AMA: The Bastard Answers III

Andrew Winfield

What 5 books were landmarks in your reading history and why?

This list is definitely not right, but off the top of my head:

Two Cheers for Anarchism, James C. Scott

Many anarchist writers are abstract, esoteric and weirdly unconcerned with people’s natural behaviour, but I find Scott to be a completely different kind of animal. He’s funny, humane, utterly averse to dogmatism of any kind, and full of wisdom. Several of his ideas in this book have stayed with me indefinitely. The first was the need to regularly practice non-conformity, training your resistance to the crowd almost like a muscle. The second was his celebration of the petite bourgeoisie, the class which is patronised by capitalists and detested by socialists but which shows a fierce determination for freedom, for instance through shop owning. And the third was for an ‘anarchist squint’ - a way of looking at the world and history that resists hierarchical power relations. It’s short and very brilliant.

Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell

Sorry, I know it’s obvious. The political impact is patent - I suspect that it is so far-reaching that I am unable to know where it begins or ends. But what I want to mention here is that it had a massive influence on how I write. I’m not talking here of Orwell’s rules on writing, but about the style he deploys in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, the fake book within the book. Something about the style of those sections completely overcame me in my 20s and now I emulate that voice when I am writing books in the real world - especially How to be a Liberal and How Westminster Works. I want it to feel as if you’re picking up an artifact which explains the mysteries of the world. I find it a really thrilling and pacy way to ground a long piece of writing. So yes, my literary career, such as it is, is really just copying O’Brien.

A Room with a View, EM Forster

Forster is my favourite writer but this is not my favourite of his books. It was just the first. It delved into my mind and started reorganising the furniture in there. The central idea in any Forster novel is that people are complicated and lovable. He very rarely takes against one of his characters or condemns them. In this case, it is Charlotte Bartlett who made the greatest impression on me. She is presented at first as a scold and a snob, but gradually he reveals much greater depths and sensitivities. Forster is in love with humanity and reading him makes you a better person. That process started for me with this book.

Levels of Life, Julian Barnes

Barnes wrote this after the death of his wife. I can’t make head or tail of the first two sections, but the third, when he spends perhaps 50 pages talking of grief, is perhaps the most beautiful contemporary writing I’ve ever read. Barely a week goes by without me thinking of it. As you get into your 40s, you deal with death a lot, sometimes weekly, usually through the passing of your friends’ parents. I became much better at being the friend of a grieving person because of this book. This means being able to confront the topic of death: do not try to escape it, never ignore it if they want to talk about it, do not try to make it practical or break it down into operational tasks. Sit with your friend as they face the void. There are many terrible things about getting older, but one of the good things is the chance to be there for the people you love. Barnes really helped me with that.

A Useful History of Britain: The Politics of Getting Things Done, Michael Braddick

Ignore the terrible title and front cover. Braddick’s book fundamentally changed the way I see history and politics. In any normal world it would be considered one of the grand works of historical theory. It is essentially the application of path dependency to political history - the Viking invasions lead to the danegeld which establishes regular taxation which contributes to a centralised state and so on. Reading it felt like you’d been presented with a truth so obvious you couldn’t believe you hadn’t recognised it before - the mark of a truly groundbreaking idea. I realised afterwards I had entrenched it deep in the way I look at history.

Subscribe now

Anon

Hi Ian, political parties aside, do you think Scotland has a right to be an Independent country?

Obviously. Everyone does. That’s what the referendum was - a demonstration of the self-determination of Scots and their right to form an independent state. But the thing is: independence campaigners lost. I personally have a pretty low bar for when there should be another referendum - I think it’s been satisfied by having pro-independence parties secure a majority. But there is a strong counter-argument that you cannot simply relitigate this decision every four years until you get the result you want - those votes have to be a once in a lifetime moment.

Something fucking weird has happened to supporters of Scottish independence online. They act as if that vote never took place. They talk about Scots the same way that gender critical activists talk about women - as if they represent all of them as a homogenous mass. But in fact, many women support trans rights and many Scots - a majority - voted against independence. Those who want an independent Scotland would do better preparing the ground with those who rejected them last time rather than inventing some imaginary tyranny in London keeping them in bondage. The only reason Scotland is still part of the UK is because most Scots wanted it to remain that way. There should perhaps be a little more effort to respect their wishes as well as those of the other side.

