Skip to content


June 30, 2015
As Greece prepares for a monumental decision, there is only one certainty: the European Ideal has been irrevocably damaged.


I am a Europhile. Not only that, I am a product of the Union. I have structured my life around the idea of free movement; my identity around the notion that I can be more than one thing: Mykonian, Greek, Londoner, British, European. For the first time in my life, I am beginning to wonder, whether the European project is now simply too broken to be fixed.

Do not misunderstand me. I am passionate about the notion of a Europe of partners, united around principles of solidarity and trade. I just think we have taken wrong turns. So many and so wrong that I feel very uncertain as to whether we can ever find our way back.

I am not alone in feeling like this and it is not of consequence only with regard to Greece. I have had numerous messages in the last few days from pro-European friends here in Britain, telling me that the way the institutions have treated Greece, have convinced them to cross over to the “out” camp for the forthcoming UK referendum on European membership.

I am not in the deluded camp who think that national sovereignty is a magic bullet that will restore some nationalist utopia which only ever existed in our minds. Governments have been captured by corporate interests, so completely and at every level, that all EU exit changes is the field on which necessary battles must be fought. No flag provides protection from that, however tightly we wrap ourselves in it.

Neither do I want to suggest that the project hasn’t been a success. Before it was captured by this fatal monetarist fever, it achieved decades of unprecedented peace and prosperity, extraordinary advances in working and consumer rights, and a mingling of cultures and populations which has enriched us all. But I know, in my heart, it is now irrevocably damaged.

The choice being presented to the Greek people is a difficult one. Stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, as they say. On one hand, continuing a programme which has decimated the country and its economy, plunged millions into poverty…

You can read the rest of this article here on BYLINE – a crowd-funded alternative news platform, on which writers can express their opinions with no fear, favour or editorial control. It is completely free and has no advertisements or spam. All we ask is that you consider funding us, if you have the capacity to do so. 

Why the battle between Athens and Brussels matters to all of you

June 4, 2015

Athens is a war zone. (AFP Photo / Louisa Gouliamaki)

There is a lot being written about the current negotiations between the Syriza government in Greece and the EU/IMF. The distance of most journalists from the Greek reality and atmosphere and the sheer volume of competing information, makes for a lot of white noise. I want to filter much of it out and boil the issues down to some very basic points. This is by no means a definitive list, but it is one which I think captures a number of “big ticket items” which I have not seen made clearly and explicitly.

1. The crisis is not an economic, but a political one. In the grand scheme of things, the sums which are the totality of the difference between the government’s proposal and the EU/IMF’s counterproposals are tiny and risible. Stripped of their political significance, they would not even show up as a blip on the European, let alone the global economic radar. A solution has not been achieved, because the EU/IMF are defending austerity in general. To concede, would be to accept they got it wrong.

2. The measures being counter-proposed by the EU are undeliverable and punitive. One only has to look at the proposals on VAT to realise that the EU is either clueless or not interested in a deal. Proposed VAT rates of 11% on staple food and 23% on electricity/water are not only regressive and unaffordable, but would plunge Greece into an inflationary death spiral, discouraging tourism, encouraging illegal trade and costing many times more than they raise in lost revenue. The proposal to scrap the relief to islands shows a lack of understanding of basic economic realities regarding the cost of shipping goods to thousands of small, remote islands. It is blindly trying to apply German policies. The proposals are not economically realistic; they are a punishment beating for having elected the “wrong” government.

3. The entrenched position of the players has to do with domestic rather than international policies. The battle between Merkel and Schäuble behind the scenes for leadership of their party before the next German election; the threat Rajoy faces in Spain from Podemos, underlined by recent municipal results; resistance to Dijsselbloem’s programme of ultra-right-wing economic policies in the Netherlands within his own Labour Party; the failure of Renzi to stimulate a stagnating Italian economy; – all these factors, and many besides, play a much bigger part in shaping players’ position towards the Greek crisis, than anything to do with the Greek crisis.

4. A fundamental misjudgment of Syriza in general and Tsipras in particular. There was a catastrophically widely held belief among the European establishment that, once elected, Tsipras would “play ball”. There is still palpable shock at his sticking to his election commitments, often expressed as the accusation that he is being unreasonable. Every statement out of EU institutions for the last five months has been practically underlined by the subtext “shit, he wasn’t bluffing”.

