Andrew’s Reviews > New Model Island: How to Build a Radical Culture Beyond the Idea of England > Status Update

Andrew
Andrew is on page 64 of 150
Almost half way am not fucking impressed. Tries to tart up Britpop as some absurd product of regional working class culture with an ear to 60s continental modernism, when plainly it was a macho postering, deeply consumerist establishment ploy recreating beach town mod thugginess. His argument that Blairism represented sublimated, warped New Left desires ignores a) new left desires were garbage and b) the late Marxist
— Sep 22, 2026 03:36PM
New Model Island: How to Build a Radical Culture Beyond the Idea of England

flag

Andrew’s Previous Updates

Andrew
Andrew is on page 97 of 150
Was perhaps abit harsh on this. Section on Northumbria and Basil Bunting's poetry is genuinely fascinating and introduced me to his work (priority find now!). But still dont know where the fuck its going, its still hoplessly waffly, its argument is weak (its reliance of hearsay, unattributed sources, generalised cultural observations are hardly rigrious) and terribly self indulgent. So a perfect Zero Book then!
— Sep 25, 2026 04:17PM
New Model Island: How to Build a Radical Culture Beyond the Idea of England


Andrew
Andrew is on page 65 of 150
Another howler. Niven writes that the contradiction was that the "economic basis of NL was Thatcherite, and Thatcherism was of course a political movement firmly embedded in the south-east of England". In one sentence hes done a sleight of hand which conflates the economics of Thatcherism with its politics. Thatcherism was economically neoliberal, but politically Tory. NL was economically AND culturally neolib.
— Sep 22, 2026 04:09PM
New Model Island: How to Build a Radical Culture Beyond the Idea of England


Comments Showing 1-1 of 1 (1 new)

dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Andrew (new) - added it

Andrew Today currents were savvy attempts by a clique of cultural parasites to make themselves relevent under the new neoliberal behemoth. Rejecting "fustian Old Labour values" and to "move beyond a classically Marxist politics based on the experience of a mostly European industrial working class" was pretty much just a binning of socialism overall, one which managed to erase the fact that the working classes largely if not totally encompassed these minority groups, even in their Fordist heyday (Grunswick anyone?) but that these new identitarian politics were almost always fantasies created by minority group elites to gain the benefits of cultural capital by presenting their own minority status as a group essence, thus preserving their own class position and neatly binding minority groups into neat consumer groups ready for their integration into the neoliberal blob. Blairism then, far from representing some kind of intital sublimated center lift aspiration for a new leftism against neoliberalism, was in fact its example par excellance, better in fact even than Thatcher. Devolution, which he appears to be predicating his whole argument on, was always a neoliberal ploy, one barely passed in Wales and failed at a regional level, than aimed to transcend notions of a national class politics into dividing the role of good government into provincial bourgeois elites. Devolution now is almost a dead dog, its track record at best a mixed bag in terms of its leftism (more so in Wales, where it has always been a tiny force, less so in Scotland, unless one counts a party that openly campaigned for Trump to build his golfcourse while predicating their entire argument for independence on fossil fuel based extractivism as left, which i dont). After the 26 Summer of Hell in UK devolution seems even less desirable, considering the patent need the South's going to need for Scotland's massive rain forest in some kind of pipeline for basic irrigation, and itd be interesting to see how a tiny welsh nation would cope without the national british army to put out wildfires there. National criseses require national solutions, not a fetish for petty regionalism devolving into resource wars over water and land. Seems to thats hes culumating his argument for some twerpy new cultural progressiveness on the (then) new Corbyn phenomenon, which...my god...is just fucking tragic and pathetic now.

But i suppose this is leftist intellectual writing 101 now. He even cites chunks of his mates book, published by the same publisher, at length, which just makes me think well why dont i read that fucking book then? The mandatory rerences to matyred Saint Mark Fisher are of course here, as the left becomes like a cat eating and vomitimg out the sick from its last dinner in perpetuaity.


back to top