The Count 2024 Episode 0

This “follows on” from the previous post about the count. But preceding the count was the canvassing. I get asked quite a bit about this and how it is to knock on the doors of strangers. And it is actually alright. People are generally not anywhere near as bad in person as they are behind a screen.Or they are but you don’t notice it as much as it is hidden behind politeness.

I am not a huge ”street” campaigner to be honest, and I prefer to be the “data guy” where I can but within the last year, leading up to the expected 2024 General Election, I did visit a few constituencies for “door knocking” sessions (see this blogpost on telling to see what some of this leads to). These were as follows and, as you can see, all but one were Conservative held seats and so were “battlegrounds” or “marginals”. It is also worth saying that in the one Labour seat, major campaigning was effectively blocked by shutting down the system^[1] that supported it as a prod to activists to go further afield. In fact, when looking for events for my postcode, the system suggested other constituencies in all cases and at all times including when there were events locally. This did definitely mean that we did not have access to the same number of activists as often “stronghold” seats would also have activists that would not want to, or be able to, go further afield.

Why did I go to these places?

I don’t particularly want to make political (policy) commentary here and my intention here is to show the difference in operational approach that may be the result of different strategic approaches.

So let us say, very simplistically, you have 100 activists. You may get 60 of them campaigning locally in a stronghold (S) and 40 of them going to marginals (M). So you get an increase in visibility and an increase in votes in both the stronghold and the marginal.

If you shut down the opportunity to stay local, you may get 0 locally and 60 in the marginal. So you have greater help where you think it is needed but a lower amount of help overall. So maybe you see an increase in the M seat and a decrease in the S seat. That may mean you win two seats.

I think that is more efficient in winning the vote but there is definitely an argument to say it is not considering all the externalities in such a simplistic model. And politics isn’t about winning to win but to win, effect change and stay in power.

The S seat has probably also got more untapped activists that might be able to grow your 100. The actual voters in an S seat may also note the lack of activity and remember that at the election and in the future reducing the strength. The M seat does have more space to grow into and the likelihood is that they don’t have as many activists to begin with so an extra 5 on 5 may be hugely noticed in a way that an extra 5 on 100 is not. In the “first past the post” system, you need to pass a threshold and any more than that is effectively unnecessary headroom. But you might lose the interest of 40 activists in a seat.

This is a little like goal difference in football and as a fan, I have seen big victories followed by narrow defeats so many times and thought “if only we could have spread the goals better”. But (topically) the Greek side in Euro 2004 did similar with efficient 1-0 victories to take you to the trophy. They were not able to effect change and stay in power… It was seen as an aberration and there have been no other (successful) countries wanting to follow that model.

I think this is a difference in the approaches of the two most recent leaders of the Labour Party and I am not making a judgement on which approach is correct or not. The “more activists and deep victory” approach is a people powered movement, Lots of people are involved and can be enthused by it all. The “fewer activists placed carefully” approach is about doing “more with less” and needs people that are enthused already as the whole movement will be less fun. In a nutshell, that is my experience of the approaches.

Locations canvassed

I went to a few constituencies but it is also worth noting that Britain is a very mixed up country and each constituency is made up of vastly different components and so the parts I visited may not be representative at all. I know that from visiting them but that may not be as clear to those reading a pithy little take and a 3 word review. Please note that the boundary changes mean that the maps are not exactly on the same boundaries but give a sense of it. Click the maps to see a better quality image of the deprivation measured in these constituencies to get a sense of the voter base.

[Con] Cities of London and Westminster

This was the first place I went of the actual campaign and we were in an area that might not be called traditionally Labour. The feedback here was not always positive but it was far more friendly than my previous visits to these kinds of areas. I would say it was neutral rather than hostile. To give an indication of the place, I was told that “no parent would vote for Labour” because of the policy around requiring private schools to pay tax like other similar businesses. One notable thing here is that many of the doors were inaccessible but you could ring at the gate and they would let you in or speak to you from the door. It was odd to hear people shouting in the street (effectively) that they were voting Labour in this neighbourhood. I also had a chat with one person that was quite irritated (and made that clear, but also clarified a few times that he was not with me personally) that people were chasing his vote now but had not spoken to him in years. This could be for a number of reasons but he was at least cognisant of the fact that I was from a neighbouring constituency and not in a position to be complained at. Speaking to people face to face is pretty disarming and the conversations are generally quite nice.

3WR: Money, Money, Money

Result: Labour MP - Rachel Blake

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001172

[Con] Finchley and Golders Green

I had not been here for a while but this was supposedly the seat with the most Jewish electorate in the country and so had been quite a target in previous elections for those wanting to make hay. This meant it was an oddly “local” election as in 2019, the Labour leader was consistently branded as anti-semitic and so it was expected to move quite differently to the underlying political movements. I also grew up locally although not in this constituency and so was familiar with the rhythm and bass of the place if not necessarily the melody. The atmosphere was good in the sessions with good humour and effort. The candidate was also known to me as she lives locally to me although she grew up in this constituency. My most notable conversation here was based on asking about whether Sarah was local (or local enough) as she lived about 4 miles away from the household I knocked at. I am hopeful that the person, who was going to complete her postal vote that evening, was able to use that conversation to make her decision - she did note that Sarah had been active in the community for many years. The conversation itself was fairly long and pleasant with the voter also commenting that it was nice to have people (meaning activists in general) showing an interest. Another notable interaction was someone telling me that I should not be campaigning for the Labour Party at all due to Gaza. It was a reminder that a constituency does not have one voice. I did go here a few times and each time, I was reminded that this was a summer election and we don’t have those often.

3WR: This feels nice

Result: Labour MP - Sarah Sackman

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001238

[Con] Hendon

This was a Barnet borough seat that I went to on a larger “action” day and even managed to persuade an acquaintance^[2] that lived locally to come along with her dad. As I did not really speak to many constituents and was running a board and helping some first-timers, I cannot say too much here. I was walking with the candidate though and it was impressive to see how many people he wanted to speak to. The level of effort and determination was pretty impressive and I really wish more of the electorate were aware of how hard some of these candidates work for these roles. And before the roles! The geography of the area around Hendon central seemed familiar although I had not been there before due to the suburbia feel to it. A place where it is simultaneously difficult and easy to lose yourself.