Anon

Do you think it’s possible to drive charisma out of politics? (Assuming its a benefit) Lewis Goodall recently on the News Agents described Farage as having ’sparkle’. Commentators lament the lack of a Thatcher or a Blair. Personally I’d like my politicians to be totally boring - but very committed to public service and really really good at doing it.

I am also suspicious of charisma but I think the last few months have been a comprehensive demonstration that it is an undeniable part of what makes a successful political leader.

It’s such an obvious point, isn’t it? Leaders must be charismatic. But sometimes political obsessives spend so much time thinking about the subject that we forget the most basic conclusions.

We went from a leader who could not communicate with the public to one who could. That is a basic distinction. Starmer looked like he was desperate for the camera to go away, like he feared it. Burnham looks like he wants it on him, like he is basking in it. Starmer was emotionally distant, unknowable, somehow false. Burnham is emotionally present, empathetic, seemingly authentic.

Charisma isn’t everything. If you secure the right to be heard but have nothing to say, or say the wrong thing, then it is pointless. It is a necessary but insufficient condition of successful political leadership. I’ve made a bit of a silent commitment to myself not to forget this lesson in future, no matter how much I want to pretend that a candidate I like can work out.

CapriPAN

Are we seeing a pattern develop from the Burnham government, small limited actions that are not likely to effect the major change promised. Headline grabbing but no real change and Growth Britain oh dear!

I don’t accept this at all and I wish people had a little more patience. What we are seeing is a combination of restraint, preparation, sequencing difficulties and genuine ambition. Calling for the moon on a stick within weeks of Burnham getting into power is just counter-productive.

On restraints: Burnham has many of the same restraints as his predecessor. Some of these exist independently of the Labour party. The bond market is at our neck - it’s at everyone’s neck, but ours looks the most vulnerable. There’s lots of reasons for that, but it is real and it has not changed simply because there’s a new PM. Other constraints are imposed by Labour but are not really Burnham’s fault. Promising no rise in income tax, national insurance or VAT makes this situation much harder. But having made that pledge at the last election, I can see why Burnham feels he is still stuck with it now.

This is why chancellor John Healey made a speech this week which was virtually indistinguishable from those made by Rachel Reeves - because he needs to reassure the bond markets. They trusted Reeves - just about - and he needs them to trust him too. It must be this way until the situation improves. And depressing as it is, it is far less depressing than seeing Labour trigger a bond market massacre, which will see them out of power for decades. If you want a Reform government, fucking this up would be the quickest way to get it.

Burnham also needs time to put together a set of proposals for how to change the country - the ten year plan. It is better that this is done carefully and diligently, with proper input from friendly think tanks, than that it is done fast and sloppy only to fall apart upon contact with reality. He used fairly superficial minor pledges - taxes on pubs, bus tickets - in order to create a narrative that bought him time for that preparation.

In some cases, time itself makes certain policies impossible. This is the sequencing problem. Take stamp duty. Everyone hates this tax - right, left, centre, economists and politicians. It would be much better to replace it and council tax with a land-value tax. But it takes time to prepare for how you would do that. It’s really fucking complicated. And during that time you cannot say that you are doing it. If Burnham announced that he was scrapping stamp duty now, he would single-handedly kill the property market. Why would anyone buy a home when they might be able to do so in a few months time for much less money? So he has to deny it, and by denying it, he kills his chance to do it - or can only do it by explicitly lying to the public. It’s a mess and one which it is hard to solve.

Finally, there are areas where Burnham is making major ambitious commitments. He has made a commitment to end rough sleeping. He has made a commitment to fix social care. And he has said that he will present a bundle of political reforms which include electoral reform. That is fucking massive. If he did these three things alone it would be considered one of the most consequential administrations of the post-war period. And yet still people are yawning and pretending he’s just more of the same disappointment. It’s mad.

