Britain is in a housing crisis that's being exacerbated by aggressive gentrification

A few years ago, I moved from one area of London to another. There wasn't anything particularly remarkable about my move and admittedly, I hardly downgraded in my new living arrangement. However, I had moved from where I had spent most of my life to date and was effectively priced out due to gentrification.

The tale of my neighbourhood is one that mirrors the experience of many others like it. Once a largely working class and ethnically diverse community, good transport links and banks’ lenient lending criteria made it ripe as a property hotspot that owner-occupier, buy-to-let and commercial buyers eyed as a solid investment.

Like many inner city areas, it wasn't without some social challenges including a notorious estate, high unemployment and high levels of deprivation. Nevertheless, that made properties cheaper to buy for anyone enterprising enough and able to realise what was happening.

Gradually, the character began to change. Property prices rose to exorbitant levels and newer, middle class residents were happy to pay the asking price. Local amenities reflected their desires while established local businesses struggled. New builds appeared, again attracting similar residents with prices that were clearly telling established locals that this was no longer their community. A socio-economic hostile takeover had now been effected.

Some reading this may argue that considering my earlier description, the neighbourhood needed to undergo a change. I can hear some rhetorically asking ‘surely neighbourhoods with challenging circumstances plus free market principles equals warranted gentrification?’ Granted, the neighbourhood was in need of improvements but not at the expense of its character and pricing out its residents.

Just as in other neighbourhoods, many sensing the opportunity scooped up properties as buy-to-let investments when they were at bargain basement prices. This was largely thanks to the pre-property boom era and Margaret Thatcher’s policy of Right to Buy (a scheme allowing social housing to be bought at a discount by tenants but often abused by third parties using tenants and their discount eligibility as a front). Although these buyers don't have any intention of charging affordable rents to working class locals. One could say they don't have to as they’re in the property market to make a profit. Though that leaves the local authorities to provide affordable social housing and there's a lack of social housing available to do so.

The overarching legacy of Right to Buy means that most social housing has been sold off and it hasn't been replaced (the expensive apartments courting ‘young professionals’ as their buyers or tenants couldn't be further from the social housing that should have been built in their place). And as for buying, for many people on modest incomes, even schemes such as shared ownership or Help to Buy (which presents its own problems) can remain elusive due to the traditional routes of raising a deposit via savings, inheritance or parental support being largely exclusive to the middle classes.

When Conservative MP Garvin Barwell suggested that the housing crisis be eased by grandparents leaving an inheritance to grandchildren rather than their own children, it might have been well meaning but it was hugely ignorant and suggestive of how clueless he is of a life beyond his own circle. For many, it’s an option that just doesn't exist; something that isn't a reality for Barwell and his peers.

Consequently, you have a section of society that has nowhere to turn for affordable, decent accommodation and is increasingly denied the routes to accessing it.

This is the crux of the housing crisis we're faced with; with a paucity of affordable housing that successive governments have failed to address, we're now seeing a restricting of access to such housing in traditionally working class neighbourhoods and to those who need it the most. Housing is instead being offered up to the middle classes because they’re the only ones that can afford it. It means they can profit while residents on low or modest incomes are displaced away from their families and their communities or subject to unacceptable living standards.

When I moved from the part of London I'm originally from, I was essentially priced out but I was hardly displaced. I was fortunate that there was still an element of choice in my decision to move but many others are not. A lack of affordable housing limits their choices and increasingly foists an unwanted move upon them that they're in no position to oppose. Indeed, many tenants who can’t move are effectively trapped until the inevitability of eviction.

Speak to teachers working in many inner city communities and they’ll tell you of many of their students’ families being forced to move away from the school. As a result, students are made to leave their friends and the stability offered by schools that youths need and crave. In addition to the bedroom tax and the benefit cap having the same effect, gentrification has meant that private landlords are increasing rents to levels that modest incomes just can't service. And a barely regulated private rental sector and insecure tenancies encourage these landlords’ attitudes.

Most of these families are hardworking people in employment, not the ‘benefit scroungers’ or 'chavs’ that the Daily Mail, Brexiters and Tories would have you think. So now the message is even if you work hard, you still can't be guaranteed of affordable, quality housing. Clearly the Conservative vision of ‘work hard and you can get anything’ doesn't apply to the working class.

For those families who don't move away from their community, the result is overcrowding, and often in local accommodation that many would consider squalor, because it remains the only affordable and local option. I lived in overcrowded accommodation for over a decade and know first hand how it affects children during their formative years.

Beyond the perpetual struggle to find somewhere to do your homework with adequate space, that’s conducive to studying without the noise and activity from the rest of the household, where do younger children especially play? Your interpersonal skills are hampered because you can't invite friends over due to a lack of space and you’re denied the space to just 'be’, which is crucial in your formative years but taken for granted by so many.

You see, the housing crisis isn't just about having somewhere to live. It affects families, children and their social and emotional growth and the stability that we all, especially children, desire in our lives. Adequately addressing it is more about providing the basic standards of living that most expect yet many are denied and gentrification therefore just makes a serious problem even worse.

Just as Brixton has been transformed beyond recognition since the Brixton riots in 1981, Tottenham is experiencing the same fate since its own unrest in 2011. But the 'regeneration’ being pushed by Tottenham Hotspur in building their new stadium is intensifying it.

Walk through Tottenham today and you’ll see shiny new estate agents popping up, poised for what they know is on the verge of happening with the already rapid appreciation of property prices in the area. Many social housing tenants have already been moved by Haringey Council to make way for the stadium’s expansion and many private tenants have been forced to move or evicted because their landlords have hiked their rents to reflect property value in the area.

Tottenham, like Brixton and many others before it, is changing. The vibrancy of the community is being traded for Tottenham Hotspur’s ambitions, which Haringey Council is happy to encourage and provide tokenistic scrutiny and checks and balances to. The lack of provision of affordable housing in the process is more than collateral damage. It's part of the socio-economic engineering that can be seen in our communities.

Under the guise of regeneration and improving communities for everyone, gentrification is providing a vehicle for the 'them and us’ neoliberal narrative. Furthermore, it also serves to push the worsening housing crisis. Families are displaced, health and well-being are affected and affordable housing becomes harder to find. The message from rampant and unchecked gentrification is that the middle classes deserve quality accommodation and a decent standard of living because they can afford it. Yet for others, it’s a basic right that society is happy to deny.

No black America, you aren't the custodians of the diaspora’s experience and culture

Earlier this week, a friend put me onto a Hot 97 interview with Samuel L. Jackson where he spoke about the influx of black British actors in America. Indeed, many black British actors are experiencing stateside success and Jackson was somewhat aggrieved that this was taking the roles of his compatriots and peers. However, what I took umbrage with was the subtext of Jackson’s comments on his perception of the validity of the black British experience representing the diaspora. This was when talking about black British actor Daniel Kaluuya being cast in Get Out, a horror comedy about contemporary racism.

“I know the young brother who’s in the movie, and he’s British… There are a lot of black British actors that work in this country. All the time. I tend to wonder what would that movie [Get Out] have been with an American brother who really understands that in a way. Because Daniel [Kaluuya] grew up in a country where they’ve been interracial dating for a hundred years. Britain, there’s only about eight real white people left in Britain … So what would a brother from America have made of that role? And I’m sure the director helped. Some things are universal, but everything ain’t.”