3WR: Keep it moving

Result: Labour MP - David Pinto-Duschinsky

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001279

[Con] Chipping Barnet

This was a seat I had spent a long time in over the years but not politically. In the miserable 2019 campaign, I remember coming out here in the rain to run a (paper) board out to very rude constituents. This was, again, the rudest constituency I found but there was also some politeness and positivity. I grew up in Chipping Barnet but there is an area between the M25 and the High Street which is almost unknown to me. It is an area to drive through and has many large houses - the kinds of places with names rather than numbers. This was a polling day visit and so traipsing around here where the housing was very low density and very rich felt inefficient to me. There were other areas which were more accessible but other people without access to cars had done those so I went to the very north of the constituency with one person that had a car. I had two notable interactions in this largely “against” area. One man decided to swear at me and told me that I should not be campaigning on polling day as it was not allowed. I was not sure if he had a different interpretation of the laws to every political party in the land but I did not find out which way he was voting. It left me a bit shaken and annoyed, to be honest but this is something that you just have to push yourself not to be too fussed by. I had seen worse. Another man, whom we had expected to be supportive, rushed over to me from across the road where he was doing something to his car to speak to me. This felt risky but when I asked him, he said he had surprisingly put the tick in the same box he had for 40 years. He was very pleasant though, and explained to me that he liked what he saw but found something against Angela Rayner. That he was impressed with her personally but could not imagine her speaking with foreign dignitaries like Macron (“but maybe Trump wasn't a good example!”). I know that there has been a Conservative campaign against her but this was the first I had heard of it. I think even he knew there was not much to it as he said she was actually very impressive. Anyway, he said good luck to me and let me carry on. Afterwards, when we got back in the car, he came over again and told me to have a glass of bubbly for him that evening! Again, the atmosphere was pretty pleasant.

3WR: Is this Barnet?

Result: Labour MP - Dan Tomlinson

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001169

[Con] Uxbridge and South Ruislip

I visited this seat in the previous year’s by-election but that was less than a year ago! That time was when the Conservatives kept banging on (inaccurately) about ULEZ and so, as it was pre-implementation, the scares were working. I knocked on a lot of doors of people that had compliant cars that did not want to vote for Labour because of the charge. And lots of people that did not seem overly concerned about poorer constituents in any other situation except where they would have to pay a charge for polluting the air. This was a long time ago now, and that particular by-election was not successful. That would come later.

3WR: Massive cars everywhere

Result: Labour MP - Danny Beales

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001558

[Lab] Holborn and St Pancras

A relatively “dull” canvass as this is a place I have been many times with little to learn - but a great way of getting into the swing and understanding the new software and approach. I absolutely love this constituency though with the varied feel across it and mini-communities hidden away in the estates. People were positive on the doorsteps but that was fairly early in the campaign. I have always told people that if they want to canvass, they should do so on safer ground first (such as this) so that they are not too stressed by it all. That will make them able to be more effective as it counts. I ended up in a chat with a person that was studying politics at university - their first political memory at all was seeing their parents seeming distraught at the Brexit result. That’s a sobering thought about the march of time.

3WR: Home Sweet Home

Result: Labour MP - Keir Starmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001290

[Con] Corby and East Northamptonshire

This was an entirely new constituency for me and the type of constituency that I had not always been drawn to. Especially post-Brexit, I have been uncomfortable (see my thoughts on Brexit Day) about going to non-urban spaces (Corby itself has high and low-density areas) and have also suspected that having non-white London accents at the doorstep may be counter-productive. These sessions were different to those I had done before with drives required to get to the streets and lifts needed timed to train journeys.

I generally run boards and so stay less visible but I did have one longish interaction with a Labour/Reform voter that was undecided between the two parties. This started badly from his first response but it did continue into a conversation. This was a man that had been part of the London Transport workforce and even been door knocking for John McDonnell, but was now wondering whether Reform or Labour were right. Reform, I am told, were honest and not afraid of telling the truth and were not racist. He spoke of refugees and how they travelled across the continent and then mentioned Schengen. He asked me about it. I did not expect to be discussing Schengen on the doorstop a full eight years after the country decided not to join Schengen and leave the EU. But campaigns do this, they make people say things. I explained what I understood of Schengen and that we could not have been following the rules of Schengen as we were not part of it. I likened it to the Common Travel Area we have with Ireland. He was surprised. He did not know this. But he did not react badly to it, he did not act as if I was patronising him, he acted as if he did not know it and it was further information. The conversation continued, he was a nice guy that had suffered from a stroke, had suffered from “long covid” and was just happy to still be alive. I noted a “Griffin Park” sign and commented on Brentford FC and he joked about my accent for a Liverpool fan^[3] and we parted. It was a long talk and a reminder of why I usually run the board from an operational perspective but it was something that left me pleased and frustrated. I was hopeful that I had left a positive impression on him. But then I thought about what that meant. Would speaking to a non-white person who was speaking to them normally have had a positive impact on his view of all non-white people in some way? I have spoken of my feeling of “representative” status before (see fn7 of this Vietnam blog post) and how that can change people’s minds. I am always concerned about doing that the wrong way but could I also do it in the right direction? Should I have been doing this earlier?

I’ve had a recent conversation elsewhere about the pain of being a pioneer and “identity politics”. That someone so often has to take the hits so that others don’t have to and a phrase known among many second generation immigrants is that “they walked so that we could run”. But walking is hard.

3WR: Eye opening interaction

Result: Labour MP - Lee Barron

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001179

I hope that these vignettes have been somewhat enlightening for those unaware of the process. I would strongly suggest giving it a go once if you can. Although I am not always one of them, however much I “love a chat”^[4], many people do love these door knocking sessions and many of them had no idea that they would. I am not expecting there to be a General election soon but canvassing goes on around the year and around the country so maybe give it a go.

<sup>1. This closing down of the system, ostensibly to try to ensure that limited resources were applied effectively has been subject to some odd commentary about abandoning places. In the case of the Camden seat that I live in, there has been regular canvassing for years and a recent GLA election to give good data.↩
2. Her father was in the Ghibli Club that I sort of ran during part of the pandemic lockdown.↩
3. These things are somewhat related, and maybe not consciously. Football, for me, was a television thing for a long time. In the eighties, most Asian kids would not even dream of going to football because most Asian parents, correctly, would not even dare to dream it was a safe place. There was a part of me as I walked away thinking, “it is probably due to some other people that are currently voting Reform and were shouting racist abuse that I did not follow a club in London”. I used to be more bothered by the glory-hunter jibes but not so much now. ↩
4. I was told, somewhat recently, that I “love a chat” by a colleague and it has had an odd effect of making me question my self-image. I don’t think I do but other people have backed this up and, you know what? Maybe I do. I am aware that I am much more conversational on holiday than when I am not - and there is no real reason for this. If you know me, why not let me know if I do actually “love a chat” or not.↩</sup>

The Count 2024

Context

I was fortunate enough to be at the count for the elections run by Camden council - these took place in the Camden Council offices in Pancras Square and covered two different constituencies. I was also fortunate to be at the similar count in 2019 which took place at a nearby sports centre but with quite a different atmosphere.

