About botzarelli

Blogging about stuff I'm interested in.

Corbyn’s Brexit Hokey Cokey

I’m not very good at predictions but one I made a couple of years ago has turned out to seem fairly prescient. Back in 2015 when Jeremy Corbyn had just scraped onto the ballot for the Labour leadership, I noted that he was very strongly and consistently anti-EU and this in itself ought to give pause for thought even to eurosceptic Conservatives. For those who supported continuing EU membership at a time when David Cameron had won the first Conservative majority (what’s that?) in 23 years, having someone leading the Opposition, however scruffy and apparently unelectable, who firmly sided with Tony Benn in believing the EU to be an anti-democratic imposition of neoliberalism on the UK, should not have been seen as anything other than a huge threat. For those who supported Labour and its embrace of EU membership gained in the long struggle back to government after humiliation in 1983, it ought to have been reason enough to reject Corbyn. 

But, as we know, nobody very much from any side of the political spectrum did notice or care very much about this, even if since the EU Referendum, Brexit is the biggest political issue we all face. Indeed, it isn’t so much that people didn’t notice, it’s more that they deliberately ignored the ample evidence of it as inconsistent with their broader perception of what Labour was offering on Brexit. Despite Corbyn having gone on TV the morning after the Referendum to say that Article 50 should be triggered immediately even now I hear his supporters say that that was either because he didn’t know the ramifications of doing so (which is an odd thing to call in support) or because he is a democrat and wanted to respect a result he did not want. Despite him having refused to share a platform with Cameron to campaign for Remain and been described by the leaders of the Labour In campaign to have barely participated in it, it is claimed that he worked tirelessly on the Remain side. Nipping off to Portugal for a holiday during the campaign is similarly dismissed as irrelevant, along with his expression of “7 out of 10” support for the EU on Channel 4’s Last Leg. Only last weekend, a Labour activist sincerely argued to me that in this year’s Labour Conference members will vote overwhelmingly for a second referendum and opposing Brexit, and that Corbyn will pursue that policy, despite having been re-elected as leader in a campaign where he denigrated Owen Smith’s call for a second referendum. 

Detailed analysis of the 2017 General Election and attitudes of voters through the campaign from the British Election Study shows that not only was Brexit by a long margin the biggest issue informing who voters voted for but that Labour picked up a very big majority of the support of those who supported Remaining in the EU or having the “softest” Brexit possible and remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union . Individual Labour candidates did strongly pursue this line (including my local one who had criticised the LibDem MP he defeated for having sat on the fence by abstaining on the Article 50 Bill, proudly signed up to the Queens Speech amendment put forward by Chuka Umunna then promptly was persuaded to abstain, thereby avoiding censure in his first week on the job while other MPs lost their shadow ministerial posts over it). Overall, there was a perception that a Labour Brexit would somehow be softer and gentler than a Tory one, even though there was nothing in what Corbyn had ever said or his manifesto to support this. 

Since then, Corbyn has railed against the “wholesale importation” of foreign workers and essentially moved to a position more strongly against free movement of workers than heard from anyone other than Nigel Farage. Farage approvingly described him for these comments as “almost a proper chap”. Given that Corbyn is unsurprisingly critical of the other fundamental freedoms of the EU there really isn’t any significant bit of the EU that he doesn’t have a basic problem with. If attempting to retain as many of the benefits of the Single Market as possible while no longer having free movement of workers is a difficult problem for David Davis, doing so while wishing to curtail free movement of goods, capital and freedom of establishment is an impossibility. 

Where my 2015 warning went wrong was in expecting Corbyn to be open about his position on the EU and to have led the calls to leave. Instead, what has happened seems to be more subtle in that he did the least amount possible to support remaining in, which was just enough to prevent his largely pro-EU supporters and voters abandoning him, and then waited in hope that his ideal outcome of leaving the EU without any future relationship or agreement will transpire and for the Conservatives to take blame for something he could not have delivered on purpose. With no external check against subsidies or moving away from market economy principles coming from the EU, he would be free to pursue the Bennite dream of a socialist siege economy in the UK.