5. A Grexit would be disastrous for the EU. Tsipras understands this. Given current geopolitical circumstances, Putin’s expansionism, the powder keg that is North Africa, the Middle East on the brink of all-out war – strategically, Europe could afford to lose practically any single country from the Union, except Greece. Greece is the geographic and military key to all those conflict zones. Greece slipping by default into a China/Russia alliance would be nothing short of a global game-changer.

6. There was an underestimation of popular support for Syriza and misunderstanding of the mood in Greece. The EU/IMF clearly expected support for the new government to ebb away, as fruitless negotiations protracted. The opposite has happened. Support is significantly higher now than in the January election. Tsipras’s personal ratings are sky high. After living on the brink of disaster for so many years, I sense a que-sera-sera attitude in most people. This is not to say they don’t fear capital controls, the threat of Grexit, austerity, hunger, poverty and degradation. It is to say that they have lived with them for so long, they have become an ordinary part of the landscape.

7. Greeks are busiest in the summer. Everyone is busiest during the summer months. Everyone is richer during the summer months. It was a fundamental miscalculation by the EU/IMF to try and win a PR battle of fear during this period. The country is too light, too warm, too beautiful and too busy to take notice.


CONCLUSION: The EU/IMF have played their hand badly. By calling a bluff that wasn’t a bluff they have played themselves into a situation in which they have no win scenario and no exit strategy. They will lose. The only question now is whether they lose badly or not and whether they take Greece down with them.

If this intransigence is played out, they force Greece into a new election, possible Grexit, instability, and plunge the entire continent back into recession. If they back down, Greece is seen as victorious, Podemos wins in Spain and they start the same negotiations with Iglecias, only the sums involved are larger and a resistance front in Southern Europe pushing back against imposed market liberalisation and austerity becomes a serious challenge.

They have, I think, realised this, but are still locked in a self-destructive raising of the stakes. Merkel and Hollande have noted this, which is why they have taken charge of negotiations increasingly away from the Eurogroup.

The reason this matters to all is twofold. First, it forces out into the open and brings into sharp contrast the increasing divergence between the wellbeing of markets and the wellbeing of populations. Second, it marks a clear act of economic blackmail by a global de facto establishment – let’s call it “The Davos Set” – unhappy at a democratic people opting for an alternative to neoliberalism.

How these tensions resolve themselves will determine whether national elections remain meaningful in any way; whether democratic change is possible or violent revolution is in fact the only effective option.


I think Labour may be over

May 22, 2015


I don’t say this lightly. It seems to me that Labour is about to make such a fundamental strategic flaw, it will make itself irrelevant for the next election, the one after that and, possibly, forever. I have seen this in Greece with PaSoK.

Simply put, Blair’s strategy would not be successful today. Attempting to emulate it will be disastrous. Blair worked from a completely different voting base: he knew he “had” most of the North, Wales, Scotland and a strong base of working class votes everywhere else. All he needed was a little help from the Home Counties; a little push from floating/undecided voters in the centre.

Labour today does not have most of that base any more. Its vote is under serious threat in all those areas. It is largely seen as having betrayed working people and this is being exploited by UKIP, SNP, even the Conservatives. It needs to, first and foremost, fight to secure that base again. Nobody at a strategy level appears to get that. They think that, just like Blair, they can leave their homestead entirely undefended and forage for votes on the centre-right.

If we’re lucky, a new entity – possibly a coalition of progressives a la Syriza – will challenge from the left. And I say “if we’re lucky” meaning everyone, wherever they are on the political spectrum. The political landscape needs balance. Enlightened voters, wherever they sit politically, instinctively understand that a strong centre-left, keeps the centre-right honest and vice versa. If we’re less lucky, a party like UKIP will continue to shift in a populist direction and become the party of opposition.


Stuff your hypotheticals. The discrimination I experience is real.

May 21, 2015


It’s amazing how discrimination always becomes hypothetical to people who, on the whole, haven’t experienced it. Rich, straight, white guys telling the world their future notional freedom has been somehow curtailed by a decision against a baker in County Antrim.

These have all been posed to me today:

“Suppose someone walked into my bakery and asked for a cake with the message ‘legalise slavery’ on it.”

“What if I were a baker and someone asked me to ice a cake with a pro-life message?”