In 2019, I had been “running a room” set up quite locally which I had done a number of times (and would do so again for future local elections). In 2024, I had gone to two other constituencies in order to assist other candidates and finished up a little early in order to be able to help with the count. In both cases, we needed to be set up for 10pm so that we could see the release of the exit poll and be ready to go for the counting of postal ballots which had been delivered to the building already. It was that exit poll that people were there for though and part of what has been both haunting and motivating for me, personally, is that moment. That particular moment in 2019 was sickening. The guttural roar and braying from the Conservatives in that sports centre in 2019 is a strong memory and one that still pops into my head every so often. In hindsight, we probably knew there was a defeat on the way but that was the point at which you realised the scale and the types of people that wanted it. A majority built on an active lack of scrutiny by the news, as we were sadly to find out quite soon after. But that was just the start of the night, we had work to do and quite quickly, we had to ready ourselves. I did the same “job” both times, which was to be a “counting agent” at the count itself.

Counting Agents

A counting agent is there on behalf of the candidates to help make sure the count is run properly and also to run a sampling exercise. This is the only time when the count is disaggregated enough to see granular ward level information. In actual fact, it is the point before it is all aggregated and, in Camden at least, the only point when you can see how particular areas voted. This is all done before the actual counting stage during what is called “verification”. Here the ballots are counted and they are verified by box - and each box is taken from particular locations. That means you can see how people have voted but you cannot count them at this stage. What we can do, however, is sample and so we take a count of a random selection of ballots as they are being verified. Agents cannot touch or interfere with the counting and so stand there watching and counting on a little tick sheet. This is a random selection and this is done by tens of people across all parties in order to have a) advance information for the result that day and b) have some sense of the geographical spread of the count. That is then all collated and used to generate a view of the spread and also let the candidate know what type of face and speech to prepare! In 2019, I did the collation but this time, I used my excellent eyesight to sample counts.

The logistics of the count

Camden Council set up, in my honest opinion, an excellent count for the unique situation it found itself in. The polls over the last few months had been highly suggestive of an overall Labour victory and pointed to a high likelihood that one of the MPs they were counting for would be the new Prime Minister and thus they needed to have appropriate facilities for that. The location used was the office at 5 Pancras Square (which also has floors for a library and a leisure centre) and multiple floors were used with one floor for speeches, one as an effective “break out area” and then one each for the counting of each constituency. The staff involved were all dressed in quite neat, grey “Camden Elects” T-shirts and placed at many rows of tables to work as teams per ballot box.

From what I could work out, the process was made up of a number of steps (this might not be correct, but is what I saw and surmised):

Ballot box delivery

Ballot boxes from across both constituencies were delivered to tables to be ready for the next steps. Postals were counted first and the other boxes were delivered to tables that had space as they arrived.

Vote verification

Here, the votes were counted to ensure that the correct number that had been registered were in the box. At this stage, the sampling can take place as the boxes are known (and so polling district) and no aggregation has taken place and no counting or separation is taking place. This means that spoiled ballots are also part of the count verification. The sampling here is based on watching the verification and making a note of which box has been ticked on the ballot as this verification takes place. We would take a random selection/run of papers and the sampling is done without any intervention in the counting process at all. The ballots were then bundled into tens and then hundreds and verified again.

Vote separation

Once votes were verified, trays were set up and the verified votes were placed into the trays depending on what the counters saw in the boxes. The team I watched were counting for 12 candidates but they did not have 12 trays - they used major parties and “Others”. In the case of this particular election, “Others” was stacking up quite quickly but these others would then be separated further in another sweep. The other trays of note were a “doubtful” pile and a “spoiled” pile. It is at this point when it might be when the counting agents may note that the votes were being separated incorrectly and there might be a challenge. I did not make any challenges but any made were then placed on the “doubtful” pile.

Vote contention

Once the initial separation was completed, “doubtful” pile would be looked at and the counting agents would then also look at these to ensure that they were able to see anything they felt was contentious. The doubtful ballots would then be added to the relevant candidates’ pile.

Vote count

With the votes separated into “piles”, these would then be counted into bundles as was the case for the verification process and there was also a full reconciliation of the count to split spoiled ballots along with each of the candidates.

Announcement of results

Although I was not fully involved in this part, the result is told to the candidates (and agents) a few moments before the Returning Officer takes to the stage and then the Returning Officer makes the announcement to the assembled crowd. I was in the assembled crowd and the winners made acceptance speeches (In Starmer’s case, along with some heckling) before the end of the night. Or do I mean before noon - it was about 4am.

My count

I got to Pancras Square while there was still light in the night sky at about 9:40 pm. This in itself was quite odd. There was a little bit of a security process and my bags were checked before being given a key card and wristband that allowed, and disallowed, us to go to particular places. Once we were onto the relevant floor, it felt like quite a hive of activity. As mentioned, this was a high-profile count and there were many TV cameras around the area with some news programme segments being presented from the count. Camden did a good job here setting them up on one floor looking back on the counting floors and the central stairwell. A number of us gathered together in front of some televisions to be able to watch the exit poll come in - me near the front so that I could at least see it. The noise came before the vision for me as the cheers from those around me came well before my brain could take the result in. I tried to make sense of it but, in all honesty, the first thing I saw was the double digit number^[1] for predicted Reform seats. On this day of victory, the first thing that entered my brain was defeat^[2]. I did then see the rest of the results and I was a bit more pleased^[3].

After a few moments of letting that sink in, much like I expected would be the case for the new MPs, we were then off to work. Everyone spread out to cover different tables and chatted while waiting. There were counting agents from across the spectrum and we had been warned that some of those other agents may try to provoke us and that we should be fully aware of that and that we may also be approached by the media. Both of these things turned out to be true.

I dutifully completed the sampling but there were a number of gaps and breaks as the stages were completed and I got to a little bit of chatting to the Camden Elects counters. As I “love a chat”^[4], I did take the opportunity to speak to the people in front of me and I was very struck by how ethnically diverse the staffing of the count was. One of the things that I have noticed in my years of local/community involvement has been how it is often not as ethnically diverse as the areas served. I have often thought that there is some work to do on this and making places more inclusive seems a key to greater community cohesion to me. Anyway, a lot of the people were local to the town hall and this pleased me greatly. They were also often fairly young (I would guess the anti-social hours may explain this to some degree). One thing that came up was how late it was but “at least we [as in us] are all getting paid for it”. I explained that “No, we are volunteers” and that seemed to be quite a shock to a lot of the table. I explained how long the volunteers had been on their feet (since the morning in most cases) and that they were not paid for any of that. I just feel a lot more people need to be aware of how many people are involved without some weird form of corruption to keep them there. They are just trying to get a different government and giving up their own time to do that. When knocking up, many people are totally aware of the fact that we are just volunteers and I think it really helps take some of the poison out of the process.

On the flipside, I did “overhear” some provocative comments from other candidate teams as predicted but I do not think anyone rose to the provocation. The team for this particular independent candidate (Andrew Feinstein) had been doing things that may not have necessarily been within Electoral Law through the campaign and so it was a known risk. I did also see one person that had recently started supporting an independent candidate that I knew. That was quite gladdening and although he was no longer a member, I am sure he could be pleased for much of what was offered or at least the change from where we were.