Whether he and those around him are clever enough to have done this on purpose, or that it is a happy coincidence, we’ll never know. But even on a purely partisan basis leaving aside any of the policy or political issues, it ought to have always been clear that the biggest beneficiary of a defeat for Remain in the referendum was going to be Corbyn because of the damage that defeat would inflict on Cameron. This may explain why he felt that he was strong enough to sack Hilary Benn and start to purge himself of the disloyal immediately after the referendum. That this benefit was not felt immediately is in large part down to the challenge to Corbyn’s leadership which followed, which was itself partly motivated by a significant minority in Labour who could see that Corbyn wasn’t going to lead them anywhere other than towards a “hard” Brexit. 

The best defence against this will of course be for the details of the Brexit agreement to be somewhat “soft” in retaining those checks which are beneficial*, albeit as sovereign decisions of the UK made bilaterally with the EU rather than as rules of the EU which we are bound by our accession to the EU 45 years ago. At the moment it is unclear where things stand because of the nature of the negotiations but it is interesting that the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, is talking of transitional arrangements which make UKIPpers froth at the mouth while Corbyn’s position on the EU is getting Farage to purr. Ripping up all of the legacy of 45 years within the EU wouldn’t be in the EU’s interests or in any potential Prime Minister’s other than Corbyn. 

But the people who voted for Corbyn, don’t want what he wants. So we are in the strange world of May having lost her majority because people thought she would aim for too hard a Brexit now being the bulwark against the ultra-hard Brexit which the man they voted for actually wants. I suspect that being canny folks, the EU team led by Michael Barnier will know that if they cause this government to fall, it will be replaced by one which won’t even want a deal at all. 

The question is whether the large proportion of people who voted Labour in June on the basis of expecting them to soften the impact of Brexit will continue to support Labour under Corbyn if and when they realise that he has no intention of doing that. Maybe they will. Or maybe, as with the discovery that he had no intention of writing off or reducing past student debt despite saying “I will deal with it”, it will take more examples to overcome the cognitive dissonance of evidence of Labour’s actions coming up against people’s perceptions of their intentions. 

So, we put our left leg in, our left leg out, in out, in out, shake it all about. Do the Hokey Cokey and turn around. Brexit, it’s all about!

I am not at all discounting the possibility that there will be aspects of Brexit which could be advantageous, merely acknowledging that there are also many aspects of the EU which are also beneficial and where there is no obvious major improvement to be gained by doing something different or in conflict. The purist approach of “let’s just get rid of all the regulation” is unrealistic in practice because it ignores the costs of change even where the thing being changed to is better. In many cases economies of scale or of effort would mean that even if there were a lighter UK regulatory regime, most businesses would comply voluntarily with the dominant foreign standard. We can see this in reverse in anti-bribery compliance where the UK has one of the toughest regimes globally and so most businesses seek to comply with it as doing so then involves minimal additional adjustment to comply with laws elsewhere in the world. Even if we were to ditch all EU regulation, from experience, much of it would end up being incorporated contractually by businesses (at least those doing cross-border work), regardless of whether they liked the regulations – e.g. it is now pretty much standard practice to extend by contract the application of the new EU Data Protection Regulation to beyond the date on which the UK will leave the EU. There’s not much benefit to business in repealing EU regulations and replacing them with lighter touch UK ones if businesses will shun the additional freedoms and comply with EU ones! On the other hand, were a future UK government to decide to regulate more stringently than the EU does, particularly for “suspect” foreign countries (as might be expected from a Labour Party which was not so keen on globalised trade and was naturally more suspicious about the activities of big corporations), that would potentially be harmful. 

Advertisements

Hey Student!

The cost to students of going to university has been a big political issue at least since tuition fees were increased to £9k a year by the coalition government. It was less hotly contested previously when fees were lower, it barely made a dent in the popularity of Blair’s government that it went back on its promise not to introduce fees and a pledge to abolish them didn’t sweep Michael Howard into Number 10 in 2005. But this year, abolition of tuition fees was one of the big policies which helped Jeremy Corbyn to attract large numbers of young supporters and activists in the General Election (even if I think the more electorally significant appeal was to the parents of children who would be going to university in the next few years). The popularity of this is a real phenomenon, albeit one based on some “aspirational”, or delusional, thinking, so I’d like to propose a more practical and immediately achievable alternative to address many of the underlying concerns.