“What if I were a Jewish baker, asked to write a neonazi message?”

“A Christian walks into a Muslim sign writer’s shop and orders a placard. He says it should carry a cartoon of the prophet and the slogan Muslims Go Home.”

Only none of those things happened. Here is what did happen: a gay guy walked into a bakery – a bakery not a church – and asked for a cake with a message on it, something this bakery did for hundreds of people every year. He was told to take his business elsewhere, because the owner found gay marriage offensive. As clear a case of discrimination as you are likely to see.

The judge has not mandated that the baker find gay marriage any less offensive, of course. The court has not injuncted the baker to make the cake. It has just fined him for discriminating against his customers. That’s all. His “moral objection” will cost him £500, because it was found to be discriminatory and, so, unlawful. If a neonazi sues a Jewish bakery any time soon, a judge can deal with that situation sensibly, just like a judge dealt with this one.

“Actually, same sex marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland, so the law supports the baker’s position”, said one genius to me. Only the baker wasn’t asked to marry a man. He was asked to ice a cake. Even in Northern Ireland, that is still legal.

Apparently acting against this kind of behaviour, which gay people experience on a regular basis, is aggressively pursuing some kind of homosexual agenda. We are supposed to just brush it off, just go to another bakery and not cause a fuss. And why? Because to act against this bigotry, might prejudice a bunch of fictitious people facing situations which you made up.

And to compound it all, you pursue these arguments by suggesting some sort of moral equivalence between being gay and being a fan of slavery, an islamophobe, a pro-lifer or a neonazi. Which is not that far away, frankly, from people arguing against marriage equality with “What is next? Brothers marrying sisters? Men marrying dogs?”

So, no, I’m not going to another bakery. You advertised a service. I employed you to provide it, not to edit my life. Your beliefs do not entitle you to some sort of Magical Christian Immunity from the law. Do your fucking job.

Five Years from The Next Election

May 17, 2015


Many on the left seem engaged in head-up-bottom introspection and election predictions, two-hundred-and-sixty-eight weeks (probably) from the next election. They are the same people who couldn’t predict the last election five minutes before the polls closed. Now, they speak with absolute certainty about the next one, which is five years away. The lessons are there for whomever cares to learn them.

Within a similar timeframe in Greece: the leading left-of-centre PaSoK had collapsed from 45% of the vote to 4.5% of the vote; a new radical party was governing in coalition with the equivalent of UKIP; oh yes; and the nastier, Greek version of the BNP had come third.

Elections turn on events and events are notoriously unpredictable.

Who could have predicted “Sleaze” creating a perfect storm with “Back to Basics” in the early 90s? Or the MPs expenses scandal within months of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-09? There are events that no government can live down. There are wounds inflicted which are fatal, whether instantly or over time. All it takes is a nexus of unforeseen events and an opposition shrewd enough to capitalise on it.

Strangely, I think the former condition was present during the last administration, but not the latter. Cameron was hugely vulnerable after he lost the vote on Syria. His backbenchers were itching for a fight. The “Omnishambles Budget” was a thread hanging off a very delicate coalition fabric, just begging for someone to keep tugging. Nobody did with any conviction. Osborne’s job was on the line that month. 20% more pressure and the LibDems would have joined calls for his head.

These things could and should have been kept fresh in people’s minds. An inescapable narrative of incompetence begged to be constructed. Every time the Conservatives claimed competence in security, the public should have been reminded of a PM who refused to return from holiday, then recalled the House and presented a half-baked Syria motion, which he lost. Every time they claimed economic competence, a reminder of the “Omnishambles” budget should have been the response. By the time we got to the election, the Coalition would have been the brunt of limericks and the punchline of jokes.

Instead, having done little of this groundwork, Labour got involved in a circle-wank with headstones and coffee mugs. This is because for over four years it had been an introspective party, behind the curve of events, concerned over whether it had chosen the right leader, winning the occasional battle, but unable to sustain a strategy for winning the war. Everything was aimed at convincing itself of its own credentials, instead of convincing the country.