Once the verification was over, and all the data was collated (by someone else this year), I did have a walk around to watch the TVs and see the media operation. And get a hot drink! A BBC reporter also took this opportunity to sidle up to me and ask if I was prepared to talk about the count and the expectations for the candidate counts. I did not give much away and said that I did not really know how people were feeling - we were too busy working.

After the verification (and connected sampling), the next task was to watch the vote separation and ensure that it was being done properly. In this stage, we could see that the “Others” trays were being filled fairly quickly and that the sampling showing a strong performance by Andrew Feinstein was correct. This was also the point where we could see the doubtful and spoiled piles and I found the complaints often scrawled on the spoiled ballots quite interesting. One that I was quite impressed with was where they had put a letter in each “tick” box to state their complaint. Another was where they explained that no candidates could explain what a woman was. The “doubtful” ones were less interesting and were usually not that doubtful with ticks outside the box etc. These would be added into the right pile later without much difficulty.

It was within this stage where I noticed a woman with a parasol and a fake moustache. As I still "love a chat"^[4], I mentioned the parasol and got chatting. She was accompanying the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate and had done so for decades since she was fifteen! She went to the Leader of the Opposition’s seat and so had been to Doncaster, Islington North and now Holborn & St Pancras. I was pretty intrigued by the whole process of joining the party and what they did between elections. She said she was not involved but there was a policy unit of sorts. She was also seemingly genuinely excited at seeing real votes so I did point some out to her later. The candidate was, effectively, a joke candidate which I have some issues with overall, conceptually. They were quite fun though and did not take many votes.

Once the counting was complete, we were told that the candidates were on their way and we created a little celebratory welcome for the likely next Prime Minister and got ready for the acceptance speech. Within the crowd, Camden Elects had placed a few people to ask the crowd to not put their phones/cameras too high due to the broadcast cameras behind. This felt like a truly thankless task although it was a bit easier for the second announcements for the Highgate and Kilburn constituency.

After the announcements were over, people went their own ways with some off to the Tate Modern and Downing Street for PM celebration events with others off to a Camden based “watch party" for the results. Me? I was off on the walk home. This was actually the thing I had been most looking forward to. I have done that northbound walk too many times with disappointment and I have desperately been wanting to remove that memory. Walking north after the recent Mayorals was good but this was the real deal. Walking up Royal College Street, specifically, was what I had wanted to do. In the end, that was all I wanted for the last five years. That feeling. There must be a better way, but until I find it, I guess the struggle continues.

[Episode zero to explain what canvassing meant before the election] 

<sup>1. The eventual result put Reform on a significantly lower number of seats but that is still the gut feel.↩
2. This reminded me later of collecting my exam results at school and the first thing that jumped out at me was my worst result. The other things just merge into the background and I wonder how much this really defines me as a person.↩
3. Apparently, this particular moment was broadcast on the news which I knew from messages I received later asking if that was me. I guess I was more visible wearing red.↩
4. I was told, somewhat recently, that I “love a chat” by a colleague and it has had an odd effect of making me question my self-image. I don’t think I do but other people have backed this up and, you know what? Maybe I do. I am aware that I am much more conversational on holiday than when I am not - and there is no real reason for this. If you know me, why not let me know if I do actually “love a chat” or not.↩</sup>

Brexit Day 29/3/2019

As the infamous Brexit Day (29 March 2019) passes us by with nary a flicker of change in the UK position, I can't help but feel irritated at where we are. Where I am is Poland (when written). My work cycle of seasons almost dictates my leave^[1] pattern and so I usually book some time off in March before my year end (I work for a company with a March year end and I help to create Statutory accounts - check them out at Clarion Investor Relations) work kicks off. This year, that happens to coincide with a weekend so I took the last week of the year off - mainly because I also wanted to be out of the country on Brexit Day. I had no desire to see the gurning faces of victory (and the potential disaster on day one if the many things not thought about had still not been thought about). Poland seemed appropriate for a few reasons.

• I hadn't been to Poland before
• I knew a few Polish people and I even liked some of them (this is soft power)
• Poland, as an Accession (2014) country, was arguably the reason why British people wanted to leave the EU.

The third item seems debatable but I'm happy to have that debate any time. Not one to go to one place, I decided to also go to Ukraine as it was neighbouring, I'd not been there either and I knew a few Ukrainians that I liked. And as it happens it was in an odd political space being pulled by Russia as an ex-Soviet state and pushed to the EU by desires to be a functioning part of the continent.

I travelled in a similar vein in 2010 when Cameron came to power which I didn't want to see. And like 2010, it hasn't quite been as smooth a transition to the next stage that I had feared. It has been a different kind of shitshow altogether.

Brexit has been a chastening experience, all told, and has seen me feel varying degrees of detachment and attachment to the UK as time has worn on. My blogging had always been a way to order thoughts (link) and pretty effective in making me feel better. The process, and the results, of that blogging has been having positive effects but I've been a little less forthcoming with posts (other than gyudon related posts)of late. The reason? Honestly? Brexit. Brexit has been quite debilitating for me and making sense of it all has been a journey that is unending and unyielding. I don't think I have been operating at what I thought was my normal level for a while now. I've tried to gather my thoughts on Brexit a few times but it is really hard to go back far enough, to order them in any meaningful way and also not become exhausted with rage.

This feeling has been pretty obvious to some and less obvious to others but it has asked some questions of me that I probably didn't want to answer. Chief among them -”Do I belong?”

Is the UK racist?

The interesting thing about this question is the difference between “is the UK racist? “ and “are British people racist?”. That's probably for another time, to be honest, but there would be different answers, I think, to those questions.

Running through my life as a Briton and Londoner, I'm not sure I noticed much racism within my lived experience^[2] . I cannot think of any that I comprehended at primary school and just some odd comments at secondary school that were passive rather than active. Racism wasn't on my radar at all and I remember, at secondary school, hearing about some form of prize or scholarship for minorities and wondering how that was fair. My school friends were all “white” to me to distinguish them from my friends via family who were largely of Bengali descent. It was only later that I realised how few of my “white” friends were actually white - it was a fairly classic multicultural environment.

University was my first, extended exposure to people that were not from London (or even cities at all) and, like a reverse of so many people that escape from small towns to the fresh air of University life, I was met by a new life. I didn't particularly like university life and regularly felt out of place in ways that I had not done before. I don't think this was racism either, in the main. But I do remember people often being a bit off with me in the first few weeks. It felt a little like a monoculture, to be honest. So far, so quiet.