Do we have a problem with tuition fees and student loans?

It is unsurprising that the idea of taking on at least £27k of debt for a three year degree, not to mention up to another £33k of debt if entitled to the highest level of maintenance loan to fund living expenses, will fill many with horror if they look at those numbers in isolation. In the context of making bold and clear promises, hitting out at those levels of debt will always be popular. That (as so often), the reality is more complicated, is easily lost. So it is easy to dismiss the fact that the introduction and subsequent increases in tuition fees have rather than reduced the numbers applying for and going to university, actually been accompanied by those numbers rising. Similarly, the proportion of applicants and students from the least well-off backgrounds has risen, in contrast with the fall seen in Scotland where the Scots Government abolished tuition fees for Scots and EU students (other than those from elsewhere in the UK). While nobody says that raising tuition fees causes more to want to study, however counterintuitive it might seem, it cannot be said definitively that it has deterred substantial numbers. As something approaching the 50% of young people who Blair, before being elected in 1997, said he wanted to experience higher education are now doing so, even if the costs do deter some, there is a question as to whether having much more than 50% of young people going to university is beneficial.

Yet, the issue remains. So at least politically, there has to be a consideration of whether the current system is the best one and if not, whether there are alternatives which would be an improvement. One of those might be simply to abolish tuition fees and to bring back maintenance grants at a cost of some £12 billion a year. But even that manifesto promise from Labour started to unravel sufficiently that shortly before the General Election they mooted the possibility of writing off all past student debt. I think that logically this did need to be done because merely abolishing fees for students starting their courses in 2018 would itself create a huge cliff edge of unfairness which would have hit all those who had by the accident of having been born a couple of years earlier, continued to have been liable for loans which were being portrayed as manifestly unfair. All those students who tirelessly campaigned for Jeremy Corbyn to become PM would on graduation discover that what they’d actually done was to hamper their own lives for years to come. Can you imagine being a fly on the wall as a manager, graduated in 2017 with £60k of debt, repayable at 9% of their income above £21k a year for the next 30 years and seeing their income tax going up, gets asked for a pay rise in 2022 by the debt-free graduate trainee they’re supervising? Can you imagine their face when that trainee gazumps them on buying a flat in 2024 after they’ve managed to save a deposit which the manager will need another couple of years to get? Of course the natural next step after abolition of student loans for the future would have to be to wipe out past debts if you didn’t want either to ignite intergenerational warfare or rely on pure altruism!

That possibility was described by the Shadow Chancellor in an interview on BBC1 with Andrew Marr as “an aspiration”, as the cost of doing so is estimated at £100 billion. Some Conservatives gleefully leapt upon this as a “gotcha” moment where they could use this to say “guys, they lied to you, they never really meant to do it, you were duped into supporting them!”. I’m not so sure. While an aspiration is not as good as a manifesto promise, and a manifesto promise itself can be conveniently watered down or indeed reneged upon if circumstances allow (as with the original introduction of fees), it is not nothing. Much of Labour’s appeal, even before Corbyn, but particularly since, comes from the feeling that they care. That they really “give a stuff about stuff” and will always be aiming to do nice things even if they can’t always deliver them. Rather than destroy the argument on student finance, McDonnell’s admission doubled down on it. Many will have seen it as Labour moving further than its manifesto promise of free tuition to a future, at some point, but one which Labour would be working towards because it was its aspiration, in which those burdened with past debts would also be forgiven them. I don’t think it entirely fanciful that some might even see that as a very good argument for getting them in as soon as possible so that they can start working towards that aspiration quickly. One of the blows from Cameron’s Conservatives in 2015 which hit was that Miliband’s Labour didn’t get aspiration. That Corbyn’s Labour in 2017 has aspirations which chime with so many is not a telling criticism of it!

No, the real criticism of this entire line of policy is not that it is aspirational but that it is delusional.

This is where the realities can and should be set out. Not to knock the underlying idea that many in society instinctively find the notion of students graduating with £60k of debt unattractive. But to look at the practicality of the aspiration as set out by Labour. The impact it would have on people.