Battles are not won or lost only in the four weeks of a campaign. They are won and lost in the years that precede them. Anyone can play a check-mate, provided they are handed a chess board in which a check-mate is one move away. The skill is in getting in that position. Opportunities will present themselves for either side, because they always do; because politics is shaped by the fickle nature of events. The biggest of these opportunities may materialise in four years or tomorrow. All the governing party can do is be as unified, professional and effective as possible; ready to play a killer move. All the opposition has to do is exactly the same. The best strategy will win.

Every moment that is devoted exclusively to introspection is lost from effective opposition. The two activities can and must go hand-in-hand. There isn’t “plenty of time”. Opposition is Labour’s key constitutional role. Once the moment is gone, it is impossible to recover. The stakes are high: the future of the NHS and the BBC, the integrity of our civil rights, our membership of the European Union. If these bedrocks are allowed to be eroded unopposed, the public will never forgive Labour. I will never forgive Labour.



May 11, 2015

That headline is how the internet feels right now. Or, more specifically, the bits of it I choose to engage with. I have read column after column and tweet after tweet about why Labour lost the election or why the Conservatives won it, what happened in Scotland, what happened in London, what direction the party should take, who should be next leader, what is wrong with the left, what is wrong with this country. For a side that just lost heavily – and, importantly, had no clue such a heavy defeat was coming – we haven’t really learned an iota of humility. We’re still very much in “transmit” rather than “listen” mode.

Nobody knows what happened. Nobody expected it to be this awful. Any such claims should be treated with the scepticism usually reserved for instant weight loss remedies. Nobody can tell with any certainty “what will definitely win the next election”. If they could they would be selling their secret formula as the highest paid election consultant in the world; not giving it away on twitter. We’re all football fans whose team has just lost: full of alcohol and bitterness and spent adrenaline and advice on team selection.

The most dangerous of us are choosing this vulnerable moment to tell the rest we should lurch to the left or lurch to the right, which just happens to be what they have always believed, anyway. I view them with special spite. They support their grandiose statements with pseudo-intellectual sophistry. I choose among those this peach from the New Statesman which is a perfect sample and made me particularly angry.

It seeks to pre-empt and pre-silence any discussion which may crop up on the role of the media. The hysterical, sustained and vicious attacks on Miliband and his policies in the press, apparently, had no effect. It’s a red herring. Quick someone call all the companies who spend a combined $600b each year on advertising and give them the news. Someone at the New Statesman thinks that a particular image or narrative appearing in all media over time has no influence whatsoever. “Powerful interests” also had no influence, apparently. Those sad jerks who donate millions to the Conservative Party every year, someone tell them. The piece even concludes that the Conservatives themselves running a shrewd campaign didn’t have anything to do with the election result (no, really). The only thing the does not count as a “delusion”, the only thing that matters, is that the Labour party didn’t follow Blair’s advice and position itself more to the right.

What the fuck is more to the right than a tombstone with “we will control immigration” carved on it?

The truth is, we’re all flailing in the dark. I have no solutions to offer. I have only the following observations, which you may find helpful or not, resonant or not.

It seems to me, we are plagued by self-doubt about our message. And that came across loud and clear in conversations both among us and with the electorate. This meant that we were all a lot more comfortable saying how awful the other team were, instead of how good ours was. This made for an uninspiring campaign which failed to change anyone’s mind.

It seems to me, we are plagued by self-doubt about our message. The message when delivered was stilted, dull and senseless. “Labour will deal with the cost of living crisis” repeated embarrassed, bored people like drones for months on endless programmes. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT EVEN MEAN to anyone other than the colourless, odourless, tasteless policy wonks who sat in a room with a whiteboard and came up with it? Nothing. It means nothing.

It seems to me, we are plagued by self-doubt about our message. The Conservatives were not plagued by any such self-doubt. Blair was not. DO YOU NOT GET IT? Blair did not win three elections by being “Blairite”. He won them by being Blair. He could deliver his message with authenticity and conviction because centrism was genuinely what he believed in and that is why he was persuasive.

It seems to me, we are plagued by self-doubt about our message. Any leader who spends four and a half years trying to convince a nail-biting party that they didn’t make a mistake and then two months trying to convince voters is doomed. Just like Major second-time around, Hague, Howard and IDS were. That was the Conservatives’ turn of looking for the “next Thatcher”. “Is he Thatcher-ite” enough is he “too Thatcher-ite” and just like that 18 years went by before they won their next majority. Let’s not do that.