After university, I went to Japan and that opened my eyes, a little more, to racism (in the sense of prejudice based on race). I taught English and the disappointment in some faces to be taught by a British person like me seemed palpable (but never voiced - so it could be paranoia). I think I generally won them over but that little kick of disappointment is one I sense in other situations now^[3] . I went to Japan in 2003 and the other big global event in that year was probably the Iraq war. Anti-Muslim sentiment ran high in the UK^[4] at the time and there were a few marches. One of those marches was said to be the biggest in modern political times^[5] and I was fairly anti-war at this point. I went to a demo/march in Tokyo too and my representative status there really gave me food for thought. If, for whatever reason, I'd been caught up in anything (such that the embassy would have to step in), I have no doubt that I would have been vilified by the right-wing press. How much would I belong to the British citizenship at that point? The biggest impact, however, was not my lived experience but my observed experience. Japan is a pretty monocultural environment and most of my friends there were other teachers - usually white. Some were very aware of, and sensitive to, (perceived) racism towards them in spite of not actually being able to understand Japanese to any real level. The classic exemplar of the time was when two white female teachers (and friends at the time) sat on either side of a Japanese woman on a train and the woman offered to swap with one. She offered in Japanese but also motioned to explain so that the friends could sit together. This seemed pretty kind and considerate to me (I was, of course, standing) and the teachers accepted. Afterwards, however, I was told that the woman had offered her seat because she didn't want to be surrounded by “gaijin” (foreigners ^[6]). This was claiming victimhood^[7] and made me think of all the things that they would definitely dismiss as not racist if it had happened to me in the UK.
One thing I've learnt is that British people are not racist (or xenophobic). They can't be - they are better than others. Brexit feels like this dissonance made flesh.

We were all representatives in Japan and I didn't take that responsibility lightly. I felt the weight of responsibility from a young age (maybe five or so) when I used to go to Bangladesh with my parents. I don't think I was ever told this, but I had to be engaging and Bengali enough to represent British Bengalis as part of the culture. It probably was never going to be enough for some - as I felt on later visits. In the same way that I will never be British enough for some people and, caught between those two stools, sometimes it feels inevitable that this means falling into the abyss.

Returning to the UK in 2006, it all seemed fine in my lived experience but I could see more and more anti-immigrant rhetoric from the mainstream media with the added benefit being that it could not be “racist” because we now disliked some white people too (Romanians [Farage says this: link], for example). This was the poison injected into the country's bloodstream and the amazing wrongness of the position was clear to me and then made even clearer at a talk I went to by David Goodhart [link]. That takes me to 2013 - and not June 2016. June 2016 was not the beginning of the sense of it, it was a tipping point though and I felt the split a month before the vote [link] when I visited Yorkshire. Ultimately I have not really suffered directly but have seen and heard enough to feel anxious about my place. And not just my place, but the place of people that are not like me and the fact that the clarity of Goodhart's position is never swayed by facts. And he is meant to be a clever one. The Pandora's Box is clearly open and I'm not sure if it can be shut soon.

This all predates the referendum itself and is worth pointing out to the many that seem to think it was all OK before that. But, it was better. The difference is how much people have been emboldened by now feeling that loads of people are actually racist/xenophobic like them.

The referendum and all that has come after it has absolutely shaken my sense of belonging to the country and also my belief that people in power actually knew when they didn't know something and would then defer as a result of that self-awareness.

I often feel like an alien in the UK and I also feel burdened with this sense that people that hate immigration actually hate me. And that I have not done enough to make them not hate me - and by extension anyone else, other people considered as immigrants, that is lumped with me.

I don't think people necessarily realise the pressure that some people from minority groups can feel in the representative sense. I know that my actions will, for many people, define a whole group of people. If I act badly, many will see that as people like me acting badly. For white men, they will not tar all white men with the same thing.

I have always thought this, but travelling with a friend recently reminded me of this disconnect more. I thought of how I try to stay calm and not raise my voice when speaking to staff at airports/airlines for example. And how if I spoke any differently, I am far more likely to be hauled away. As one of them.
I'm not coping well. I look around and wonder:

"Why are you not concerned?"; "Why do you do nothing?".

And then I think:

"Is it because you know you won't be first against the wall?"; “Is this solidarity?”

Brexit has sort of broken me, to be honest, by breaking that sense of belonging. And we all need a sense of belonging, we all choose what group we decide to belong to, to some degree but some of those choices are taken away.

I don't know how to put this really. I have a sense of loss. A disconnect from society. I guess I always knew that they never really had my back but then tried to pretend it wasn't the case. And I always felt that the "they" here were not as numerous as they are.

But they probably are that numerous.

I'll never forget, of course, but I'm also not sure I will ever forgive.

<sup>1. This word. This word… ↩
2. I was clearly aware of it outside my circle but, as someone that didn't go outside of London much as a child in the UK, I didn't feel it. I felt at home here but I didn't know that particular feeling was what I felt - I didn't have anything to compare it to. How would anyone feel at home if they've never felt not at home? ↩
3. Usually, when I tell people I am an accountant, for example.↩
4. More often called Islamophobia now to the disgust of racists, such as Melanie Phillips, who think this is a made up word. Because, of course, most words are given to us from up on high as any etymologist would tell you. ↩
5. Some are saying that the Brexit march of 23 March 2019 which I missed due to this holiday in Ukraine might have been bigger. ↩
6. I use this word as this is the word they knew for foreigners and is often pejorative (instead of gaikokujin). ↩
7. I think claiming victimhood is a major driver of the right wing's populist movement and this can be seen regularly in the claim of being against an elite and having an incredibly pliant media still be against them. ↩</sup>

How can you get out the vote?

Democracy needs a lot of things to operate effectively, but the most obvious seems to be people to vote. 

Proper political parties have a ground operation that is active all year around knocking on doors and making contact with the electorate that they either serve or seek to serve^[1]. Amongst the many questions that those parties will be asking as they go door knocking is whether they support that particular party or not - the classic "can i count on your support at the next election?". That answer, replicated across the constituency, gives data to use. It gives a good indication of how people will vote throughout a given ward^[2]. If someone has pledged to vote for you, then that means that not only have they said they support your party but they also say they will vote for the party. As turnout is so important and the government of the day focus all their attention on certain demographics - it is clear that supporters are not always the same as voters. 

The GOTV, or “get out the vote” operation is something you may have unwittingly noticed at the polling station but like an iceberg, that is just the tip of a deeply submerged plan. 

Telling

Tellers are those people outside the polling station with a scrap of paper and a pen that will often ask for your electoral number and note that down. They are outside the polling station as they cannot interfere with the station itself. The people administering the polling station must be impartial and there are strict instructions to not in any way persuade you to vote. The tellers are, however, party specific so you may be wondering what they are for. They can't persuade (this also should include the rosette that tellers even wear. They cannot ask you to vote for a party so a rosette labelled Labour is OK but Vote Labour - an instruction, is not) you and they can't ask you how you voted so what is their purpose? Why would they want your electoral number? 