At no point in the future is it conceivable that adding £100bn onto public spending to benefit those who have already graduated and started to acquire the benefits of a university degree anyway would be anywhere near a priority for a government. That’s more than the annual budget of the NHS. The idea that next year and every year thereafter it would be a good idea to spend £12bn on paying the fees for half the population to go to university and providing many of them with their living expenses should be seen as ludicrous. That’s the same as increasing disability benefits by more than 25%, housing benefits by 40% or quadrupling unemployment benefits. There would also be other aspects of education where such an increase in funding would benefit more disadvantaged children, particularly in Early Years. Although participation in higher education now stands at about 25% of those from the least advantaged backgrounds, students are still much more likely to come from better off families so making university free instead of increasing welfare benefits is not in any way progressive or fair. Even if the policy were to be enacted in addition to increasing welfare benefits, social care, school and early years education, etc, the point is that there would be more of a case for not doing it at all and putting that £12bn into those other areas. Being churlish I’d note here that Labour weren’t even proposing to do all those things – it was striking that they did not promise to increase welfare in their manifesto, at best it was another “aspiration”.

The other delusion is that abolishing tuition fees would be necessary to reflect the fact that having an educated population benefits us all. That is undeniably true and if the current system were such that students alone bore the cost of their degrees, there would be some merit in rebalancing things so that there the general public paid a part. However, the reality is that the entire student finance system in England and Wales has been designed with the assumption that a significant proportion, up to around a third, of students will not repay the entirety of their student loans by the end of the 30 year period after which the debt is written off. What this means is that a significant proportion of the amounts borrowed by students to pay for tuition and maintenance is actually paid for by general taxation. The system already accounts for the broader social benefit of an educated population by subsidising those students who don’t earn enough over the course of early to middle parts of their careers. And it does so by transferring the money immediately into the universities they attend, rather than slowly over the decades. Which is one of the reasons why Scots universities have the free places for Scottish students rationed. The Scots government pays about £7k a year to its universities per place. Of course those universities will be keen to expand provision to take English, Welsh and Northern Irish students who will attract fees of £9k a year. Indeed, the difference between those two fee levels is probably a good indicator of the additional public funding available from central government for universities on the basis of the expected repayment rates of loans.

Another point which this leads on to is that student loans are very odd types of loan (for detail on how the loans work see this link). The discussion tends to make it look as if student loans are like personal loans or mortgages. Obviously there will be horror at the idea that a 21 year old can be expected to start out in the adult world with £60k of something like credit card debt. But, student loans aren’t like that. It would in theory be possible to take out a personal loan or a mortgage which you didn’t have to make repayments for if your income dropped below £21k, but only at huge cost (it would be an insurance product something like PPI…). In practice, nobody would lend on the basis of having no idea whether an individual would ever earn enough to repay and without any particular concern if they earned too little to make repayments from time to time over 30 years. The amount repayable monthly is also independent of the amount actually borrowed. So a student doing a 3 year course who was not entitled to a maintenance loan could borrow £27k while one doing a 5 year course with a maintenance loan could borrow £100k and when they graduate, both will make identical repayments if they earn the same amount of money. There has been some disquiet at the applicable interest rate having been increased to 6%, but the effect of this is to reduce the proportion of high earning graduates who are able to repay quickly, it makes no difference at all to those lower earners who would never have repaid in full at the previous lower rate of interest.

The only difference comes in how long they carry on making those repayments. While they are called loans, they’re really much more like a graduate tax, right down to being deducted from gross pay in employees’ payslips. Maybe the biggest delusion of all is therefore that students are funded by loans.

I said earlier on that having aspirations is not to be criticised in itself. The other element to this is that I don’t think you can credibly criticise aspirations, or even the delusions I set out, without having an alternative which can address the problems more realistically and practically. One approach might be to say, actually, the current system does things just right, but however misguided or even delusional some of the criticisms of the current system might be, the reality is that many people find it bad and are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. Not everyone who disagrees with a position does so purely out of ignorance which merely requires the facts to be set out, whereupon they’ll go “oh, no, I can see I was wrong”. So, maybe…

