policies can't be implemented”. I don't know if that is true, but it would be a minor problem compared to the scale of economic harm Brexit will cause. It's bad enough now. If Brexit happens, we will see an economic meltdown that will be a far greater barrier to your policies than any constraints imposed by the EU.

You say “we must respect democracy”. I agree, we must, but the outcome of the referendum was one one of the most corrupt votes in my lifetime.

We know the leave campaign broke rules wholesale - Cambridge Analytica, cheating on spending rules, a campaign was based on “lies on an industrial scale”. Add to this the demographic with the most to lose, Britons living in Europe and Europeans living in the UK, having no vote and a media almost entirely owned by reactionary vermin who have fanned the fires of racism, intolerance and ignorance for decades. The corruption of the Brexit campaign wasn't a one-off. These techniques will be used again and again by the right - and they will be used against our party. Supporting Brexit isn’t defending democracy - it’s defending a hideously corrupt set of tactics devised by the likes of Steve Bannon and the US new right.

While I'm on the subject of reactionary vermin – how can you support a far right agenda? How can you sit on the same side as Gove, Fox, Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage and company? How can you of all people embrace a policy they passionately advocate? Can't you see that Brexit is far more than a bit of reactionary nationalism. Brexit and Donald Trump are two sides of the same coin. Study the narrative of the US new right and you'll quickly see they detest Europe – it's “too socialist” for them. The new right in the UK have been in close contact with the new right in the USA for years. That's what Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge was all about. The forces behind Brexit and Donald Trump are two sides of the same coin.

This is a political movement that passionately believes all tax is theft, that the State should play almost no role in society and is wedded to the crazed social darwinist philosophy of Ayn Rand. We already hear Tory bigwigs talking about “deregulating the Labour Market” - code for trashing everything the labour movement has fought for over the last 120 years. A vision for a new Britain in the eyes of the Tory monsters includes the windfall of disaster capitalism, fracking, culling of environmental standards, and the sale of the NHS to the private health industry.

Terrible as all these things are, they are not the worst aspect of your current position on Brexit. You offered hope to the millions who felt no one in politics represented their position. The young flocked too you. Last year at Glastonbury the were chanting “oh oh Jeremy Corbyn” - this year at the anti Brexit rally they were chanting “where's Jeremy Corbyn”. Most of the younger demographic, the ones who won Canterbury in 2017 voted “holding their noses” because of Brexit.

They won't do that again, the Lewisham by election was a warning. Your current position is dividing the progressive vote and could well let the worst and most evil Tory government in my lifetime carry on with their program of corrupting and destroying everything that is decent in the UK.

Mask slips as Tory schemers open Brexit think tank - repost from behind the times paywall

Mask slips as Tory schemers open Brexit think tank

james mcgrory

For more than a year, the government has promised that Brexit will not be used as a wedge to undermine the rights and conditions guaranteed by EU membership that protect people in this country. Theresa May even said in her Lancaster House speech that “a fairer Britain is a country that protects and enhances the rights people have at work”.

Yesterday, however, in the gilded chambers of the Foreign Office, the mask slipped and we found that the prime minister’s warm words were being undermined by her complete lack of control over her cabinet ministers. Boris Johnson and Liam Fox last night used a government building, paid for by the taxpayer, to host the launch of a new think tank arguing for a hardline, right-wing, extreme Brexit. The new Institute for Free Trade is to be led by Conservative MEP and prominent Leave campaigner, Daniel Hannan.

Open Britain, the cross-party, pro-European group, has had a look at the policies and the priorities of the Institute for Free Trade and its president and it does not make for pleasant reading. It is difficult to over-emphasise how extreme some of their positions are.

They support so-called “unilateral free trade”, a policy that would dump all UK tariffs on imported products, without achieving reciprocal reductions from other countries. The practical consequence of this would be to flood the British market with cheap, low-quality goods that would quickly overwhelm our domestic producers. The author of this plan, Professor Patrick Minford, has cheerfully admitted that doing so would “mostly eliminate” British manufacturing.

They are relaxed about letting hormone-injected beef and chlorine-washed chicken into our country as the price of a trade deal with the US, despite even Michael Gove promising that food safety standards would not be compromised by Brexit.