Subscribe now

Steve Tilley

There are 120 comments now so apologies if this appears earlier. Matthew D’Ancona wrote a thought-provoking piece in The New World last week about the importance of being a reader. I am a reader but have to ‘curate’ what I read carefully to balance challenge and comfort. Roughly speaking I manage a book a week, a daily paper and two weeklies. What’s your regime like?

Stephen Long

You write a lot. What’s that process like for you? Do you have a routine? Do you focus well? How do you begin a piece and how do you finish it? That’s four questions. Is that ok? (Now it’s five.)

I think the main thing for work - whatever that work entails - is finding a time that works for you and preserving it at all costs. For me that is between 6am and lunch, which I can stretch out to 2pm if I snack thoughtfully. This is the period that I write or read, and do so intensely. After I eat, it’s game over. I am useless. And by that I mean useless for anything. I’m too knackered to do admin. If I try to read, I fall asleep. My writing is uninspired. I’ve spent years trying to do something useful with this time. My current solution is to go to the gym - it feels awful, but at least it’s useful and you can grind your way through it. I then get another modest burst of energy around 4pm, which lasts a couple of hours.

Obviously this is the kind of thing you can do as a freelancer. Before you feel jealous, bear in mind that there are many penalties to being a freelancer - permanent anxiety around work, effectively paying double for holidays, no employer help with pension etc. So we are entitled to the good bits, which are control over your timetable and the literally invaluable quality of not having a boss.

Almost all my useful reading for work - either Origin Story or research for a book - takes place in that early morning period. The number of books is irrelevant. At the start of a topic for Origin Story, I read very slowly - one book can take weeks. This is because I don’t know what the narrative is yet or what I want to focus on. Once I do know that, I start ploughing through books, because I’m able to scan the bits I don’t need looking for the bits I do.

I also read several newspapers, magazines and newsletters - the i paper, the Guardian, the FT, the Times, the Politico newsletter, Substacks by Sam/Lawrence Freedman, Jonn Elledge, Christina Pagel, Paul Mason and Marie le Conte. The magazines are mostly for fun: the TLS, What HiFi (this gives me more joy than you might sensibly imagine), Edge, Private Eye, Empire. It’s mostly nerd stuff, but I learn more about writing good, clear, precise copy from What HiFi and Edge than I do most newspapers.

My reading for pleasure is made up almost entirely of comics and takes place on the weekend. This is my favourite part of the week and I think it’s important, as a form of self-care. I get through between one and three trades per weekend - each takes between one and five hours. If I don’t like the comic, I read it quickly. If I love it, I read it very slowly. Comics reading is very different to novels in that way. But the really key thing about this is that my phone is another room and I am entirely present in the moment, for a good long period of several hours, reading without purpose except my own sense of joy and relaxation.

I know it’s hard - with kids and work and partners and admin and all that. But I do think that people who enjoy reading should have at least one moment in the week when they do so, for hours, without distraction, for their own pleasure and no other reason.

James Harris

We’re a similar age, and you’ve written very nicely about the adjustment to middle age and its attendant losses. But, putting your optimist’s hat on, what have you found to be the positive sides of that particular transition?

I’m flattered by this, because James is very brilliant on this subject. My answer is basic, but I think it is basic because it is a great fundamental truth of successfully getting older which has therefore faded into cliche. It’s to be comfortable with yourself and therefore with not being liked by everyone.

I’ve always had a lot of friends and I have always had a lot of people who really dislike me. In school and at work, I was usually popular with the people immediately around me and unpopular with the people in my vicinity who were not immediately around me - in other classes or years, at other desks in the same office.

In particular I am reliably disliked by a certain type of man. I suspect that this is because I am socially confident but would probably lose in a fight. There’s a kind of guy who cannot get past that and who feels affronted by a world in which both these things could be true at the same time. One of the best things about getting older is having enough social proof of who you are to be genuinely unbothered by this kind of guy. You clock them pretty quickly - it’s in the eyes.

Another part is knowing when to draw the line. One of the great struggles of life is finding the right balance between being open and welcoming while still maintaining the confidence to be rough with someone who is being rude. When you are in a happy open state, it can feel utterly unnatural to suddenly pull someone up. It’s like you have tempted yourself into a position where you cannot draw a line.