It would be better to abolish student loans and replace them with a graduate tax

Now, I’m a Conservative, so I’m not normally one to favour proposing new taxes, but hear me out here. I also don’t like “stealth taxes” so I think there’s a strong case for transparency. As what we have with the current system of higher education finance is in effect a 9% tax on the income above £21k of all graduates why not just replace the loans with a clear tax? Without making any other changes at all, this could in principle have the effect of abolishing tuition fees and funding grants on the same criteria as those currently in place for maintenance loans. The same amount of public funding from general taxation as is currently used to enable the Student Loans Company to write off debts after 30 years could be applied to ensure that universities continued to get the £9k of funding needed to provide their courses. It is even possible that current student loans could be written off and their repayments replaced by liability to the tax. Although that may raise some additional questions depending on how far back to take it – it could be seen by those who took out loans going back to the 1990s who have repaid them or nearly done so as unfair if applied to the entirety of the Student Loan Company book of debts so perhaps the sensible cut off would be for loans for courses starting the year the fees were raised to £9k.

The precise percentage at which the tax should be levied would need to be determined, as well as how long it should be applied, ie just for 30 years, or until State Pension Age is reached. The latter would allow for the percentage to be reduced, providing an immediate cash terms benefit to new graduates and would be administratively simpler. But overall, the aim would be for the tax to cover the costs of higher education as they stand without requiring cuts to other budgets or increases in other taxes.

Apart from being more transparent, a graduate tax of this sort would also remove, to the extent that it exists, the possibility that a young person might be put off applying to university by the idea of taking on debt. I would be quite surprised if many young people make career choices at school based on the level of taxation they are likely to incur in the future. Are there any 17 year olds who decide against applying to read Law with the aim of becoming a solicitor by the fact that if they practice in a big City firm they’ll be paying the 45p rate of tax in their 30s? Or who opt for nursing over medicine because they’re less likely to be hit by the 40p rate? I’d be surprised if anything more than a small minority of employed adults could even say what rate of National Insurance they pay let alone that they thought about the different rates applicable when they were still at school. Income taxes, of which the graduate tax would be one, are, for good or ill, something that people only really think about and worry about (if at all) once they apply to what they are actually earning at the time.

This also leads on to another benefit. As a tax, the level of the tax could be varied based on the actual needs of universities, students and society. Those paying the tax would have a voice in this, so there could be an informed political debate over time as to what and how much should be paid. If there were a majority who thought grants and bursaries should be increased (or in the case of nursing, reintroduced), there would be a clear mechanism for doing so and they’d need to win support for increasing the graduate tax. If on the other hand, there were a majority who thought that eg certain subjects were not suitably valuable to society to merit being funded through their taxes or that it would be a good idea if certain post-graduate courses should also attract funding, that too could be passed. Debate over higher education would become more informed by what the public were willing to bear in reality rather than in abstract (“of course it would be great if everyone could spend 3 years doing whatever they fancy for free, how dare you try to make learning about money, consider the lilies in the field?”). But the pre-fees situation of “why should the bin man pay taxes to pay for the rich kid to swan around studying Art History?” would no longer have any force because the vast bulk of the costs would be borne by high earning graduates and it would be much clearer that the bin man’s contribution in taxes would be going to the general benefit of having an educated population which supplied good quality doctors and teachers (etc).

Now with Brexit, there is the ability to design a higher education funding system which is not based upon an expectation that it will have to be made available on identical terms to students from 27 other EU states which meant that loans were enforceable against foreign students who left the UK after graduating whereas a tax would not have been. Perhaps the time has come for a graduate tax. Doing this while maintaining the funding going to universities, providing living expense support to students from poorer backgrounds, possibly reducing the amounts actually deducted from the pay packets of graduates and extending the benefits of all this to past graduates and current students without requiring cuts to public spending or increases in general taxation strikes me as not just an aspiration, but something which could be done in reality and soon. 

 

 

 

 

Glastonbury 2017

Why was Glastonbury 2017 like General Election 2017? Because it started out with uncomfortably hot weather which you thought couldn’t possibly last, was hit by unforecast persistent drizzle that made you long for the 32C you had when it started, followed by Jeremy Corbyn, before finishing with more representative mild sunshine.