Command Centre

The telling operation works in conjunction with other parts of the election day ground operation run from base and the tellers pass those numbers back to base where the tellers from each polling district can also send data. Those numbers are cross-referenced with the contact data to see whether the "pledges" have been out to vote. The number of people that can vote is known so the operation knows that x thousand are able to vote. The telling operation gives live (or close to live depending on how quickly the tellers can collate numbers) data on y thousand people that have voted. Cross-referencing the electoral numbers against the pledged votes means that the operation can also have a good indication of how many votes (z) it can rely on that have been cast. It can only ever be an indication as you never know how people have voted in the security of the ballot box. The UK has a secret ballot system so people that profess to vote in one way can very much actually vote in a different way. This "shy" voter phenomenon is one of the reasons why, over the last few years, Labour polling has been stronger than their actual performance and the Conservatives have had better elections that their polling suggests. The Shy Tory phenomenon is hypothesised to be where people are so ashamed of themselves for wanting to be more selfish than they actually want others to think they are - which extends even to speaking to strangers on the phone when polled. This is also thought to be a factor in the eventual surprise in the EU referendum of 2016 as people weren't feeling comfortable to say different to what those around them did. The Conservative party have traditionally done better with lower turnout for myriad reasons but the recent methods used by the Conservative party have been increasingly obvious to keep the numbers of voters lower. This has mainly involved making it harder to register on the electoral roll^[3] and although most parties have urged people to register, the government party of the day have been conspicuous in not reminding people. 

Door knocking 

So x, y and z makes it such that you get an idea of turnout as it progresses in the day and if your pledged votes are coming in. What can you do with such data? Well, this is where some foot soldiers help as you can go and remind people to vote. For reasons that don't fully make sense, you can't campaign on this day so this process of chasing down your own votes is the finishing off of a job that is almost complete but it needs to be done. It also means that you only ask people if they have voted rather than any other questions which means there is less opportunity for aggressive behaviour (this is also a good time to flag up potential issues to elected politicians and I have noted down, for our councillors to follow up, where residents have asked for help on an issue or dangerous situations) . I have also been involved in helping with transport to the polling station although it must be clarified that this can still not be only for those that vote in a certain way. When I have done this, it has always been as a result of contact by the councillor in the area asking if they want help. I'm proud that this help is given too, it is not efficient due to the time taken but it is incredibly heartening to help people exercise their democratic rights. I mean, they can use a postal vote too, but I rather like the act of voting and I hope others do too. 

As the day rolls on, the command centre will have an idea of how it is progressing and, if they decide to, can realign the resources appropriately. This may mean asking other groups to help or donating resource to other groups - this is an effective way of doing what you can and only really works if people believe in the same thing. Polling finishes at ten so you can make a call as to whether it is worth continuing or reallocating the time. 

Volunteers come in and out as they can to fit in with their day, some come with kids, some with friends but everyone with a sense of duty and belonging. 

I've found these days to be amongst the most important for me to be involved as you see the action, you see the fight and you feel, for some moments, a little bit of hope. I would highly recommend donating a little bit of your time to do this if you can, you might like it but you will be helping. Let's try and get turnout as high as we can.

<sup>1. And these should be the only options available to them↩
2. A constituency is made up of wards. For example, I live in the Holborn & St Pancras constituency which is represented by my MP. For Council elections, I am in the Kentish Town area made up of a number of wards. A councillor will generally, here, be responsible for a few wards which can constitute quite different demographic elements, as of course a given constituency does too.↩
3. There is decent evidence on how making it harder for those that are more geographically active in moving around has the effect of making it harder for non-conservatives more generally by affecting the younger generations more. This is thought to be another potential reason why the Brexit vote ended up as it did as the Conservative party had tried to lock in the older, more traditional voters and not the more open-minded progressive voters (generally).↩</sup>

Immigration, race and David Goodhart

I have let some time pass (about a week) to see if I would change my thoughts after a period of reflection - I didn't.

------------------------------------

On my travels, I saw a moderately interesting speaker called David Goodhart [@David_Goodhart]. David Goodhart is one of David Cameron's [@David_Cameron] favourite xenophobes as he somehow believes that he adds some legitimacy to his obvious racism. The reason for this legitimacy is that Mr Goodhart heads up a thinktank that has said it is of the left - Demos. I have a feeling that Cameron may like him for his views and his former school (guess - it is Eton, of course) - though not sure which is more important. Similar to all the (more vocal) people that cross the divide of left to right, he seems to have realised a little late that his "comrades" did not seem to believe in the divisiveness of singling people out for their place of birth/skin colour and attacks the apparently homogenised "left" with the zeal of a born-again evangelist. For some context, this is in the same week as #racistvan[1] stories were in the press and the continuing EDL campaign ran on.

He is touring (this could be rhymed with a leading "h" sound) his anti-immigrant/immigration book at the moment "The British Dream" (named with a deliberate allusion to the American Dream) which has had a mixed reception. The usual suspects have jumped on it as with any debate around immigration - those that are numerate have called it incoherent, those that are in the Right-Wing Press have called it a damning indictment of Labour's open door immigration policy. I sometimes worry at the apparent lack of Venn diagram intersection there sometimes.

This review [link] in the LRB by Jonathan Portes [@jdportes] could be good context. I had not read the book or the review at the point of the discussion. Interestingly many of those that disagreed with him in the last CIF piece I read of his [here] kept calling him Portas - a delightfully subtle way of showing that you had not read the piece or could not handle detail.

The talk was in London (Camden to be a little more precise) and the city, for all its faults, is a diverse place with plenty of differing people and ideas intermingling.

Or so I thought.

Apparently, it wasn't as it appeared and we live parallel lives where we pretend to all get along but actually it is all a façade - we are deeply divided on racial lines. He then used a load of statistics that may have been entirely accurate as data points but were not quite supportive of his points as he was using them as proxies to mean something else. And this is so common in immigration debates as you are often using these proxies to talk about people to other people that are ignorant of what they mean. I don't mean this pejoratively (maybe I could have used a better word, the fact I didn't may suggest something), but many people genuinely do not understand households outside of their immediate community. One that annoys me a lot is the use of "first language" or "mother tongue" statistics to point to an idea (and it always seems to be used for that) of a bulk of immigrants that cannot speak English competently, or at a native level. [link]

The statistic that often goes with it, to emphasize the sense of "other" and parallel lives, is households that do not predominantly speak English at home. Needless to say, I fall into both categories. I didn't speak English at home, my parents do not speak English with each other and so English is spoken in my family home only between myself and my sibling. My parents both had "professional" roles in their English-speaking workplaces and myself and my sister have both been through higher education in English-speaking environments - I have even been in gainful employment teaching it.

This writing here may not always be of the highest standard, it may sometimes be incoherent and there might be some problematic sentence structures, but it is clearly at a native level. Isn't it? Or am I labouring under some misapprehension that I can communicate (maybe not effectively, but less a linguistic issue, more communicative...)?

Interestingly, there is census data that captures whether people do not speak English^[2] that could be used directly rather than trying to ascertain from other bits of information.

138,000 (note the UK population is approximately 60,000,000 - so about 0.2%) [link]

And then this "does not speak English" data is actually used as a proxy for something else anyway. But what does it even mean? Is someone who does not speak English now unintegrated and also impossible to integrate? The thrust of these articles is that there are "these people" who live here and don't understand and will not (try to) understand.