People who want to bring you down will often use this to slowly chip away at you with disparaging comments, or by using the cover of friendly piss-taking to diminish your status. But the older you are, the better you are at holding a space, looking them in the eye and making it clear that you know what they are doing. It is boring, it is tiring and it should not be necessary. Confident men do not undermine the social status of others. But it is a thing that happens and it is important not to let them do it to you.

It is really hard to find the middle ground between sociopathy and being afraid of conflict. The people who hate conflict let people walk all over them. Those who love conflict basically turn into bullies. Being an empathetic person who nevertheless will stand up to a bully is difficult. It is a skill. You are not born with it. You have to learn it. Maybe you never perfect it, but it is what you strive to become. I’m much better at it now than I was in my 20s when I kind of bounced between being too generous and too mean.

Subscribe now

Ben R

Best train station to waste time waiting for a 45min connection in?

The objectively correct answer to this question is Gare de Lyon, because it has Le Train Bleu in it, which is hands down the most beautiful restaurant anyone ever put in a train station and perhaps the single best demonstration of the virtues of the French personality.

Ian Miles

Why does beer taste better from a cold bottle?

I’ve thought about this a lot. I think it’s because beer is not really one drink but many, and that the way this drink operates depends on the context in which it is drunk. I do not want to sit down with a mate after work and drink lager in a bottle. But I am currently on holiday in a hot country and I do not want a pint of a session IPA. I want something crisp and light and refreshing in a cold bottle. Actually, I might order one right now.

Beer, more than whisky or wine, is context specific. But I think the moments we drink it in a bottle stay with us because they are when we are at our happiest - on holiday, with family, in the sun, in the middle of a day that stretches into forever.

Anon

What’s the most important lesson you’ve taken away from the Origin Story podcasts and books?

I think the core lesson for me is about extent of sympathy - both for people and ideas.

When I was in university, we were taught to learn about an idea sympathetically. To open yourself up to it, try to understand it, want to be convinced by it. Then later you would read criticisms and tease it apart and look for flaws.

In my career, there is necessarily a very different approach. Partly that is a result of how fucking dreadful our opponents have become. There is no point adopting this generous approach to a welfare policy by Reform, for instance. It is not meant to work. It is not serious. So opening yourself up to it hands them a degree of legitimacy they do not deserve. It allows them to manipulate mainstream debate towards hatred and ignorance.

But it is also a product of the fact that I am basically a professional opinion-haver. When you write a column you are asked to hold a firm opinion on a subject often very soon after an event. You can obviously caveat, you can dilute, you can balance out competing arguments, but the reality is that no-one buys newspapers to read opinion writers who say: ‘well, on the one hand this and on the other hand that’. So my natural instinct is towards decisive appraisals.

Dorian is a much more generous human being than I am. He is less interested in judging people and ideas and much more interested in understanding how they reached their views - what happened to them in life, who were they debating with, what were the arguments in their time period, what were their loyalties and anxieties?

If Origin Story had two versions of me, it would be hectoring and dull - two bald men calling everyone a cunt. The reason it is more intellectually nutritious than that is because Dorian has stamped his personality onto it and made it much more empathetic and less judgemental. But hopefully my preference towards judgement and showing clear moral lines prevents it from becoming too wishy-washy, or BBC-like, or academic. It maintains a firm editorial voice, even if that voice is open to the motivations and complexity of the people who populate the stories we tell. The podcast is a combination of two approaches and that is why it works.

My main lesson is to constantly try to find that line - between empathy and judgement - when all I really want to do is call everyone a cunt.

Right, that’s it for this third edition of Ask Me Anything. No odds and sods today, or podcast, but normal service resumes next Friday. Question of the Week goes to James Harris, because I had to think about it really quite hard. He now gets a year’s free paid subscription to Striking 13. This gives him access to all the content which is reserved for paid subscribers, which is nothing, and to the full range of my paid subscription benefits, which do not exist.

Now everyone fuck off. I’m going to drink that beer.