They have no time at all for the vital firewall of employment protections that have been built up over decades of EU membership, describing these rights as “heavy-handed regulations that impede the creative process”. Just so no one is under any doubt, these regulations include the right to paid maternity and paternity leave; to paid holidays; to join a union; and to work free from discrimination on grounds of gender, race, nationality, sexuality or disability. Mr Hannan has gone even further and stated his opposition to the minimum wage.

Hannan’s views on the National Health Service are perhaps most worrying of all. This is someone who delights in scuttling round American TV studios attacking our NHS, one of this country’s proudest achievements. He has called it a “mistake” that the UK has had to live with “for 60 years now” and called for the introduction of “price mechanisms”. Mr Hannan’s unpatriotic and dangerous ideas, if implemented, would restrict ordinary peoples’ access to health care. Mr Johnson and Mr Fox have made similar comments in the past, with the international trade secretary calling for health spending to be cut and the foreign secretary saying that people should have to pay to use NHS services.

None of this is current government policy but the frequency and speed with which this government floats and then ditches policies means they might be one day soon. Mr Johnson’s leadership ambitions are the worst-kept secret in Westminster and this think tank should serve as a window into the gruesome agenda he and his fellow Brextremists want to impose on the country if they get their way.

It is perfectly possible that these policies could be introduced even if Boris does not come to power. Theresa May’s weakness is such that she may end up being forced into throwing some red meat to her rabid right flank. If the Government is as desperate as it seems to get a trade deal with the US after we leave the EU, regardless of the cost, it will undoubtedly be forced into concessions on issues such as food safety.

This manoeuvring by Mr Johnson and Mr Fox is undermining the government’s policy; furthering divisions within government; and advancing an agenda which would leave British working people worse off. Their plans and their scheming should be exposed and opposed by everybody who rejects an extreme Brexit.

James McGrory is executive director of Open Britain reposted from the Times

Brexit was a victory for "stupid" - how can "smart" win this time around?

It is  hard to deal with this election. It's one like no other, both because it really is a second referendum on Brexit (but one where there's no simple question and no simple answer) and because results on 2015 were badly skewed by exceptional factors.

Among the complexities, one thing is absolutely clear, if we are to have any chance of crushing the tory majority in parliament we have to cooperate across the progressive movement to vote tactically. This post is an attempt to explore the mistrust and misunderstandings about tactical voting and to lay down a few pointers to the best approaches to making it work.

What went wrong in 2015?

The tories should not have won in 2015. They were deeply unpopular but they still managed to win a majority. It's worth looking at how this happened, because it shows how badly things can go wrong, and how, at worst, misguided tactical voting could give the Tories an even bigger majority.

"Coalition resentment" scuppered Liberal Democrats with LD/Tory swing voters feeling they may as well have a fully fledged conservative government and LD/Labour swing voters turning to Labour in disgust.  "Small c" working class defections from Labour to UKIP and loss of support from from the more radical left because of the party's steady rightwards drift trapped Labour in similar kind of "perfect storm". The Tories shouldn't have won but they did - and they won because of a toxic mix of tribalism, a resurgent hard right and extreme political naivety on the part of many progressive voters.

"Lib/Lab/Green no matter what" - how to avoid "2015 -  the sequel"

The most important thing we need to hold in our minds is that we need to elect progressive MP's. "Anyone But Conservative" "ABC" is the watchword. Use your vote for the candidate best placed to win - whatever the party.

The danger is that many of us will vote on the basis of what is being said by Party Leaders at national level or, in the case of Labour, to punish them for voting for Article 50 in the Commons. In this election more than any other - voting in this way is suicidal. The Tories depend on us to do this, and know that if we do, they will be back with an even bigger majority.

The only thing that will beat the Tories is getting a lot more MP's than they do. Why a lot more? Because if the Tories are the largest party they get first call on a coalition and could form a government with a single smaller political party. The Tories think we are too naive and too tied up in petty differences to work together.

We progressives like to think we are the smart ones but we struggle to recognise that unless we elect more progressive MP's than there are tories we've lost,  seems to have escaped many of us. Social media threads are alive with comments like:

"Only a vote for Liberal Democrats will keep us in Europe".

"Corbyn has said he will lead the UK to a soft Brexit",

"Farron has ruled out forming any coalition",

"I could never trust the Liberal Democrats after the coalition"  

Sorry - but these remarks are absolute rubbish. If there is one certainty in "GE2017" it's that neither Labour nor Liberal Democrats can win outright. If remainers vote on the electioneering pitches of party leaders in a period of extreme political volatility Theresa May will win power with a bigger majority, and the certainty of the UK crashing out of Europe in flames.