Since it was aired, the interview has had plenty of media coverage, much of it surrounding Jackson's criticism of black British actors taking US roles (Jackson has sought to clarify his comments saying his criticism was more of the system than targeted at British actors). Nonetheless, that doesn’t change the fact that there was a clear undertone in Jackson’s utterances that he, like many African Americans, see themselves as the custodians of the diaspora’s experience and culture. Although, not only is that not a role they undoubtedly do not possess, given contemporary African American culture, one could argue they aren’t qualified to assume it either.

I like and respect Samuel L. Jackson. Despite some questionable roles, he has a solid body of work and cannot be denied as a talent and veteran within the arts and the black diaspora. But when it comes to talking about black British culture, identity and experience, it’s something he’s hugely ignorant to and therefore needs to fall back and pipe down because he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.

On interracial relationships in the UK, they are surely growing but the 2011 UK census showed 2.2% of the British population identified as mixed race while 86% identified as white. It’s hardly the erosion of the white race in the UK that Jackson alluded to. Furthermore, despite increased acceptance, interracial relationships are still somewhat a taboo in the UK which would suggest that the struggle of interracial harmony in the UK is very much present.

That struggle is compounded by the history of race relations in the UK. Black America doesn’t have a monopoly on the hardships of the diaspora when it comes to achieving equality and positive race relations. The British were responsible for the enslavement of millions of Africans; of whom many African Americans are descendents of. Then there was the subsequent British empire that replaced slavery with colonialism. Post World War 2, many blacks came from black majority colonies to settle in the UK, only to be met with hostility and abject racism that was the product of centuries of such attitudes in British society that are still present today.

As a result, British contemporary history is littered with race riots and unrest within the black British community. Notting Hill Gate in 1958. Toxteth in Liverpool in 1981. Brixton in 1981 and 1985. Broadwater Farm in Tottenham in 1985. The list goes on. Needless to say, the black British experience is absolutely no stranger to adversity. To suggest otherwise as Jackson has is unfounded and asinine. It’s part of our past and our present and we know just how real it is.

Jackson’s sentiments aren’t exclusive to him. There’s almost an African American ‘privilege’ that so many black Americans assume when it comes to being an authority on and an authentic representation of ‘blackness’. As a black British person who’s spent time in America, many African Americans are amazed that not only are you from the UK but that there are others like you. They feel your ‘blackness’ is perhaps less credible and less authentic because you aren’t from America and therefore can’t possibly have a valid black experience that would be akin to theirs. It beggars belief that a group that often considers itself an authority on the diaspora would be so ignorant to the diaspora beyond their own borders.

Black America undoubtedly has a troubled and anguished history itself when it comes to race relations which is well documented and arguably worse than that of black Britons when it comes to contemporary history. Just don’t attempt to reduce ours in articulating that we don’t know the struggle because we know it just as intimately as the rest of the diaspora.

Admittedly, generations of the black diaspora of yesteryear once looked to black America as a bastion of the culture. The Harlem Renaissance showcased black consciousness and promoted positive black identity and the influence of subsequent civil rights leaders transcended African Americans as its audience and inspired the diaspora as a whole. Yet that’s since changed, largely due to the lack of inspiration offered by black America and the disengagement that the rest of the diaspora has with it.

In contrast to the 70s, 80s, 90s and even early 00s, if you speak to black British youth today, they have little regard for or association with African American culture. The same goes for black French youth and the rest of the diaspora. America is no longer the stronghold it was once perceived for credibly representing the culture.

Even in representations of popular black culture such as music and the wider arts, African Americans are no longer considered to produce a quality product that represents the culture better than their peers elsewhere. Instead, black America has consistently diluted and damaged what were once authentic representations of the diaspora and some of the worst representations of the culture arguably come from black America.

It’s fair to say that no section of the black community has further bastardised the diaspora’s culture en route to aggressive commercialisation and monetisation than contemporary black America. Hence it’s difficult to refute the argument that black America doesn’t even deserve to be a custodian of the diaspora’s experience given the damage it’s already done.

I was discussing this very topic with some friends and commentators on the culture and we remarked on the plethora of African American celebrity endorsements of products that are ills for the community. This isn’t what Malcolm X, Martin Luther King et al wanted and black America has undone much of the work of such inspirational leaders who were rightly figures that the wider diaspora looked up to.

Black America isn’t without credible, respected and inspirational figures such as Cornel West and Dr Boyce Watkins. But America is also home to many modern day house negroes such as US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson (who compared slaves to immigrants) and YouTuber minstrels and Trump acolytes Diamond and Silk.

“I don’t know, maybe the slaves came for a holiday and stayed to make America great again?”

Despite generations of hardship and inequality, it’s hard to see black America as a safe pair of hands and mouthpiece for the diaspora when such attitudes are present within their community. Don’t get me wrong, we have black British house negroes of our own but none as visible or vocal as those within America. What does that say about the dichotomised black American experience today?

Black America’s heritage is undeniable. Similarly, the African American experience is one that sears through the often painful narrative of the diaspora. Though this doesn’t give black America a right to assert itself as a custodian of the diaspora’s experience or to claim theirs as being more valid than that of the rest of the culture. To assume that role, black America has much work to do and statements like that made by Samuel L. Jackson suggest they’re the last ones to realise it.

What should we make of Bellew’s defeat of Haye?

I cannot recall when my prediction for a fight was more wrong than it was for David Haye vs Tony Bellew (bizarrely, my partner who has no interest in boxing correctly predicted the result during fight week so perhaps I should have listened to her). I’ve got a lot of time for Bellew; he’s got moxy and heart in abundance, a decent skill set (better than many give him credit for) and he can punch and take a shot. He’s a solidly good fighter in my opinion, but not an elite one. Hence I didn’t think he could do anything to neutralise what Haye would bring with speed, explosiveness, accuracy and a natural weight advantage.

Overall, I stand by my assessment of both fighters and prior to the fight I was confident of a quick KO of Bellew within 3 rounds. Though that prediction was far from realised and at no point in the fight did it look like it would be either. Furthermore, in retrospect, perhaps my assessment of Haye was based on the Haye of yesteryear; not the fighter who had an almost 4 year layoff with consequent ring rust, injuries and (excluding Bellew) has only fought substandard opposition since his return to the sport.

I conceded that Haye’s previous two fights showed us little of how good he still was because they presented such limited challenges in his opponents. And at the back of my mind that was a small question mark over Haye. Nevertheless, I thought it was just a matter of time before he caught Bellew with a big shot, smelt blood and went in for a trademark clinical finish. Yet from the outset, the ending I envisaged became increasingly elusive.

Haye began the fight clearly looking for that big shot but with some untidy and reckless work that reflected clear ring rust. There wasn’t anything clinical about his boxing in the first round that I scored in favour of Bellew. Haye experienced more success in subsequent rounds within the first half of the fight and I scored it accordingly. Although he wasn’t eclipsing Bellew how many expected and the Liverpudlian wasn’t fazed by him either. Bellew took some solid shots from Haye but soaked them up and came back with some of his own. So much so that while Haye was still the favourite for me at this point, I thought a knockdown (where he’d get up to come back and win with a stoppage) might have been forthcoming.