OK, that doesn’t really work that well. This year’s Glastonbury was however, probably the most political one I’ve been to. There’s always been a political undercurrent to the festival, both in the small Leftfield Tent and in the nature of the charitable causes supported to great effect by the festival. But it has until recently been avoidable. It isn’t the main draw or reason why we put together complex plans involving organising in groups of four to log on at 9am on a Sunday morning in October to maximise our chances of getting all our friends tickets before they sell out after half an hour of pressing refresh on our web browsers. Back in 2015 I was first aware of people discussing politics while just out and about at the festival – surprising numbers discussing how Cameron was the better choice of PM than Miliband. Last year, with the festival coinciding with the EU Referendum vote, the atmosphere the morning of the result was funereal and many of the bands referred to the Referendum (invariably against the result). And of course, this year was Corbyn’s year after he cancelled his scheduled appearance in 2016 to call for A50 to be triggered the morning after.

I didn’t go and see him introduce Run the Jewels on the Pyramid Stage at 4pm (geddit, JC 4PM?!) so won’t comment on the speech he actually gave. Like with many of the bands at Glastonbury, if you’ve seen them once, you don’t always need to go and see them again. I did however hear the “Oh Jeremy Corbyn” chant to the tune of Seven Nation Army a few times and spotted nearly ten people over the course of the festival wearing Corbyn T-shirts (a missed opportunity there – I’m surprised they didn’t get a T-shirt cannon to distribute them to the Pyramid Stage crowd). I’m sure that many of those who joined in did so to express their deep love for JC, but did hear a few people chant along lustily then remark to their friends that they’d voted for May. It’s a catchy chant for those whose names scan appropriately and it’s no surprise the tune has become a regular at many football matches – at Brentford it certainly helped to cement the cult popularity of Alan McCormack despite him being a peripheral part of the team for much of the last three seasons. Like any good football chant, even for a supporter it is easy enough to feel the need to join in as part of experiencing and contributing to the atmosphere of the event without committing yourself to the literal truth of the words and their implications – despite having lived in Leeds longer than I lived in London I’m as prone as the next fan to a lusty rendition of “You dirty Northern Bastard” when a player for any team in the Midlands or beyond fouls a Bee, even if the victim is himself from the North and the perpetrator lived all his life on the South Coast before being transferred.

Glastonbury is not real life and people don’t go there to experience reality but rather to escape it for a few days. It’s not cheap and the prospect of spending £238 on a ticket and £50 to park while foregoing showers for tactical cleansing with wet wipes and planning movements around the site to give access to the least unpleasant toilets for 5 days isn’t most people’s idea of fun. For those who can’t afford the luxury of paying to experience such spartan conditions there is the option of volunteering to work at the festival in return for a ticket, but that tends not to work out at anything like the £10ph minimum wage JC promised everyone from the age of 16 and I shudder to think what the ticket price would be if it came in. And almost unbelievably, it has been reported that after bloviating on a world without borders and the evils of inherently exploitative zero hours contracts, the festival itself sent home 600 of the 700 workers recruited for two weeks of clean up work at minimum wage after the festival without work after two days.

Ironically while the festival in popular imagining retains some of its original hippy connotations, in reality, since the fences went up to restrict entry to paying guests only, it is both a much safer and more resolutely middle class thing. So there’s not much chance of having your tent nicked while some scally tries to sell you shots from a 3 litre bottle of spirits with an optic which may or may not have been liberated from a pub. It is still a lot of fun even if it is more John Galt’s mountain home for the creative elite in Atlas Shrugged than anything else.

For the first time this year, thanks to Rob’s mate Showbiz Sean, I had a glimpse into how the other half lived with a backstage pass at the Park Stage. Unfortunately I am terrible at recognising people so have no stars to report having seen.

So, on to the acts themselves. Unusually, perhaps because the weather was fine and the rain fell on ground which had been dry for weeks and so drained away rather than turning it to slurry, I didn’t go to see any of the comedy. Usual Simon rules applied, even though Simon didn’t come this year – 3 songs or 15 minutes minimum to count as having seen someone (actually, we weren’t sure if the rule might not have been initially 25 minutes but amended to avoid excessive exposure to tedium from bands which did bad veeery long songs).