Simply equating our concerns about Brexit with either of the two main progressive parties stated position on Brexit, coalition or their past behavior is suicidal. It doesn't matter if you think the Lib Dems are less likely to take us out of Europe than Labour - if you vote Lib Dem in a Labour seat where the Tories are running second - you will let the Tories in. Same applies if you are a Labour supporter in a seat that the Lib Dems lost in 2015 - voting "Labour no matter what" will let the Tories keep that seat.

Finally - if you are a green voter - please think long and hard about this particular election. I know you are always being asked to sacrifice your hopes in general elections but in this particular election we are trying to defeat a government intent on abandoning carbon targets, cutting environmental controls and are actively hostile to renewables - this is part of their reason for taking us out of Europe

So please - forget about anger towards Corbyn's position on Brexit, Forget about the Lib Dem coalition with the tories - take a deep breath and vote for whoever will defeat the Tories.

I've got principles - I can't be this cynical

I understand - I have principles too - but without power - principles are worthless junk.

I know so many remaniers are devastated by Corbyns's stance on Europe, I am myself, anyone wanting to know just how furious I was can read this blog - but we do have to understand Corbyn's position. His party strategists believe Labour could lose many of it's northern heartland seats if it goes directly against the referendum results. It's that old bogeyman again, winning seats. 

Corbyn has ruled out a second referendum - but he's actively supported a "meaningful final vote on a Brexit Settlement" in Parliament. That's Corbyn's wriggle room. MP's can reject a Brexit deal outright unless they are convinced it will be in the UK's interests. If he's in a coalition he can also say Brexit was a deal breaker and agree to shift his position.

Faron's position on "No Coalition" is his attempt to deal with the perfect storm that decimated lib dem MPs. Remember, Lib Dems lost most of their seats from a combination of left wing supporters defecting to Labour to punish them for the coalition and right leaning Lib Dems deciding they may as well go the whole hog with a Tory government. 

A lot of us Labour supporters argue that "Lib Dems can't be trusted because they should have refused to form a coalition with the Tories" - but Labour form coalitions with Lib Dems all the time in local government despite the party's mantra of "Never trusting a bloody Liberal"! Farron obviously believes his best bet is to isolate himself from any commitment post election to allay the "coalition ghost", but if there is the opportunity to power share he will take it - and Brexit can be his deal breaker.

So how do we assess the best tactical options?

Take a look at the demographics of Norwich's much respected anti-Brexit MP Clive Lewis. In several of Norwich's anti-brexit forums remainers are calling for a Lib Dem vote in his seat. This is suicidal,

Lib Dems would have to triple their vote to beat him. That's not going to happen - but we can see the makings of another perfect storm brewing in these figures. If UKIP to pull out and urge their supporters to vote tory it would only take a couple of thousand of voters to switch allegiance from Labour to Lib Dem for Clive to lose his seat - to the Tories.

General Election 2015: Norwich South^[4]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Labour	Clive Lewis	19,033	39.3	+10.6
	Conservative	Lisa Townsend	11,379	23.5	+0.6
	Green	Lesley Grahame	6,749	13.9	-1.0
	Liberal Democrat	Simon Wright	6,607	13.6	-15.7
	UKIP	Steve Emmens	4,539	9.4	+7.0

Now look at the position in the Liberal Democrats in North Norfolk

Norman Lamb is in an even more vulnerable position than Clive Lewis - the combined Tory/UKIP vote is about 23,500 - but add the Labour and Green votes to Lamb's total and he has over 26,000 votes

Of course, we can't say for sure that all UKIP votes will go to the Tories, but many will. We can't say for sure all progressives will vote tactically - but we can do our best to try and make it a reality - at least that way we are in with a chance.

General Election 2015: North Norfolk^[5]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Liberal Democrat	Norman Lamb	19,299	39.1	-16.4
	Conservative	Ann Steward	15,256	30.9	-1.2
	UKIP	Michael Baker	8,328	16.9	+11.5
	Labour	Denise Burke	5,043	10.2	+4.4
	Green	Mike Macartney-Filgate	1,488	3.0	+2.0

These are the kind of stories that will be repeated across the country. Remainers need to get smart - whatever their political allegiance, and look at the hard realities of returning a non-conservative MP.