Census data is a snapshot in time - it does not show intention and future expectation. It is entirely unclear what happened to those 138,000:

Were they here temporarily and so never learnt English? Did they then learn English? Were they actually mute?

Another statistic, quoted by Goodhart, is about how many people now live in areas where they do not have "white-British" neighbours and this is used as evidence of ghettoization. Again, I do not have two sets of neighbours that are exclusively "white-British". As it happens, I believe one of my neighbouring flats has a couple with a white partner and non-white partner (not sure if they fulfil "white-British" criteria) which would be further "proof" of my ghettoization as I am now in a non-white-British part of town and we have separated ourselves from white people. Goodhart also uses the loaded term "white flight" with gay abandon and when questioned over this, he says that he writes his pieces for a more academic audience which will be aware of the meaning of this and it is not inflammatory as a result. I'm not sure if he genuinely believes that or if he is fully aware of the significance of these words.

I'm not the most opinionated person, and I'm not the least but I could not completely ignore his disregard for the effects of anti-immigrant feeling that regularly spills into racial, and other forms of, discrimination as he spoke of Woolwich and how even though tensions had been raised by his friends in the press, there had been little to worry the Islamic community so I interjected:

"What about the ongoing bombing campaign taking place around the mosques of the country?"[link]

His callous disregard for the loss of life (in islamophobia attacks) and the genuine feeling of fear that people understandably have was remarkable. Given the opportunity to comment, he said something about it not being that bad... And played down the statistics of islamophobic attacks with other statistics. I didn't go back to him on that point but discussing with others later, I did mention that the effect of any terror campaign cannot be captured by the statistics he talks about as people are scared to leave their houses.

He also talked of being in a post-racism world where people of all races were not subject to large levels of racism and were not held back in a meaningful way. Most people disagreed but there was one man, needless to say another white man, who agreed and said that the link between immigration and racism had been broken. He pointed out, as if to prove it, that immigrants from different communities have differing outcomes and that, for example, the Chinese community had higher levels of income and attainment than the "white British". And then, to show his incoherence, as held them up as proof that immigrants themselves shoulder the blame for their difficult circumstances, he also pointed out that they do of course have lower levels of income when compared with those that have similar levels of education... He gave an example of a small business not employing people with different sounding names being entirely reasonable as a small business is like a family and you have to be aware of a cultural fit. It was incoherent, frankly - as it seems he had a conclusion and the facts did not need to get in the way.

As he wrapped up, questions were sought and dealt with in groups. Of course I had questions but I reiterated my point about the on-going bombing campaign (and islamophobic murder before Woolwich [link]) and also tried to explain how difficult it is when people talk of a post-racist world when you then suffer any form of discrimination.

When a lot of people tell you something does not exist and then it happens to you, it can be a tricky one to process. If racist abuse does not happen, then why did it happen? Is it something special about me?^[3]

I asked about the statistical work he had done to control for the conclusions he was making. He spoke a lot about bogey-areas around London and levels of migration, immigration, employment engagement etc. in order to show how immigration had affected those areas. I simply asked him what he had done to control for the fact that urban areas will often be home to a younger, more mobile population and that in order to isolate the effects of one cause, you should isolate the others as much as possible. I wanted to know how much less integrated and successful were these immigrants than other people with the same level of income, savings, educational attainment etc etc. As he was an ex-journalist for the Financial Times, I did expect some level of numeracy and understanding of raw data.

As he dealt with the answers in groups, he ignored the substance of my question and spoke of other statistics. It was really frustrating.

I found the disregard for the difficulties that immigrants, and the children of immigrants faced to be quite disheartening actually, as if the fact that they were inconvenienced by having worse outcomes, suffering racist abuse and discrimination was not a problem.

To be fair to him, he took more questions than he had to (extending the time) and also came to the pub afterwards to talk (and even offered me a drink). In all honesty though, his viewpoint was fixed which is understandable as he has done the research and looked into it with the methodologies he believes in (I don't agree with the methodology but the raw data is fine).

What some people always say is "the public wants less immigration so it is not a party political point - democracy has spoken".

I think this is a little disingenuous.

Firstly, democracy is not the simple matter of counting votes and doing what more people want. This is the simplistic way that it is initially taught so that people can conceptually understand but democracy is also about enfranchising people - recognising them so that they can effectively be part of that democracy. That is why you have minority rights in democratic nations and those minorities are treated equally (to a greater or lesser extent) to allow them to be empowered and involved. Democracy only works if everyone is given a voice before the vote.

Secondly, what anyone wants is based on what they know - or more accurately, what they think are the facts on the ground. It is a simple (input - process - output) loop but if the inputs are false, it is difficult to see how you would get the right output (except by pure chance). What the population think is the case and what actually is the case can be vastly, vastly different to each other. [link] So they want less immigration than what they think is happening. Which is what we have right now -  significantly less immigration than they think is happening..

What does that mean? Should we ignore the concerns of people who see one thing happening which they associate with something else? I think this is the real question of democracy in the modern age actually.

I don't know how widely thought of the concept of "materiality" is but basically, deal with the big problems first. And don't guess at the problems, actually find out what they are.

If there is a problem with housing, it probably isn't immigration that is causing it (it might be a factor but you need to look into the causes), it is probably housing policy.

If there is a problem with education, it probably isn't immigration that is causing it (it might be a factor but you need to look into the causes), it is probably education policy.

If there is a problem with employment, it probably isn't immigration that is causing it (it might be a factor but you need to look into the causes), it is probably employment policy.

^{1. It may not have been racist had it been targeted in areas other than those with large brown-skinned communities exclusively. And had translation services for languages other than Indic ones. It was, and it didn't.↩}

^{2. This type of census data is quite weak anyway (it may be higher than 138k - or lower) as it is self-assessment... The global economic situation should have taught you to be wary of self-assessment and self-regulation. When I lived abroad, I'd have said that I was unable to speak the language were I asked in a form - but they could have asked me that question in that language and I would have understood.↩}

3. I have been fortunate about direct racial abuse and can only remember one instance in recent years in the UK that was directly at me and I was flabbergasted. But part of the reason for that is that you do not have a defence mechanism and it is all the more shocking for that. I have not been particularly affected by it and the vast majority of people are entirely liberal about it.

I don't know how successfully I have "integrated" into British society but I have tried and it is not made any easier by that feeling of anxiety and discomfort that some of this chat engenders in me. I'm not an idiot, I know I am treated a little differently but it is offensive to suggest otherwise, frankly. Victim-blaming is an all too common occurrence at the moment and it needs to be checked.↩

Dubai/Singapore: musings on cities of modernity

Musings, or incoherent ramblings - the judgment is yours. This may be written in a slightly different style too, as a result.