Then, in round six, and ahead on my scorecard, Haye succumbed to an Achilles injury (that was rumoured to be the reason why he made a trip to Munich during fight week) which was probably exacerbated by a poor choice of boxing boots lacking adequate support. At that point, it was clear that the fight was Bellew’s for the taking. In the eleventh round, Haye’s corner did the right thing and Shane McGuigan threw in the towel knowing that not only was his fighter unable to compete until the final bell but that he was unable to win.

We shouldn’t detract from Bellew’s win but unlike many of the casuals and the media, we should be measured in how it’s discussed. Yes, Bellew took Haye’s biggest shots in the first half of the fight and came back with his own. Yes, he wasn’t afraid to trade with an explosive puncher a weight above his own weight class. And yes, he was the victor. For that, we must commend him. Nonetheless, after round 6, Bellew was fighting a man effectively fighting on one leg and therefore unable to unload anything meaningful. While Bellew fought well, he alone didn’t beat Haye; Haye’s injury played its part too.

Bellew and Haye were magnanimous warriors in victory and defeat respectively and it shows why boxing is one of the greatest sports in the world. Boxing is the hurt business but in few sports would you get such vitriolic needle in the build up juxtaposed to such an extent with the sporting behaviour and mutual respect shown by Bellew and Haye. Boxing might be branded a barbaric sport by its detractors. But seeing Bellew help Haye (a man who had made beyond spiteful and offensive utterances to his opponent in the build up) to his corner, while eschewing his team’s efforts to celebrate, showed the level of class Bellew possesses. He isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but the man is a certified gent without a doubt.

Similarly, unlike Haye’s defeat against Wladimir Klitschko, there was no citing of his injury. He rightly gave Bellew unreserved respect and kudos.

So what now for both fighters? Three fights since the return from his layoff and we’re yet to see the Haye we once knew. Has that been purely due to the level of opposition and in his latest fight his injury? Putting the injury aside, the first six rounds against Bellew were his opportunity to show us otherwise and had we seen it, Haye would have likely won the fight. At 36, Haye is running out of time to prove that he can regain his position on the top tier of the heavyweight tree. Has Father Time caught up with Haye or has he just been unlucky? If it’s the former, it could be time to call it a day, safe in the knowledge that he has a legacy as a former unified cruiserweight champion and a former heavyweight champion.

Haye called for a rematch but apparently his team were lukewarm toward the inclusion of a rematch clause in the contract. However, it remains an option for Bellew who before the fight said that he would give Haye a rematch. Bellew has more options in being able to return to cruiserweight to defend his WBC belt or challenge for a heavyweight title as mooted by Eddie Hearn. He could even walk away from the sport having achieved more than he expected and presumably being financially secure.

Eddie Hearn too has shown himself to have played yet another masterstroke as a highly adept promoter with impeccable timing for his fights. He’s also surely full of glee that David Haye seemingly no longer presents any obstacle to the Sky hype machine peddling the story of Anthony Joshua as the world’s greatest heavyweight.

It’s opined by many that Bellew was Eddie Hearn’s fodder for Haye to not only gauge how good the latter was before a potential fight with Joshua but also to stall a fight with the current IBF champion should he get past Klitschko. If the old Haye is still there, he beats Joshua everyday of the week but based on the first half of his fight with Bellew, it’s a much more evenly matched fight.

Bellew deserves the utmost respect in victory and for his post fight conduct towards Haye. But let’s not make more of his win than we should given the circumstances. Haye and his team now need to ask themselves if the loss was a case of bad luck or the tap of Father Time upon Haye’s shoulder. It remains to be seen what the answer is but it’s a question that needs to be answered as Haye assesses his next move in (or out) of the sport.

How the majors became minor

Why major labels no longer have the allure they once experienced

For millennial musicians, “getting signed [to a major label]” was once deemed the zenith of a fledgling music career; the gateway to becoming a mainstream star. Signing to a major label meant a sizeable budget to fund your project, its marketing and distribution. Being signed to a major label was literally major. It meant glossy videos, award ceremonies, going gold or platinum and huge exposure. And with the machine of the label behind you, artists saw being signed almost as a validation of their talent.

Despite their attraction, major labels haven’t always been without reproach. On Check the Rhime, Q-Tip rapped “industry rule number four thousand and eighty/record company people are shady”. Nevertheless, the alternative to a major label was the less glamorous route of either an independent label or going it alone and self funding your project. Though a major label deal brought with it prestige that the indie route just didn’t afford. If you weren’t signed to a major label, your success was questionable just by virtue of that alone.

On Terror Squad’s Let Them Things Go, Fat Joe disdainfully dissed rappers who had signed to now-defunct independent distributor, Koch Records -

“washed up rapper, you’re not respected/4 years passed and can't even sign to Koch Records”

Ironically, Fat Joe now releases his music via Empire Distribution rather than pursuing a traditional major label deal and signalling a shift in his own perception of major labels’ prestige. He isn’t the only one and from the perspective of artists, major labels have gradually been losing the sheen they once possessed within the landscape of the music industry. Many artists will now proactively eschew a major label in favour of being independent or, having experienced a major label deal, will seek to leave to go it alone.

Previously, breaking a record was done via DJs, radio and marketing; all within the gift of the label as to how aggressively they hit each aspect of the promotion. And if DJs and radio (and latterly television) didn’t like the song, there was always payola to get them to support it regardless.

With the internet, that changed. DJs were no longer the tastemakers and nor was the radio. Rather, they played what people had already decided they liked based on what they were downloading and streaming and what they were talking about on social media.

Online marketing expert Kris Trinity, CEO & Content Strategy Pro of Revolution Content Marketing, cites several precedents of artists across a range of genres who have heavily used social media to experience success without the backing of a major label. Most notably Chance the Rapper, who recently won three Grammy awards, has rejected several offers to sign to a label and opted not to sell any of his music. Instead, he makes money from touring and merchandise and uses a sweeping social media audience to serve his marketing needs and arguably above what a label could do for him. Furthermore, he retains all the creative and strategic control over his career that a label would likely stifle.

A platform like Patreon, where musicians can generate income directly from fans without signing to a label, also provides another option to a traditional career as a recording artist. Along with a comprehensive social media marketing strategy, Kris explains that from a marketing standpoint, commercial success is incredibly viable and companies like Revolution Content Marketing can increasingly effect this.

Social media has effectively usurped the expensive marketing that labels would once spend an artist’s budget on and it’s much more organic. After all, a strong social media strategy can promote a record or artist and their entire brand directly to your device in a way that street teams and traditional promotional methods can’t, and for a fraction of the cost.

In an age where physical music is being bought less, the cost of distribution has also plummeted and the finances of a major label means less than it once did. Suddenly, major labels aren’t so necessary after all and the justification of their business model, which artists are becoming increasingly aware of, isn’t either.