Kick out the Tories

• remember - neither Labour nor Liberal Democrats can win this election outright
• forget about what leaders are ruling in or out right now - if progressives win a majority - we will do a deal 
• vote to beat the tories in your constituency not on the national campaign 
• it's not about principles - it's about winning more seats than the tories

Campaigning for tactical voting is as important as campaigning for our parties in this election.This is a link to a seat by seat guide to tactical voting options - I have no idea if this is entirely accurate - we are the smart ones so dig around. Find your constituency on wikipedia and look at results over the years. Think how falling support for UKIP will affect the Tory vote - they will almost certainly benefit more than anyone else.

If you want to be a keyboard warrior this is a link to a facebook page I've set up to encourage tactical voting ABC _ Anything But Conservative. I try and post relevant stories and news every day. Like the group invite friends, share posts. If there's one thing about his election that's positive is that it seems to have ignited genuine political debate. We can do this. We can turn the pollsters predictions on their heads. There's so little between all us progressives - so lets co-operate to keep the Tories out

Finally, remember Brexit is not the only reason for kicking out the Tories. They have presided over the slowest economic recovery since records began, the real value of wages has fallen by at least 10% since they came into office. They have bought schools and the NHS to their knees, and their treatment of disabled and dying people is little short of barbaric. 

Let's do everything in our power to not hand this country to the most vicious nasty right wing politicians it has seen since the Second World War - let's win it smart!

Thanks to Marc Roberts for the illustration - first published in New Internationalist - Marc  features regularly in the New Internationalist and Ethical Consumer. He has a horribly low profile on the web but you can see some of his work here - http://throbgoblins.blogspot.fr/2007/06/acid-cheeseballs.html

Fight them on the Beaches - no chance - let’s just let the fascists win

in the days when we believed in Corbyn

Depressing title? Yes, could be something to do with waking at 3-30 am in a mood blacker than the night. Last night I heard Clive Lewis MP trying to explain the Labour Party’s Parliamentary strategy for Brexit. I was hoping for at least some spark of a fight, perhaps a recognition that while parliamentary tactics was forcing our hand in Parliament we would acknowledge the catastrophic nature of Brexit to the wider world.

Parliamentary tactics are affairs of the head, I understand that, but Brexit was won with appeals to the heart using a seductress's finery and false promises. It's manifest injustice, stupidity and political danger could open dozens of avenues for the Labour Party to relearn the art of reaching out to the electorates emotional core. My black despair flows from the certainty that the Party has closed them all, an act of shortsightedness and cowardice that will be a disaster for the country and a disaster for a party I've supported all my life.

Clive looked like a man torn in two. The conflict between the unfolding disaster of Brexit and his desire to hold the party line was etched into his being.  This was a man confronting unreason with reason,  and repeated use of the phrase "we are where we are", a pragmatic sounding cliche that generally means "we've lost", suggests he can see that defeating unreason demands more than soft words. If, on the eve of disaster, Churchill had made a speech to the nation that ran:

"we will think about fighting them on the beaches - but we have to bear in mind that quite a lot of people have been manipulated by sleight of hand and distraction and we have to think about their feelings before we even think about any kind of fight and maybe right now what we should do is more or less give up and then try and negotiate with them after they have won"

It would sum up Labour's position perfectly. We are re-running Neville Chamberlain in Munich, Trump and Brexit are the storm troopers riding in. 

A major part of Clive's case was that Labour couldn't oppose Brexit because of the "fragile state of our democracy". 

I'd say the exact opposite. "Brexit is happening because of the fragile state of our democracy".  I understand the sensibilities and can accept  can accept 25 % of the population winning a general election. But election results are reassessed every 4 or 5 years . Brexit will be permanent, a change that is disaster for millions, most of whom didn't even have a vote.

It's a fact that more people were disenfranchised in the referendum than voted leave.  Four and a half  million people who's long term future depends on freedom of movement and over fourteen million under 18's didn't get a vote. That's eighteen and a half million people. They outnumber leave voters, and they are the groups who's future will be most affected by this descision. Seventeen million out of a population of sixty-five million is not a majority. Seventeen million imposing a course of action that will blight the lives of 18.5 million people who had no vote is not democratic. MP's could do far more for democracy by remembering their duty to look at the wider interests of the country than by flawed calculations aimed at saving their own skins.