It seems to me, we are plagued by self-doubt about our message. Thatcher’s greatest triumph was not convincing her party or her voters that her way was best. It was convincing the left that there was no alternative to rampant neoliberalism. Otherwise, when people occupied St Pauls, and half a million marched against the cuts and rioters burned London, Labour would not have been too scared to harness that anger. When Syriza were elected in Greece, Labour would not be so terrified to offer Tsipras their congratulations and good wishes.

It seems to me, we are plagued by self-doubt about our message. The reason people didn’t believe we could reverse austerity is because we didn’t fight it tooth and nail when it happened. We dithered we worried about getting to the “throne” in 2015. We eventually agreed to the cuts, stopped fighting the “it’s all Labour’s fault narrative”, accepted the “tough decisions” rhetoric. We turned on the unemployed and migrants. How would it be portrayed in the media? Would that make us look too left, too right, too close to the unions. And so everything became stage-managed, controlled, stilted and inauthentic.

Pick a leader quickly. FOR FUCK’S SAKE it is not rocket science. You need someone who has good ideas, whose values align with the party’s, who looks good on camera and is an effective speaker. THEN you need to leave them alone to express themselves. The public needs to get to know them. They will either take to them or not. It cannot be predicted, but you will know it pretty quickly. Stop trying to adjust them to make them more electable. Passion, authenticity and dynamism are what is electable. Every time you pull that person into a room and adjust their hair, tell them to avoid X question and make sure they mention Y soundbite, you stunt precisely those qualities.

Pull your finger out. The UK didn’t just elect a government. It also elected an official opposition. The Tories have made it very clear that they will push ahead with a very aggressive legislative programme. It is absolutely essential that Labour can reconcile a process of soul-searching with their constitutional role of legislative scrutiny.The best route to becoming government is to be the most amazing opposition. And, by coincidence, it is also what you were elected to do. Being opposition is not a slight. It is the second most important role in our democracy. So do it and do it well.

Dear Nigel Farage

May 10, 2015

Dear Nigel,

I know this is a difficult time, but I’m afraid there is a matter I must raise with you.

Last year, you were questioned about your abysmal attendance record in the European Parliament. Your response was that this was due to poor health (although, that doesn’t explain your party’s poor attendance record).

A few days ago, on Radio 4’s World at One programme, you were again questioned about your poor attendance this year. Your response was that as party leader you felt you had special dispensation to not show up.

In your post-defeat interview, you stated that you now intended to “take the summer off, have some fun and do very little politics”. During this period you and your wife (who I believe is also on the EU payroll as your assistant) will collect over £50,000 to represent your region in the European Parliament.

You are now no longer any party’s leader and your health appears to be dandy. European Parliament doesn’t go into summer recess for some months. Why do you feel you are entitled to take the next few months off to have fun, while I continue to fund you?

If you are genuinely concerned about corruption and waste at the European level, perhaps you could set a good example by resigning from your MEP position too and allow someone to do it who wants to do it.

I await your response with excitement.

Kind Regards



Less than a year; eleven months

May 9, 2015

Young Romulus Augustus, on the very last
October day, four seven five AD,
fourteen years old, unripe, miscast,
by his old man’s expedient decree
was crownéd the new Emperor of Rome.

Did he feel bitterness, pleasure or pride?
Or shame, perhaps, for having Julius deposed.
Maybe he squealed with glee; or cried.
Maybe he was remarkably composed
and thought a palace was his rightful home.

I ask this, as I scan the ancient text,
because it interests me to know, in truth,
if prior knowledge of what happened next
would have impacted on the Royal youth:
Is he more blessed or cursed, one who predicts?

Even as that impossible gold wreath
was placed upon his head by scheming hands,
resentment rumbled darkly from beneath.
Rome fell to Odoacer’s rebel bands,
early September of the year four seven six.

A common and sad epilogue; a quirk observed in every empire as it ended:
As Royals scheme over the crown, they leave their walls entirely undefended.


ELECTION 2015: Why the Coalition must be defeated

May 7, 2015


I could choose a thousand stories to make my argument – from the omnishambles budget to tuition fees, from the poor being forced to use food banks to disabled people dying after being declared “fit”, from badgers “moving the goalposts” to Andy Coulson. A thousand sleazy fuck-ups, probably more, lend themselves to the same narrative. But the polls are open and time is short, so I have chosen just one.