Broadly speaking, major labels operate like investors. They sign an act and invest in their brand and their project. They want to protect their investment so they give the act an advance to sustain themselves and a budget. That budget gets used for everything related to their project. Studio time, producers, everything. When the project is complete, they spend even more of the budget on marketing and distribution and then wait for a return on their investment.

Before the act see a penny of the profits, the label will recoup all the money they spent. That seems only fair as they did put the money up. However, once they’ve recouped, they typically take the lion’s share of profits while the artist sees a fraction. In contrast, putting out a project independently requires a lot of graft on the part of the artist and a big gamble for the artist and their backers in funding it. But if it sells well, they’ve backed a winner in receiving a significantly bigger share of the profits. They see a bigger share of the profits as the artist and their costs relating to the project are lower too. Thus profits comes quicker and their margins are bigger.

When Dizzee Rascal left XL Recordings (an independent yet established label) to go it alone and release Tongue N’ Cheek on his own Dirtee Stank label, it was his highest selling album to date. Dizzee would have been laughing all the way to the bank en route to his Miami penthouse.

As more artists are educated about the music industry, more consider the need let alone desire for a major label. What can they do for you that you now can’t do yourself? Technology has meant audio and video production equipment is accessible and affordable and music and visuals can now be uploaded to streaming sites and have gone viral within hours of being posted. It all begs the question, what do major labels now actually bring to the table?

The death knell hasn’t quite sounded for major labels but they’re arguably in the twilight of their existence in their current format. Having the machine of a major label still counts for something and there are many current artists that benefit from major label backing. They still have a wealth of knowledge of the music industry and can network to push a project to places an independent situation often can’t reach. For newer and less established artists, they can help to build a fanbase that should translate into sales. And for huge stars who need any ceiling to their success removed, the majors also still have relevance.

While the majors aren’t dead, people simply aren’t buying music as they used to because they don’t need to. The internet means we can hear what we want, when we want. As a result, the profit margins of major labels are being eroded in an industry that they no longer have in a chokehold. That’s led to the 360 deal as a desperate attempt to claw back some of their once gargantuan profits.

360 deals are said to provide synergy between all of an artist’s activities with the label having complete oversight in exchange for a share of all profits. Yet it’s another reason why a major label is increasingly less attractive for many.

In the future, major labels will have in excess of several decades worth of back catalogues from which bad contracts (for the artists) will probably still allow them to profit off of masters and publishing (which artists without due diligence were happy to relinquish amidst their zeal in signing a major label deal). Rather than having a current roster of artists, I envisage this becoming their primary revenue stream as their current structure becomes redundant for new artists.

Even today, viable alternatives to the major label route mean the majors have less pull than they once did. Therefore they need to make more compromises if they still want a slice of the pie from a bankable star.

Lethal Bizzle, an artist who certainly knows how to build and promote a successful project and brand, signed a deal akin to a distribution deal for his Dench Records label via Virgin. Bizzle doesn’t need Virgin to do what he does, Virgin needs him and giving him a deal structured in this way means they get some of the cake rather than none of it. As major labels seek to extend their relevance (and postpone the inevitable), such humility will need to shown to achieve it.

Like most traditional media, major labels have had a good run of dominance that’s been scuppered by the digital age and a consequent shift of power from the label to the artist. Artists need to ask themselves what a major label can do for them that they can’t do for themselves at at a fraction of the cost and with less compromise to their artistry. Indeed, anything on that list is fast decreasing.

Chris Eubank Jr talks the talk but we’re still yet to see him walk the walk

Chris Eubank Jr is the IBO Super Middleweight champion of the world. To casual boxing fans, that might carry some kudos. However, to most within the boxing fraternity, it’s considered a lightly regarded belt and one that is broadly unrecognised as being on the fringe of the four main governing bodies (WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO).

Further diminishing the credibility of his newly bestowed title was Eubank Jr’s opponent Renold Quinlan, an 11-1 fighter who most (including me) hadn’t heard of prior to this fight. Needless to say, many boxing fans are finding it difficult to accept this fight as Eubank Jr’s ticket to being considered a marquee fighter. Conversely, Eubank Jr, and his father Chris Eubank Snr, claim that he is not only ready but deserving of the big fights. Perhaps he is ready (if not deserving) but we’re yet to see it for ourselves.

When Eubank Jr turned professional, I considered him hugely promising. He wasn’t (and still isn’t) trading off his father’s name for success and like the elder Eubank, has showmanship and a formidable chin. Jr has also shown impressive hand speed upon which his father has predicated the loftily perceived claims that his son is already a pound for pound great who would defeat Gennady Golovkin and Andre Ward. It’s utterances like this that make it difficult to take Team Eubank seriously but again, perhaps they know something that they’ve just not shown us.

This is the issue with Chris Eubank Jr. He talks the talk but he’s yet to walk the walk. At the time of writing, his only defeat is to current WBO Middleweight champion Billy Joe Saunders. Saunders also represents the sternest test on Eubank Jr’s resume and a test that he didn’t come through in a 2014 split decision. Therefore on what basis does he consider himself at elite level?

I was wrong in predicting a Eubank Jr win against Saunders and it’s rumoured (though I’ve never heard it used, let alone mentioned, as an excuse by Team Eubank) that he was ill prior to the fight. Nevertheless, the remainder of Eubank Jr’s fights have broadly been against fighters of domestic level. For a fighter billed as being ready for the big leagues, you’d expect him to despatch them more deftly than he does which suggests that while his hand speed is impressive, his power is not.

It took 10 rounds for Eubank Jr to get a stoppage against Renold Quinlan and seven rounds to do the same against Gary O'Sullivan. Eubank Jr certainly isn’t a knock out artist but when we see him loading up his signature spiteful uppercuts, I previously expected them to do more damage then they evidently do. I wouldn’t go as far as calling him a powder puff puncher but perhaps he doesn’t possess the firepower Team Eubank would like us to think he does.

Eubank Jr also gets hit far too much for my liking. Yes, he clearly has a good chin but if he thinks he can take the amount of shots he took against Renold Quinlan against Golovkin, I imagine he’d be in for a rude awakening if they ever meet in the ring.

One thing we can’t question is Eubank Jr’s conditioning. Regularly posting videos of his training on social media, you can see the intensity and it’s undoubtedly impressive. Although, this is boxing, the hurt business, not a Zumba class. Furthermore, pads and heavy bags don’t hit back. And if Eubank Jr’s training isn’t translating into similarly impressive performances in the ring, his Snapchat videos don’t count for anything other than telling us he goes hard in the paint. Other than recognising the intense training he undergoes, I’m not making anything of his videos other than braggadocio and raising his social media profile.

Every fighter needs to have confidence and Eubank Jr has buckets of it. But many feel it’s misplaced hubris that he exudes. Suggesting his trainer Ronnie Davies is more of a cornerman who occasionally gives advice, presents a flawed fighter-trainer relationship; one that lacks discipline and respect on Jr’s part and doesn’t bode well for his fulfilling of the promise we have been sold by Eubank Snr of his son becoming one of the greats.