Another justification for Labour's position was that opposing the referendum would "give UKIP a platform". This was the point where patience and sympathy for his dilemma was finally replaced by outrage. The Tory Government under May already is "UKIP in power". 

UKIP is no more a separate political party than the Tea Party in the USA. Both were established and funded by ideologically driven billionaires to deliver the messages their more moderate counterparts wouldn't say out loud. Their job is done, both here and in the USA.

I understand that "giving UKIP a platform" is a sanitised way of saying "we are going to lose seats". I'm just not convinced trying to placate the "traditional" Labour voters who switched to UKIP in droves in 2015 is a good tactic. The Blairite years destroyed their faith in us, and the 2010 message on the doorsteps of Milecross was, at times, shockingly hostile. I don't think these guys will come back to us anytime soon just because we lay down and surrender to a right wing coup. Meanwhile, all the enthusiasm and energy surrounding Corbyn is seeping away unused. People who joined the party because they believed things could be different are leaving in droves. WE may lose seats in remain constituencies for opposing Brexit - we will definitely lose not just seats, but wholesale support to the greens and lib-dems everywhere - don't underestimate the level of anger remainers feel.

The message I took From Friday's meeting was that Labour are sacrificing a blood and guts fight for the future of Britain and probably the future of Europe for narrow self interest and that maybe - at some point in the future, a brave new left wing Labour under Corbyn will win power and create a socialist paradise. With an independent Scotland, Gerrymandered boundaries and unforgiving remainers that is never going to happen - I suspect it's more likely the Labour Party's current stance will see it's demise.

If Brexit happens it will be permanent, and it will be the starting gun for removing almost every concession the left has fought to win from "the owners "over the last 120 years. Listen to Jacob Rees Mogg talking about stripping out environmental regulation in the UK - the Tories behind May have already targeted Human Rights, Worker Protection, Heath and Safety Standards and Carbon Emissions and "Honest Theresa" has "promised the NHS is not for sale" - which pretty much means "it's going to be sold".

The democracy Labour wants to defend has been undermined for decades by a very powerful, well funded, extreme rightwing movement. It's genesis is in the States. I often mention  Atlantic Bridge and its links with the US and British right. George Monbiot blogged  about them couple of days ago, and its well worth reading the story if you are not familiar with it.  Trump and Brexit are both symptoms of the political forces that Atlantic Bridge promotes. Trump isn't just a maverick voice - his deliberate trashing of government and defiance of the rule of law are a clear part of the extreme right agenda he represents. It's no coincidence that Farage, a man who threatened violence if leavers lost, had unprecedented access to Trump only days after he was elected and you can be sure that the current dominant forces in the Conservative Party speak with the same voice. The names associated with Atlantic Bridge are the Tory men of the moment.

Now image if Jeremy Corbyn did find some Churchillian spirit - a strong "Fight Them on the Beaches speech". Some of that powerful emotive oratory he's good at using Brexit as a platform to fight back. 

The North East think it's immigrants screwing them - it's not - it's 40 odd years of deliberate and systematic neglect.  Some of it was Labour 's neglect, say so, tell them we are different now.

Immigrants are denying British people health services? No - deliberate vandalism is doing that. Real term spending cuts in health have the service on it's knees and it's only getting by because of all the European Nurses, Midwives and Doctors. And on that one, a few case studies of the terrible things being said and done to good people who are delivering essential services would hit the British sense of fair play right between the eyes

Same applies to Education, Social Services and the failure to put resources into helping communities and immigrant groups manage the impacts of new and different cultures on existing populations and  of coming to terms with life in a foreign country.

Lets scream about the taxbreaks and loopholes, the lobbyists that bend brains, the lies and the misinformation could be exposed in a "fight them to our last breaths" position. If we are going down let's go down in flames - not with "a whipped abstention" on the third reading.

Our current position is beyond disappointing - it's heart breaking. Now more than ever, with Trump riding into absolutism in the USA Trump and Brexit can be used as a lever to help rewrite the narrative. They are two sides of the same coin - not the people who voted for it - but the people who are trying to make it happen - and even for Brexit voters Trump is too much.

Even now it's not too late for the Labour Party to change tack. MP's can vote against the 3rd reading - with a whip - and  launch an all out attack on the reasons why "we are where we are", expose the systematic and deliberate destruction of democracy and most of all - you can learn a lesson from the likes of Farage and Trump - these guys don't sell sausages- they sell sizzle - right now Labour need the sizzle.