
At Glastonbury, I saw what England's silent majority really looks like. Why aren't politicians listening?
Kemi Badenoch was about to make a speech about restricting non-British nationals' access to disability and sickness benefits – another instalment, it seemed, of her toxic quest to divide people into 'makers' and 'takers'. Terrifyingly, Nigel Farage's Reform UK colleagues were talking about focusing their belief in Elon Musk-style budget-cutting on children with disabilities. In the searing heat, everything felt as if it was fusing together to form the usual picture – of a stroppy little island, full of mistrust and loathing, and an angry chunk of the electorate now so huge that politicians of all parties must not just respect its collective wishes, but implement them in full.
Ten days earlier – and bear with me here – I had spent three days in a rather different political atmosphere, among the multitudes at Glastonbury. Even before all that controversy had erupted over the Irish rappers Kneecap and the hitherto-obscure duo Bob Vylan, the buildup to the festival had already seen a burst of hostile commentary about Glastonbury's political side. 'Could we please drop the nonsense that it is countercultural, at the bleeding edge of interesting, against-the-grain, perhaps even revolutionary, sentiment?' asked one rather silly piece in the Telegraph. To which the correct and rather complicated response would be yes; with notable exceptions – from the ubiquity of Palestinian flags, through the debates and discussions in the festival's Left Field, to everything that happens in the area called Green Futures. But here's the thing: even if you largely accept that Glasto has long become an ordinary part of the cultural mainstream, that's actually what makes it so interesting.
We are long past the point where the crowds there represent an avowedly radical subculture, which was the thrilling sense I got when I first went there (in 1990, which was a very long time ago indeed). Now, the people who go – from hard-partying twentysomethings barely cognisant of the need for a tent, to festival veterans in sensible outdoor gear who carefully plan each day's bands and go home to jobs in the public sector – are a microcosm of a vast and ever-growing part of the UK population, which is why so many people try to get tickets, and so many thousands watch it on TV. We are talking, essentially, about the Britain – or, more specifically, England – that will never, ever belong to Farage, and the mixture of kindness, ease with modernity and fuzzy liberalism that defines it.
There is a kind of progressive cringe that gets in the way of acknowledging this fact. But while the media class focuses almost exclusively on a bundle of cliches about 'hero voters' in 'red wall' seats, this new England now sits at the heart of our politics. It explains why the Conservative presence in the commuter-belt home counties is shrinking fast, and the list of seats represented by the Lib Dems includes scores of traditional Tory heartlands – something Badenoch does not seem even dimly aware of. For Labour, millions of liberal, left-ish voters define a story of rising dismay about Starmer's government, and the fact that it is losing more support to the Lib Dems and Greens than it is to Reform UK. The Green party now has MPs in rural Herefordshire and ruralEast Anglia, and record-breaking numbers of councillors.
Much as opinion polling remains a somewhat dismal and unreliable science, there are plenty of issue-specific statistics that paint the same picture. Even if they are presented as a way of somehow getting people into work, 40% of us are against new limitations on disability benefits. Despite politicians' reluctance to say so, 45% of British adults think Israel's actions in Gaza are genocidal. Forty-nine percent of people 'strongly support' a wealth tax. Contrary to the idea that everyone outside London, Manchester and Bristol has an essentially Farage-ist view of human movement, 45% of us think that immigration into the UK should either increase or stay the same. Sixty-one percent of people either strongly or 'somewhat' support the government's net zero target, with only 12% ticking the 'strongly oppose' box.
Despite Reform UK's apparent monopoly on explanations for our fragmenting party system, all this is central to why everything is in such a massive state of flux. The Lib Dems are now almost neck and neck with the Tories in the polls. The Greens are now steady, on about 10% – a figure that would surely rocket upwards if they improved their dire PR skills. Moreover, adding these parties' share of support with Labour's usually gets you close to 50%, which only highlights how misplaced the popular idea of a seethingly reactionary country irrevocably on the path to a Reform UK government really is.
As orthodox politics buckles and fragments, it feels as if, sooner or later, something will have to give. The latest manifestation of the strain Westminster orthodoxy is under is the new leftwing force being fitfully formed by Jeremy Corbyn and the former Labour MP, Zarah Sultana; but I am not sure it will quite meet the moment. If we were in some alternative universe where our party system mapped on to people's views, a modern party of the liberal left would not be hard to envisage. Its style of politics might fall somewhere between Ed Davey and the former Green leader Caroline Lucas.
Though it might not be radical enough for some people's tastes (mine included, possibly) it would speak clearly about the climate emergency, be proudly and loudly European and be carefully redistributionist. Crucially, it would spurn the politics of resentment and scapegoating, and confidently fight Farage – and, for that matter, Reform-ish Tories such as Robert Jenrick – on territory Labour refuses to go near: the modern right's views about the UK and its history, who is and isn't British, and all the rest.
This would, perhaps, be the kind of party many people – not least in the Guardian – are always willing the Labour party to become, even though that never seems to happen. As much as any political force could, it would speak for millions who now see the political centre being dragged further and further away from them, and quietly recoil. I see this new England every year at Worthy Farm in Somerset. Most importantly, it reveals itself whenever I visit the relevant swaths of the country. When will it finally be given its proper voice?