Thursday 

The Orb – The Orb’s three sets on Thursday were something I’d been looking forward to as part of the festival’s annual creep towards making Thursday a more official part of the programme. However, to be honest, I can’t say I got a lot out of them as The Glade where they were playing is quite badly affected by noise pollution from neighbouring bar sound systems (this happens on several stages – I’m not sure why the festival organisers don’t require bars to turn off their music during sets on nearby stages). We were also pre-occupied with looking out for Martin who’d arrived that evening and was due to find us there. We discovered that the festival seemed to have been invaded by many False Martins in a live action game of Where’s Wally, each False Martin sharing some, but not all the external characteristics of the real one.

Friday

New York Brass – Glastonbury hasn’t properly started until you’ve seen New York Brass playing their lively arrangements of pop classics. That’s the law.

Hacienda Classical– the first of the proper acts. Started with a minute’s silence in remembrance of the recent tragedies in Manchester and London. Bez came on to be Bez for a bit (without maracas, disappointingly). Peter Hook played Blue Monday. All good stuff. Then a march up from the Pyramid to The Park for…

Bo Ningen– Japanese v hairy v heavy space rock. V good & loud. Also very polite in the usual Japanese way – I could see them being like my trainee when I worked at a Japanese company who, despite sitting at the next desk to me would stand up and walk to a respectful distance behind me and wait until I noticed them before they would ask a question. I saw the bassist a couple of days later in the backstage bar at The Park still wearing the quasi-medieval Japanese robes they had on stage. According to Showbiz Sean that’s how they dressed all the time and they had turned up to set up their camp like that. Discovery of the festival.

Las Kellies– from Argentina, girl trio, spiky guitar pop, “Mind your own business” the highlight.

Pictish Trail– Guillemots/Stornawayish sound with some wibbly noises added in for good measure.

Fujiya & Miyagi– not actually Japanese. Motorik pop, good.

Mark Lanegan– the Screaming Trees frontman started off with a bit of a racket but then settled down to more gentle stuff that were a pleasant backdrop to a gentle mid-afternoon snooze for me and Martin and the cue for Rob to take advantage of the clean toilets backstage at The Park. The set led to the coining of “Lanegan Lie Down” for any act which turned out to offer an opportunity for a nap.


Ride– 10/10! A few off the new album, along with older hits, ignoring the badness of their last pre-split album. Great rendition of “Leave them all behind” (probably their last really good song in their first incarnation, good enough to make Going Blank Again disappointing when it came out because nothing else compared) , ended with the lovely Vapourtrail. A close run thing between this and The Killers for set of the festival, shaded by Ride because it could more easily have gone badly wrong.

Future Islands– I still don’t really get them.

Kuenta I Tambu– Gambian dance, they’re fun.

Radiohead– started very flat & plodding but perked up with Pyramid Song followed by Everything in its Right Place mixed with the emergency broadcast jingle. Only stayed for the first 45 minutes but it was clear that they’d designed the set carefully to build up over the full 2 hours to culminate in the big early album hits (apparently they’d done this at Coachella recently). If there hadn’t been the lure of other acts it might have been worth persisting with but in the event there was the chance to see…

Flaming Lips– who were flaming bonkers good. The photo above is from the (surprisingly straight) cover version of Bowie’s Space Oddity which saw Wayne Coyne walk out over the crowd in an inflatable ball. Other on stage craziness included charging around on an inflatable unicorn. Well worth the trek from Pyramid to Park.

Saturday 

Bootleg Beatles-  they did Day in the life well and otherwise sounded suitably Beatlesish. Got the requisite 3 songs in during the walk from one side of the Pyramid to the other on the way to…

Speak and Spell– Depeche Mode covers band. They have the live act to a tee including Dave Gahan’s “Thangyew”. They really know their material- Just can’t get enough was played with the ending from the 12″ version, which sounded a bit unfamiliar but luckily Martin, who is otherwise often wilfully obscure in his musical tastes has a guilty pleasure in having collected Depeche Mode 12″ and remixes since his teens.

Vieux Farka Toure– Malian music. He gamely tried getting a lunchtime crowd standing in drizzle to sing along.

Inheaven– guitar pop, heavyish, tuneful, anthemic. Boy girl singer combo. Decent enough. Although in retrospect, having heard rave reviews, I probably should have persuaded Martin to come to see British Sea Power instead.