A Saunders rematch, Golovkin and James DeGale are all fighters that Team Eubank claim they want in their next opponents. The former two are fights that they are generally considered to have been scuppered with Eubank Snr’s negotiations and DeGale wants nothing to do with Eubank Jr due to the existing bitterness between the pair. Contrary to what Eubank Jr may feel, his IBO belt also fails to tempt any of those fighters as it isn’t a belt they regard with high esteem. Team Eubank have a bad reputation for unreasonable demands in negotiations and they may have found that they’ve blackballed themselves out of the very fights they claim to want.

The Eubank Jr show is an intriguing one and I won’t go as far as claiming he isn’t the everything Team Eubank say he is. After all, he’s shown the attributes to suggest that this could be case. He just hasn’t shown it to us in the ring. Putting his lightly regarded belt aside, he needs to step up in opposition ASAP and show that he deserves to be in the mix with elite fighters based on his performance. Thus far, none of his opponents, or indeed his performances, have presented an opportunity for this to be showcased.

Maybe my first impressions of Eubank Jr were correct and he is the real deal. However, I’ll continue to reserve judgement until he proves otherwise.

Theresa May is trashing the perception of British values

Against a backdrop of political apathy and distrust of politicians, a demagogue comes to power. He appeals to sections of society that claim they aren’t listened to by politicians and left to experience worsening conditions while other groups prosper. His xenophobia and aggression is a concern on the world stage but it largely goes unchecked. The groups he and his supporters show the most vitriol for are increasingly subject to hate crimes until said crimes are now effectively organised by state agencies. Sound familiar?

It might sound like the synopsis for a dystopian novel but you’d be correct if you assumed I was referencing Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany. You’d also be correct if you said it similarly described Donald Trump’s ascent to power in America.

We’re all aware of Trump’s rhetoric and we expected him to attempt to portray himself as the arrogant cretin he is. So when he signed the executive order for nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to be banned from entering the United States, it should probably have been met with less surprise. The disgust, however, was not misplaced.

Trump has claimed this isn’t a Muslim ban but that’s exactly what it is. A ban on people who have established lives, families and jobs in America, contributing to American society, but they happen to be Muslim or from a country that increases the likelihood of that being their faith. It’s a ban on people who are escaping a life of persecution and seeking solace and sanctuary in America as a nation of immigrants with a history as a sympathetic host towards refugees before them. But again, they happen to probably be Muslims. It’s an unfathomable act and one that has been criticised globally. Well, not by everyone.

Returning to the Nazi Germany parallels, in 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement giving parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany in an attempt to appease Hitler’s threats of war with its eastern neighbour. Hitler ignored the Agreement and in 1939 invaded Czechoslovakia and World War 2 essentially followed. Sadly, Chamberlain played himself and history has not been kind to him for his naivety and lack of balls in standing up to Hitler.

The same could be said for Theresa May for whom history will judge a racist and a poor man’s Margaret Thatcher throwback. She couldn’t have been further up Trump’s backside if she tried when they met on her state visit. The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg outlined in one question much of what is so dangerous about Trump and why a relationship with America under his leadership is something we should be giving a wide berth. She gave May the opportunity to take the moral high ground for once in her morally bankrupt premiership but instead she chose to remain pathetically obsequious towards Trump.

"Have I still got that brown stuff on my nose Donald?"

Though more apparent was her refusal to condemn Trump’s Muslim ban, only eventually bowing to pressure to later show lukewarm opposition when it became apparent that some British nationals were affected. As Trump takes the role of Hitler on the stage, May is primed to assume the role of Chamberlain and history will not portray her favourably either.

Theresa May is a disgrace to British values and British people. An admittedly chequered British history of benevolence has been further eroded under her leadership. Not to mention the ability to actually have the cojones to stand up for what is right in the face of a man that shows moral vacuity almost every time he speaks.

I understand May’s attempt to preserve the ‘special relationship’ and with the UK looking like a pariah of Europe (as she pursues Brexit without a plan), America probably looks like an even more desirable and necessary ally. But there’s no excuse for her approach. If these are British values, it’s little wonder I’m again ashamed to be British with her at the helm.

This is just the beginning from Trump and there will be more opportunities to condemn his actions. May needs to ask herself, is Trump’s America an ally we want to have? Do we want British history to record that we stood by, mute while he inflicted his prejudice on the world? Any nation of moral fibre should be turning its back on him.

During May’s state visit, she extended an invitation to Trump to visit the UK but a petition to halt it was approaching 500,000 signatures within hours of being posted. British people don’t want anything to do with Trump and don’t want him here either. If May wants to reflect the will of the people as she claims is her driver behind Brexit, she should reflect our will in relations with undesirable allies.

Trump has normalised the hatred that he espouses by bringing it into mainstream politics and May is now endorsing this. That makes her no better and those aren’t the ethics we should want in a British Prime Minister.

Is monogamy simply a social and emotional construct?

While having children is undoubtedly a person choice, anthropologically speaking, procreation is a perceived (and archaically assumed) feature of most relationships between the opposite sex. For those who seek to have children, and those that don’t, a monogamous relationship is usually deemed the most ideal unit from within which to procreate or simply to coexist with a partner. It represents stability, support and, bizarrely, social success of being in a relationship.

However, if we critique this approach, does monogamy really provide the aforementioned or have we been conditioned to believe it does to reinforce the very arguments that are made in its support? Furthermore, as emotional beings, is there an emotional attraction to monogamy that we crave in seeking an exclusive and reciprocated belonging, acceptance and love from a partner who is considered unique in fulfilling said role?

Firstly, I need to make a disclaimer that this isn’t about me expressing a desire or endorsement for polygamy or a proclamation that I am polyamorous (which would go against my own monogamous relationship). Had it been, I would likely have chosen a more personal forum to announce this to my partner. It’s also not something I’m seeking to explore, not to mention a practice I can’t envisage my wife embracing.

Nevertheless, the practice of monogamy has largely remained unquestioned in contemporary society. For even those of us that are more liberal-leaning, monogamy is still broadly considered sacrosanct. Polyamory is becoming more visible and accepted (Laurie Penny wrote an article on her own experience as a polyamorous woman) but there is still a stigma around it. For the conservative brigade, it’s probably just a synonym for liberal promiscuity that we blindly criticise. Why? Because it threatens the status quo of monogamy as the standard for relationships.

Our physical attraction to a partner is typically underpinned by a sexual attraction. And in anthropological terms (for a hetrosexual couple), an underlying desire to procreate. Although, society’s expectations when having children, and the pragmatism surrounding it, downgrades that underlying desire to sex for couples of all sexual orientation. Subsequently, that attraction forms the basis of compatibility for a relationship with personalities and shared values of course typically being granted similar status.

When it comes to a physical attraction, that initial spark is more primitive that we would care to admit. And it calls monogamy into question given its features are secondary, albeit valid, considerations for any relationship.

The stability of a monogamous relationship; having someone to confide in and receive reciprocated comfort, support and affection, makes perfect sense. And attributing that to one person perhaps makes it extra special. Throw in the mix exclusive intimacy and growing emotional attachment and you’ve just placed each other on a status of importance that places your partner above all others. Yet much of this is projected from the relationships of others in setting the standard that we’re told we should seek.