The story I have chosen to make my plea is neither the biggest nor the most dramatic. I have chosen it partly because it has gone largely unreported and partly because it encapsulates all the incompetence, cruelty, ruthlessness and ideologically imposed idiocy of this Coalition.

The government is trying to sell our stake in Urenco. Urenco is a joint venture between the UK, Holland and Germany (effectively – E.On, RWE). Each partner holds a third each giving them collective control, but not individually. Urenco is a Uranium enrichment company. It turns hundreds of millions of profit every year and so, not only does it cost the UK nothing, but contributes to state coffers. It has four Uranium enrichment plants in Cheshire.

The monumental stupidity and shortsightedness of this, I cannot even begin to unpick. First, it is profitable. Second, it operates top secret centrifuge technology, which in the wrong hands could allow the nuclear arming of rogue and failed states the world over. Not to mention having four Uranium enrichment plants on home soil under private ownership. Putting it in private hands reads like the beginning of a bad Hollywood script for a formulaic disaster movie. It is as bad an idea as bad ideas get. (Cut to close-up of Cameron: “What could go wrong?”)

And this government is presented as the “safe”, the “fiscally responsible”, the “sensible” choice by the murder of crows who are the non-domicile, millionaires who run the majority of this country’s media.

This would have already happened, completely under the radar, but for the quite legitimate objections of the Dutch Parliament, which fears the security issues outweigh any short term profit. Opposition having been bullied away by Dutch finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem (yes, the same man who, as an instrument of the Troika, is forcing Greece to privatise everything including its beaches and archaeological sites) we put out feelers for “indicative bids” late last year. This is going ahead unless we stop it.

You see, whenever the health of the nation’s finances is assessed, I find myself surprised that all focus is on liabilities – debt, deficit, pensions, interest payments – but never on the other side of that equation: the assets. The reason the UK is in such poor financial health is not solely – as the dominant narrative would have us believe – that Labour spent too much on nurses and teachers. It is primarily a systematic asset stripping of the UK’s valuables by every single Conservative (or Conservative controlled, in the latest instance) government since the late 70s.

The last five years have been an unmitigated disaster for the poorest. Not the fact there were cuts during a recession – I’m not a child. But the fact that the cuts were deeper than they needed to be due to ideology and they will last longer than they needed to have due to economic incompetence. Most importantly, they were unfairly distributed and hurt the bottom decile hardest. The bottom decile being the one who could least afford any cuts. Dress it up however you want, but that is what happened. I don’t say this. The Institute of Fiscal Studies says this.

So, we need a change of government. And since two parties were involved in the last one and are therefore jointly and severally culpable, this means voting for the person who can best dislodge the incumbent of either one. That is all.


Questioned about Urenco, senior UK government sources simply said “they considered the uranium group to be next on the list of privatisations.”.

Next on the list of privatisations… Take a moment to absorb that. Take a moment to think what might below it on that list. And then go and vote.


The undecided voter who “took down” Ed Miliband – more dirty tricks?

May 1, 2015

Catherine Shuttleworth, the woman who according to The Telegraph “took down” a Miliband, admits to the Telegraph that she applied to go on the Question Time Leaders’ Debate as “an undecided voter”. She said this just after giving the thumbs up to George Osborne in the spin room. All this passes by the Telegraph correspondent.


Here is Catherine Shuttleworth’s signature on the, now largely discredited, letter of 5,000 small businesses supporting the Tory party. Also on the Telegraph.


Catherine set up her business with Andrew Jones, Conservative MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, currently seeking reelection.

My concern is that such desperate dirty tricks by the Conservatives and inadequate vetting by the BBC skewed the audience demographic on such an important occasion. Catherine was granted her question in the leaders’ QT as an undecided voter. The notion is laughable.

David Cameron mentioned the letter in his portion of the debate. Even happened to have a copy of it in his pocket. Ed Miliband is then confronted on it immediately afterwards by someone who, for all intents and purposes, looks like a Tory plant. David Cameron doesn’t have the courage to debate Ed Miliband directly, so he does it through a proxy. And this man is presented as the stronger of the two?

Oh and here is another of Ed Miliband’s tough questioners. She describes her interests as Cats, Conservatives and Chelsea. Another undecided voter?