Jools Holland– parp!

Stay Hungry– (bandstand) man with ukulele. “Too sad to wank” and a folk song reminiscing about Britpop. Only at Glastonbury.

Wild Beasts– pleasantly forgettable, although Alpha Female is a neat song. Had a short Lanegan Lie Down as the sun came out again.

Badbadnotgood– Jazz Jazz Not Good

Thurston Moore– a fanboy yay from me as a Sonic Youth fan who always preferred Thurston songs to Kim sings, even if he does like Corbyn.

Katy Perry– apart from pronouncing Aphrodite as Afro-dite pretty good pop of the sort I’d never have any other reason to go and see, not having a teenage daughter.


DJ Shadow– a great example of what a good show a pure DJ can put on. He mixed up tracks from all his albums. Bass at resonant frequency of my trousers. The only disappointments were that he didn’t play a 15 minute version of Bergschrund off the last album (I’ve no idea whether he ever does but it’s one which really could do with being lengthened) and Run the Jewels, who were on site, didn’t come over to guest on Nobody Speak (although I did hear them perform it in their own set from a distance).

Joe Goddard– routine dance music without any of the invention or playfulness of Hot Chip. We were only really listening to kill time before Showbiz Sean gave us a lift in the back of the pick up he’d been transporting artists round the back stage area to get us down to the Other Stage for Alt-J. It is obviously highly superficial of me but it was great fun speeding down the access roads and being waved through busy crossings in the main festival site as people craned to see whether there was anyone famous in the truck. It was also nice being able to have a comfy sit down in the crew bar behind the Pyramid Stage to watch part of the Foo Fighters set (although we did hear more than 3 songs and watching the same screen footage and sound feed that we’d have got had we been the other side of the stage I’m not giving myself a tick for this, anyway, I saw them play in a little tent at Reading 20 odd years ago so no need).

– Not the usual view of the Pyramid Stage!


Alt-J – they played with their usual meticulous and unique sound. I think I’ve probably exhausted the need to see them again. Their meticulousness means that they add very little to their live performances – the records have clearly been crafted to be the definitive works so why fiddle with them?

Sunday 

Slaves– all good fun as before and Isaac could probably do a very entertaining hour of spoken word,  but no Cheer up London- possibly because it might have struck the wrong note in light of the recent tragedies at London Bridge and Grenfell Tower. 

Frank Carter & the Rattlesnakes– grungy swears. Got bottled with piss which made him angry. Song about not coming home after a gig and how terrorists are cowards. Song for lady crowd surfers. A heavy Billy Bragg but basically very happily milking the unique opportunity of a packed John Peel Stage waiting for The Killers who were coming on next. 

The Killers– Peel Stage rammed 2 acts early for secret gig. Triumphant- better than when I last saw them on Pyramid and just unashamedly playing to the audience with a greatest hits package. 


The Cinematic Orchestra– a bit jazz a bit cinematic. More palatable to me than Badbadnotgood but too much jazz for Rob. 

Ward Thomas– folk rocky summery girl harmonies. Only visit to the Acoustic Stage which didn’t have a particularly appealing line up this year. Only got the tick because the Acoustic Stage still has a nice real ale tent and we fancied a sit down and a pint which took us through 3 songs. 

Jagwar Ma– played as a continuous dance mix. Sounded like the music playing in a sophisticated but shady night club in Miami Vice where Crockett & Tubbs were going to suss out a suave and untouchable drug baron. Better than their normal stuff. Also a very beautiful sorceress shoved past us accompanied by a rather rough flunky. She turned out to be Kate Moss. 

London Grammar– modern Enya. Quite nice for a band we caught accidentally as they were running late. 

Metronomy– somewhat like Radiohead they played a set that took a bit of time to get going. Interestingly jumped between songs from different albums which dealt with different aspects of a similar theme (as the albums do). Another band, like Alt-J who don’t add a lot live, even though they were much more inclined to depart from the way the songs played on record. 

– Ancient and Modern, The Pyramid and Glastonbury Tor in the background, waiting for Ed Sheeran, the end of the festival and 7 hours driving home. 

Farewell to Glastonbury until 2019!