Most weddings feature speeches where the ‘special’ and ‘perfect’ love between the couple is waxed lyrical upon while guests are subject to regaling of how the couple are ‘made for each other’. Well, I’ve been to enough weddings (including those where I’ve known the feelings between the couple are far from mutual) to know that such rehearsed sentiments mean someone’s lying. Rather, they’re soundbites that we’re expected to attain in relationships and if we don’t project them in our own relationships, we risk the stigma-driven judgement of not attaining the social success of relationships.

If we want children, we are erroneously conditioned to feel that a two-parent, cohabiting relationship is better than one where parents may live separately (again, judgement raises its ugly head, particularly in relation to single mothers). Similarly, having two incomes is better than one and provides increased financial stability. And particularly as we age, existing in a unit where we can look after each other makes sense. But are these reasons suffice to drive the social conditioning of monogamy as the ‘right’ standard for relationships? Thinking objectively, and breaking away from my own social conditioning, perhaps not.

Conversely, wouldn’t more than one partner present all of the above but in abundance? Increased financial stability via further incomes, increased support in raising children and further companionship (assuming all of the relationships were able to coexist harmoniously alongside each other) all make a case for those of us sticking with monogamy missing a trick.

There are also the emotional ties that probably provide the strongest anchor to monogamy. As humans, we can be insecure creatures. The notion of sharing a partner, no matter how much of an understanding there might be, would be difficult for many. It’s why infidelity is deemed such a transgression - not just because one has gone against a promise to be monogamous but because their actions represent their willingness to share themselves with another and therefore serve as a trigger of insecurity.

Nonetheless, while not championing infidelity within a monogamous relationship, it comes back to the primal physical attraction that we experience. The attraction isn’t what causes a transgression (though those who experience much more insecurity in their relationship might argue otherwise), instead it’s acting upon it. That default opposition to doing so is based on the social conditioning we’ve been subject to. We’re wired to know that it represents wrongdoing but also empathy of how a partner would feel should that ever-present insecurity be provoked.

If I’m driving a Maybach and I see the Batmobile, I’m going to want to stop and look at it. And I’m probably going to want to drive it too. Nonetheless, getting out and risking not being able to drive my Maybach because I’ve forsaken it for the Batmobile (no matter how temporarily or meaninglessly) is an inherent temptation that is mitigated by the social conditioning that it would be wrong. Similarly to relationships, this makes us human but resistance to acting on an attraction is neutered by our perception and acceptance of monogamy. If we returned to experiencing and accepting those primal instincts, few people would bat an eyelid at getting in both cars.

"I like my Maybach... but it's the Batmobile..."

Monogamy represents stability and within contemporary society, a pragmatic approach to relationships that demonstrates how special a partner is. While I might not seek to adopt a different path, those that do are merely tapping into more primal sentiments that the rest of us have moved away from. Monogamy provides the safety and relationship goals that society has told us we desire and wards off the stigma that we’ve come to fear in not achieving the expectations placed upon us. It’s a social and emotional construct but one that most of us have seemingly brought into in making it the status quo.

Khan doesn’t want it with Brook

At the beginning of 2014, I wrote about five all-British fights that I wanted to see. They didn’t all happen in 2014 but, with the exception of one, all have occurred at the time of writing. That one fight is Kell Brook vs Amir Khan.

Since that post, Khan has fought four times with three wins and one loss. That loss was a KO at the hands of Canelo, a fight that he was roundly predicted to lose. Most boxing fans foresaw his chin wouldn’t be able to withstand Canelo’s power (not to mention the jump in weight to a catchweight of 155lbs being too much for him). As far as modern boxers go, Khan’s frequency in the ring is probably just below average (if not too infrequent for those of us that hark back to the golden eras of the sport where fighters were much more active) but it’s been punctuated by some admirable charity work.

In contrast, Brook has fought six times in the same period. During that time he wrested the IBF welterweight belt from Shawn Porter, beating the American as the away fighter. Subsequently, he defended it against less impressive opponents than those faced by Khan. Though his most recent fight was against Gennady Golovkin, a fight he lost by TKO following his corner retiring him due to a broken eye socket.

In similar circumstances to Canelo vs Khan, Brook went up in weight to fight at middleweight but even in defeat, his stock rose and there was no shame in losing his ‘0’. Not to detract from Golovkin’s victory and ferocious punch power but Brook ended the fight on his feet (unlike Khan who fought a less spiteful puncher in Canelo yet ended up on the canvas). Furthermore, had Brook not sustained the injury that led to the fight being stopped, he showed that he was not only able to withstand Golovkin’s punch power but also trouble him with his own firepower, athleticism and pugilism. In fact I can’t recall when another fighter put it on Golovkin like Brook did in the second round of their fight.

Both fighters are therefore coming off losses and looking for big money fights which would make Brook vs Khan a no-brainer. Alas, more than ever, it seems that Khan just doesn’t want it with Brook.

Brook and his promoter Eddie Hearn have chased this fight for so many years that it’s become borderline embarrassing in how much they want the fight. Initially, Khan claimed that the fight didn’t make commercial sense as Brook was largely unknown outside of boxing circles, didn’t have any high profile names on his resume and didn’t have a belt. And he was right. Despite my desire to see this fight, taking it a few years earlier would have likely seen it generate much less revenue than it could do today. Yet despite his valid opposition then, Khan and his team clearly didn’t want the fight. They continue to claim that Brook isn’t a problem for them and that they’d be the a-side to the fight but on both counts I would beg to differ.

Brook has since addressed Khan’s concerns regarding the commercial viability of the fight. He’s now IBF champion, has increased his stock on both sides of the Atlantic and despite a defeat, troubled GGG and took his best shots in a way that no middleweight has done. Conversely, Khan hasn’t been particularly active and has failed to deliver a performance that’ll erase memories of his chin getting lit up like a christmas tree (as a friend once so eloquently put it).

Khan is a bigger name in America where he’s had more of a presence and is now based but I still see him as the b-side to the fight. And since this fight was first mooted, I’ve seen Brook as the favourite. Indeed, and as Khan is very aware of hence his reluctance, I can see a defeat against Brook ending his career.

Canelo vs Khan was accurately billed Power vs Speed, a nod to what each fighter was bringing to the table in their respective skill set. On that basis, Brook vs Khan should be billed ‘power and accuracy vs speed and a suspect chin’. I’ve said repeatedly that Khan can’t hold a shot and the KOs he has experienced, or wars like his fight against Marcos Maidana (where he showed himself to have heart and balls in abundance), will not only have damaged his confidence but also affected his already fragile punch resistance. His trademark poor discipline in refraining from a temptation to trade also does him few favours. His chin isn’t built for brawling and big punchers like Brook will tear him a new one if he tries to initiate a tear up.

The sticking point in resumed negotiations between the two camps are reportedly the split (Khan still feels he’s the a-side and should take the lion’s share while Brook is content to take a 50-50 split). Again, Khan is presenting a stumbling block through his misguided hubris as he brings less to the table by the day. He’s also insisted that the fight take place at welterweight; a clear disadvantage to Brook who’s disadvantaged at the weight and would perform more effectively at the light middleweight limit of 154lbs.