NOTE: before you read this, you know I am critical about things, this does not mean I did not like it. I think that should be clear to those that actually know me, but I know it has often been misunderstood. :-) Not everyone appreciates a nuanced position! I tried to put the photo album posts in fairly plainly and without too much judged comment. Not sure I succeeded.

Naming it the "Beacons Of Democracy"^[1] was a joke, clearly, but it is interesting that the two cities bookending my visit to Malaysia/Indonesia are major cities with a globalised outlook that seem to be more "developed"^[2] than their neighbours in many ways.
I think there are some real questions as to why that is but that is not what I get/got asked upon my holiday being over. When I'm asked how was your holiday and what did you think of , the second one feels like a loaded^[3] question - and it is only right to answer in a loaded manner.


What is Dubai famous for?
There is plenty of history and heritage in the Middle East and a lot of booming economies but that is not what is seen as special by those in power. A lack of a proper, democratic planning process (though, ironically, these places have well thought out plans - just not thought through properly) means destruction of cultures and communities for a homogenised "modernity". There are social reasons for this (aren't there always? ;-)).
There is a definite feeling of "we built this". They are much more statements of intent than anything else - and they show up the insecurity that some newer cities (understandably) can have. I think that is why the Burj Khalifa is so much larger than its competitors, it cannot be overtaken easily. I can understand it though - what else do you know about Dubai? It does make a name for it. Would anyone come to London for the Shard^[4]? Will it have international named recall? If I remember correctly, it is the tallest in Europe, or was at least. It in no way defines anyone's London, whereas I think the Gherkin actually does to some degree. We are a little spoilt to have built up a city and a legacy over many centuries.
The Burj Khalifa is a little silly though. I think, at 829.8m, it is about 200m taller than the next but the observation deck is only a little more than about halfway up at 450m (which is 50% taller than the Shard in totality). It is great to be high up and looking down but then a part of me thinks - only if there is something to look down on^[5]. Dubai has a coast of course (not that I really saw it in my day and a half this time) but I did not go up there so cannot comment on the view. 
Dubai, and Singapore, are the classic "new" vertical cities and work well as stopovers in my opinion as they are generally compact. They are not really anarchic enough to be interesting as holidays for me. I know that is quite a personal preference though. KL was a little like that too - and aiming to be more like that and the Petronas Towers were apparently a pointer in that direction.
When I went to Shanghai the second time (2007), I was struck by the skyline - it was awesome in the literal sense - in the style of shock and awe. And the comparison to military seemed appropriate, it really reminded me of those Russian military parades through Moscow.

Look upon our wonders and despair.

Someone asked me what I thought of Singapore and I said it reminded me of a charmless Hong Kong (and I found HK "island" to be relatively charmless at the time - it isn't really but that may be partly due to Sleeping Dogs). It sounds harsh - especially as I enjoyed my time in Singapore a lot, but there was a brashness to it that also came through. As cities built around commerce, and quite specifically ex-pat commerce, they do suffer a little from being international and a little benign. There is plenty of interest in Singapore, and those that live there seem to genuinely love it, so this may be a personal position.
The fundamental difference between the two cities (in my experience) there is a feeling of evolution there rather than big-bang. Singapore has that a little too, but nowhere near. But "new" cities do have their charms too - I think you would be able to still enjoy them but for a shorter period. You know, cathedrals to commerce and consumerism rather than religion. Both help the weak in their own way.

It may just be that I don't feel an emotional connection but they are not interesting in the same way as major European cities are. I think a large part of that for me is how walkable a place is. Dubai is not walkable (outdoors) at all and clearly revolves around car usage. I'm just not really a fan of car travel (as you may know) and it always makes me feel really insulated from the surroundings. I took the Dubai metro to the airport from my cousin's when I left and it seems in that journey (45mins), I had apparently used the metro more than all of the three couples/young families I knew in Dubai, combined. Singapore is a little better in this respect as the city is far more integrated with the infrastructure.

I have done a a little travel around Europe and, for some reason, think of a trip to the industrial city of Milan. Nobody calls it a beautiful city (although nearby Como is pretty lovely...), but I think that it kind of serves its purpose after all and it is still more charming than some megacities that are built recently. Thinking of Milan, for instance, the fact that the metro system reminded me of a grey prison train was part of the trip for me. And the fact it felt lived in, the cracks in the city were not cracks in a façade, but just ageing. There wasn't really a "behind the curtain" to it and I sometimes feel there is with other places. In Shanghai (in 2004 and 2007), the city felt very different when you strayed even marginally off the beaten path (by which I mean main roads).

Some of this is time and evolution of course, Europe's cities were also not exactly open before and would have been remarkably ostentatious in the past. I do think we have become more enlightened as to the purpose of cities (people!) but I do not think it is coincidence that the countries I visited were not exactly hotbeds of democracy. I guess fast developing countries rarely use democratic means to get there. I also do not think that it is just a coincidence that they were within the British Empire and have strong UK influences, historically.

It is totally true that the terrible conditions that workers are put through in Dubai et al have parallels with the historical growth of European cities. And some of the supposedly ludicrous things in Dubai also have parallels in our great European cities. Is an air-conditioned beach really worse than heated swimming pools? Is the Victoria Embankment a blight on the natural ecology of the Thames? How many died to bring sewage control or underground railways to London? How many displaced for the national rail network? That was the money men lording it over the little people too. Camden is essentially a town that housed workers and navvies whilst all this stuff was built.

The difference is timing - as this happened before in our case - and society is happy to compare when it suits.
There is one other difference too, and a major one - experience. The modern cities are not trailblazing in the way London (or Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam etc.) were, they are following and essentially making some incremental improvements. That means that they are also aware of the negative parts of expansion. Post-enlightenment, I don't think you can say "they did it too centuries ago". It is wilfully irresponsible now.
Dubai, like Las Vegas, is an irresponsible cityscape with few thoughts about sustainability - which is a shame as it could be so much more. And the problem with the infrastructure is that it is entirely dependent on "oil" or energy use. In Dubai's case that infrastructure is predicated on car use. I think a huge problem is that the kind of place it is, and the type of people it attracts, is that they do not believe that taxation is a thing. I believe that the natural way of things is a tax on things to pay for the problems that they cause. That means that, essentially, things that are untaxed are being subsidised. As it is, we do subsidise Dubai as they do not allow people to stay there - so when it comes to the point when they are no longer "economically active", they are booted back to their homes and must be supported (eg pensions, care infrastructure) by us. I think that is essentially what I have difficulty with (and there are parallels in history for similar things with the industrial revolution but that was with something other than human capital).

<sup>1. I called it this in jest as some people think of my trip to be a little incongruous with my character.↩
2. What developed means is open to debate of course.↩
3. This is possibly paranoia, but I know some people do like to set me off and watch me go.↩
4. I have been told that it is a new hotel, for the Olympics - and I doubt many longer term Londoners even know it has a hotel in there, not sure it was designed for that at all.↩
5. I'd fully imagine this to change over time of course - it is already impressive of course.↩</sup>