With all of Khan’s rhetoric prior to the Canelo fight of being able to perform better at a higher weight class, why not take the fight at 154lbs? Because he’s clutching at straws to duck the fight or give himself an advantage if it does happen.

I don’t want Brook to fight at welterweight and would rather see him relinquish his IBF welterweight belt and move up in weight. He’s weight drained at welterweight and looked the best we’ve seen him at 160lbs when he fought Golovkin. But his own stubbornness is preventing him from making the move. He’s the a-side in the fight and if Khan really wanted it, he’d move up for the fight and the consequent pay day and opportunity to prove himself. He should also be grateful that Brook isn’t pushing for more of a 50-50 split (which is probably fair given Khan’s profile).

Fight fans want to see the fight and Brook wants it too. It’s only Khan who doesn’t. Whether he’s delusional in his demands as he tries to cash out of boxing, or just ducking Brook to avoid the risk of what could be the end of his career, time is running out for this fight to happen.

Diminishing parental responsibility is damaging our schools and our children's futures

The following was a phone conversation between a teacher and a parent of a child who should have been attending a workshop that had been organised but the child had failed to attend.

Teacher: Good morning, this is Ms Riley from Westchester School. Rashid is supposed to be attending a workshop that’s been organised for the students in his Geography class but he isn’t present.
Parent: Oh (said nonchalantly). Does he need to be there?
Teacher: Yes. Rashid’s signed up for the workshop and letters were sent home to parents advising them that students would need to attend today.
Parent: I didn’t get a letter. Couldn’t you have sent a text message? Rashid said the rest of his group weren’t going so he didn’t need to be there.
Teacher: No, he needs to be there…

And this was a conversation between a teacher and a parent at parents’ evening.

Teacher: Derek’s comprehension and his ability to engage with other children and contribute in class has become a concern. His understanding of basic instructions and information is very limited, even when spoken to in his home language, and it’s affecting his interaction with other children and his progress. Does he talk much at home?
Parent: Yeah, he talks at home.
Teacher: OK… that’s good. We need to encourage him to talk, and it’s fine if he’s talking to you in his home language, as that’ll help him with his confidence and his comprehension. Ask him questions about his day, about books he’s read…
Parent: (sighs and rolls eyes) Boss, I don’t have time to talk to my kid…

In both instances, all names and personal details have been changed. Nonetheless, these are based on real and recent examples with real parents and real teachers and they aren’t isolated instances. Instead, they are a sign of the lack of engagement and diminished parental responsibility that is increasingly present in some of today’s parents.

The shift of a parent’s responsibility being pushed onto schools and teachers, the acceptance and nonchalance towards a child’s lack of responsibility (because handing a letter to your parent is so arduous that teachers should instead send a text message) and the unwillingness to communicate with your child (one of the biggest determinants in younger children acquiring knowledge and broadening their vocabulary) all feature in sections of today’s parents. And it’s damaging our children’s futures and their attainment in school.

Firstly, it’s important to acknowledge that being a parent is not easy. For those who are parents in today’s society, the distractions upon children, and the demands upon parents, exacerbate that task in a way that yesteryear’s parents would not have had to deal with. The altering in the traditional balance of influence and control from parents to children also makes modern parenting a challenge. Essentially, society has impeded some parents from effectively parenting their children in this skewed change in dynamic.

Secondly, for anyone reading this and assuming that poor parenting and a lack of importance placed upon education is exclusively a feature of parents from lower socio-economic groups, you’d be wrong.

Poorer students and their families, particularly those that are from immigrant communities, are often much more appreciative of education because of the opportunities they know it affords them in life. As a result, education, teachers and their efforts are revered by these students and their families (this was certainly the case for my peers and I). Therefore, I don’t seek to make any sweeping judgements or reinforce erroneous stereotypes here. To do so would be folly, impossible and wrong. Rather, both the parents who fulfil their responsibility, and those who don’t, come from a range of backgrounds and not respective homogeneous groups.

The success of a school, and of its students, depends on a number of factors. Furthermore, achieving that success and how it’s measured is becoming increasingly difficult (and well-discussed on iamalaw). However, in the truest sense of success (of nurturing and encouraging the social, emotional and academic progress of students in an environment that never loses sight of their well-being), government policy, teachers and school leadership would be the typical responses to who or what can make or break this. Yet what about parents?

Parents bridge the gap between school and home. Just as teachers build upon the successes of a child’s home life, parents are positioned at the other end of this reciprocal relationship of building upon the successes at school. It seems obvious but it’s a given that’s lost on some parents and indeed some schools in their efforts to engage parents.

If at home a young child is read to and listened to reading daily, and conversed with in constant exposure to language, their orthographic store (our long term memory from which we retrieve all the words that we’ve learned to date), comprehension, knowledge and proficiency as a reader will progress far more rapidly than a child who is only exposed to these experiences at school. Similarly, this gives a child an appetite and positive attitude for learning that will put them in good stead for life. Sadly, an astounding number of parents feel that they need not play any role in supporting their children in such crucial early stages of their education let alone subsequently.

For these parents, sending their children to school is the extent of their required effort. They’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain and now it’s down to the school to teach their child everything they need to know without any input at home. That isn’t to say parents should undertake the role of a teacher but encouraging their child and instilling an attitude for learning and value for education is part of being a parent.

For some parents, it gets worse and school is ultimately a childminding service. An opportunity to be free of their children in an environment where they’re absolved of all responsibility. Again, I’m sure some might read this and with Daily Mail tinted glasses envision it to refer to ‘working class parents of broken Britain’. Wrong. Many middle class parents do exactly the same as school enables them to get on with their other priorities in life that clearly supersede their children. Indeed, they often go further as they have the means to extend that via clubs and endless tutors that maximise the time their children aren’t in their presence and minimise the responsibility they feel they need to assume.

There are of course many good parents who despite the never-ending duties of a parent, ensure that their child is on the right path. They foster the right attitude and behaviour within their child from young and support their child in whatever way they can while equally supporting the school. That includes supporting schools in their behaviour policies when a child has been been issued a sanction.

With older children, it can merely be ensuring homework is completed, words of encouragement and direction and support of the school within a home environment where education is valued. Conversely, the absence of that can make all the difference to a child’s attitude to education and their life opportunities because of it. These measures don’t cost anything and aren’t demanding on parents’ time either. Nevertheless, they can make a significant difference to a child’s attainment and the success of a school.

It isn’t just all about academic progress either. A child’s mental, social and emotional growth and well-being is arguably more important and depends as much on their parents as their teachers. If a parent is disinterested in their child’s life, that growth and well-being is going to find itself limited.

Parental engagement in schools can make the difference between a bad school and a good school and a good school and great school. Plenty of research supports the notion that parental engagement has a huge impact on attainment and behaviour. This isn’t just the attending of parents’ evenings and school performances and functions. It’s also being invested in your child’s learning and progress and sharing that goal with the school.

If you take two schools with similar cohorts in communities of similar socio-economic and even ethnic composition, both could be doing exactly the same in the way of teaching and additional programmes and support for students. Although if they have different outcomes in attainment and perception within their respective communities, it’s going to be down to the impact of parental engagement. And the school that has further engagement will yield improved results.

While I feel there are a lot of question marks over free schools, parental engagement is an asset that those set up by community groups driven by parents have from the start. The schools aren’t necessarily doing anything different from other school operating within the local education authority but they’ve embedded a culture that other school aren’t always afforded (though their supporters won’t concede that it’s that simple). The same goes for academies that have started schools from scratch or taken over schools where ensuring parental engagement is a priority.

Schools too need to do better in engaging parents. Most parents want to be involved and supportive in their child’s school life and their education. But if they aren’t given the opportunity, and where applicable the guidance to do so, then they can’t. School’s can’t lament the lack of engagement from parents if they aren’t providing the direction to achieve it.

The lack of parental responsibility that exists in today’s parents is a worrying trend that doesn’t bode well for children’s futures and is impeding attainment in schools. It’s also at risk of creating adults that project the same attitude which in turn becomes perpetual in subsequent generations.

To the large number of parents that provide the positive influence and direction required for their children, they deserve huge kudos for raising the bar in an already tough job of parenting. And for those who aren’t even aspiring to that, they’re letting themselves and their children down in an easily avoidable manner but with woeful consequences for their children's futures.

I like the Queen but the monarchy is an outdated institution

When I think of the monarchy, I’m perplexed as to how it’s managed to experience such longevity in an age of otherwise social progression. Should monarchies ever become consigned to history, they’ll surely be studied with intrigue and incredulity. I can see exam questions and dissertations of the future questioning why societies never considered the suitability of a monarch for the position amidst centuries of democracy where leaders that actually ran the country had to be elected. Or the inexplicable rationale for how even in times of great austerity, monarchs and their families continued to live lavish lives that were funded by the public.

Surely the attire of a monarch will add to future commentators’ confusion for how we didn’t see anything wrong with monarchs wearing jewelry-adored crowns and attire where the jewels had been violently pillaged from other countries in the name of their ancestors. If monarchies do come to an end (and I think they eventually will), history will surely ridicule the generations that permitted them to occur.

It’s probably apparent that I’m not a monarchist. However, I must admit that I actually like the Queen. She comes across as a figure who isn’t quite aware of just how out of step her position as a monarch is with modern society but nevertheless, it’s a role she appears to take very seriously.

The maternal connection the Queen has to the UK, and indeed the other colonies and former colonies for which she remains head of state, has been palpable throughout her time as Queen. Indeed, when America invaded Grenada in 1983, I suspect the Queen would have privately been incandescent with rage given her role as head of state of Grenada.

During the global mourning for Princess Diana, whom the Queen was said to not be fond of, the Queen’s tribute to Princess Diana showed a human side. It also displayed her maternal relationship with the nation in acknowledging their grief and seeking to bring comfort as their monarch.

Similarly, I’ve got a lot of time for Prince William and Prince Harry, the latter especially. Prince Harry seems like he’d be good value on a night out and a decent guy to have in your circle. Not to mention, his decision to join the army, and his tours of duty, give him more credibility than most monarchs are afforded in their role as head of the armed forces. Yet both princes seem strained with the realisation of just how outdated the monarchy is despite it being a life they’ve been born into.

And what of the rest of the British monarchy? Prince Charles might be well meaning (if not sometimes misguided on the restraint a member of the monarchy should show in matters for elected representatives) and Prince William’s family do present a warmer side to the monarchy. But beyond the aforementioned, I see nothing but individuals who are living a life of privilege for which they haven’t done anything to deserve. And this is the crux of why I feel the the monarchy is outdated.

We tell children that they can be or do anything they want to as long as they work hard at it. Well what about being part of the monarchy? Unless you marry into the royal family (what a wonderfully modern route to enter an equally modern institution eh?), I’m afraid not. And if you’re an ethnic minority, working class, openly homosexual or of any group that would be frowned upon as being part of the establishment, your chances are practically non-existent. Is that a system that we should be allowing to continue in a time when equality should be championed in what is supposedly (but isn’t) an egalitarian society?

I also can’t remain ignorant to the fact that slavery and colonialism is intertwined not only with the British monarchy but also the riches and pomp that the monarchy enjoy today. Their continued privilege is derived from the brutality, rape, violent theft, dehumanising and psychological destabilising of the black diaspora; an experience that continues to impact black people and the the states and nations from which we originally came.

As a black man, I would be both irresponsible and in denial to ignore this in my perception of the monarchy. I don’t think the Queen is racist or justifies the campaigns waged against the former empire in the name of her ancestors. Nonetheless, I do think said history is put down to a regrettable past that isn’t considered in the context of the impact that it has today. The same goes for other diasporas that were subject to British colonialism. Their past and present woes can be traced back to actions carried out in the name of the British monarchy and this isn’t something we can ignore.

Recently, it was announced that Buckingham Palace is due to undergo ‘essential’ refurbishment to the tune of £369 million. ‘Essential’? Someone is surely having a laugh here. I appreciate that the palace is old and probably does need upgrading but it’s one of several residences the Queen has and at such cost, it’s impossible to justify.

Every aspect of the public sector and public expenditure is subject to sharp austerity but Buckingham Palace is having £369 million spent on refurbishment? We’re in the midst of a housing crisis in the UK with an acute shortage of social housing especially, and the Tory government is willing to spend public funds on the royal household. It tells us what we already know about the Tories. But the fact they felt this was OK reinforces the baffling and archaic inequality represented by the monarchy.

I’m sure the Tories wouldn’t defend the genuinely essential work necessary in many social housing properties with the same passion. Though we already know they don’t care about the proletariat in the way that they protect the interests of the monarchy and the establishment. Spending such an amount on Buckingham Palace against a backdrop of such austere times, and the royal family already being in receipt of public funds (and their own private funds), is ludicrous and you’d need to be incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.

The argument that the monarchy brings in much needed revenue to the UK is one that I’ve always been dubious of too. Certainly, they are a tourist attraction but without the monarchy, the buildings and history would still be there and the tourists will still come.

In contemporary history, the monarchy has modernised in not taking a role in matters that should rightly be reserved for elected representatives. Consequently, the Queen effectively rubber stamps legislation and royal assent (when the Queen agrees to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament) is little more than this. I’m sure the Queen is very au fait with the work of her government and feels a sense of great responsibility in giving royal assent. Although as a figure that is effectively an apolitical observer, the effectiveness of the role she plays in this capacity has to be questioned.

With the Queen’s relationship with other heads of states, her apolitical role also limits her ability to use her position to speak out or in favour of regimes in conversations that she could add her weight and influence to. And as the Queen rows back on her public engagements, her relationships with other governments may become even less relevant.

I don’t want to see the Queen, a seemingly nice woman in the twilight of her life, made to feel unwanted in a role that she’s held for most of her life. That said, when a new monarch assumes the throne, it’d be timely to begin the dialogue around how outdated the monarchy is. We need to ask if it’s an institution we can justify as relevant, necessary and in keeping with what should be a modern society based on meritocracy; not arbitrary claims rooted in an often ugly yet celebrated history.