John Harris is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Terror laws watchdog warns of risk posed by extremists using AI
Terrorists will use artificial intelligence (AI) to promote their ideologies and plan atrocities, with 'chatbot radicalisation' a problem that needs to be countered, a watchdog has warned. Jonathan Hall KC said generative AI could be used for propaganda purposes, attack planning and spreading disinformation which may trigger acts of terrorist violence. Mr Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, suggested new laws should be brought in to ban the creation or possession of computer programmes designed to stir up racial or religious hatred. Terrorist chatbots already exist 'presented as fun and satirical models' but given the right prompts they are willing to promote terrorism, he said in his annual report. Mr Hall said: 'The popularity of sex-chatbots is a warning that terrorist chatbots could provide a new radicalisation dynamic, with all the legal difficulties that follow in pinning liability on machines and their creators.' The watchdog highlighted the case of Jaswant Singh Chail, who climbed into the grounds of Windsor Castle in 2021 armed with a crossbow after conversing with a chatbot called Sarai about planning the attack. More widely, Mr Hall said 'generative artificial intelligence's ability to create text, images and sounds will be exploited by terrorists'. Groups such as al Qaida could avoid the technology because of their belief in 'authentic messages' from senior leaders but it could be 'boom time for extreme right wing forums, antisemites and conspiracy theorists who revel in creative nastiness'. Terrorist groups could use AI to generate propaganda images or translate text into multiple languages. The technology could be used to produce deepfakes to bring 'terrorist leaders or notorious killers back from the dead' to spread their message again. Generative AI could be used to provide technical advice on avoiding surveillance, or make knife-strikes more lethal – reducing the need for would-be terrorists to receive training from other people. But he said that current safeguards may deter attack planners from using AI models until offline versions were readily available. He noted it had also been argued that in certain circumstances AI could be used to extend the way attacks are carried out, by potentially helping to create biological or chemical weapons or generating code for cyber attacks. Warning about the spread of disinformation online, Mr Hall said the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 2021 emerged from a 'soup of online conspiracy and a history of anti-government militarism that had been supercharged by the internet'.


The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump says he will meet Starmer in ‘oil capital' of Aberdeen
Donald Trump has backed oil and gas over 'detrimental' wind power projects as he said he will meet Sir Keir Starmer for talks in the European 'oil capital' of Aberdeen. The US president said he will have a 'state meeting' with the Prime Minister in the city when he makes a private visit to Scotland later this month. Downing Street confirmed on Monday the Prime Minister will travel north and meet Mr Trump during his trip. Mr Trump owns two golf resorts in Scotland, one in Menie in Aberdeenshire and Turnberry in South Ayrshire. Ahead of his visit to the UK, he described Britain as a 'great place' which is a 'true ally' of the US. Speaking about Sir Keir, he told BBC News: 'I really like the Prime Minister a lot, even though he's a liberal.' Confirming the pair will hold talks, Mr Trump said his 'state meeting with the Prime Minister' will be 'up in Aberdeen, which is the oil capital of Europe'. The president added: 'They should bring it back too. They have so much oil there. 'They should get rid of the windmills and bring back the oil. 'Cause the windmills are really detrimental to the beauty of Scotland and every other place they go up.' Campaigners at Uplift, which wants to see a rapid switch away from oil and gas towards renewable energy, criticised the president. Executive director Tessa Khan said: 'Donald Trump clearly knows nothing about the North Sea other than the view from his golf course. 'After 60 years of drilling, the UK has burned almost all of its gas and what is left is oil, most of which the UK exports, which contributes nothing to making sure the UK has an affordable supply of energy. 'More oil and gas drilling would not only lock us into an expensive energy source for far longer than is necessary, it will also contribute to the climate impacts – the wildfires, droughts and floods – that we're now seeing every year.' As well as meeting Sir Keir during his visit to Scotland, the president will also meet First Minister John Swinney. Mr Trump will also make a state visit to the UK in September, and he was asked if Parliament should be recalled from its summer break so he can address MPs. He dismissed the idea, saying: 'I think let them go and have a good time.' Mr Trump added he wants to 'respect King Charles' during the state visit, describing him as being a 'great gentleman'.


The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Women born in East Germany have lived between two worlds. That's why we're shaking up art and politics
In February 1990, the German news magazine Der Spiegel ran the headline 'Why are they still coming?', adding: 'In West Germany, hatred for immigrants from the GDR could soon reach boiling point.' That year, resentment towards so-called newcomers from the east erupted without restraint. East Germans were insulted in the streets, shelters were attacked and children from the former GDR were bullied at school. There was a widespread fear that the weekly influx of thousands of people would overwhelm the welfare system and crash the housing and job markets. The public consensus? It needed to stop. That same year, Kathleen Reinhardt and her parents moved from Thuringia in the former GDR to Bavaria. She was in primary school, and her new classmates greeted her with lines such as: 'You people come here and take our jobs. You don't even know how to work properly.' It was a formative shock. Reinhardt, who was recently appointed curator of the German pavilion at the 2026 Venice Biennale, has an eye for imbalance, for what is missing, for who is not being considered. That she will represent Germany at one of the art world's most prestigious exhibitions is – against this backdrop – not just remarkable, it's historic. Thirty-five years after reunification, a different kind of German story is being heard. At a time of polarisation, when supposedly stable institutions and even the global order itself are faltering, figures such as Reinhardt – someone who understands 'otherness' and has lived between two worlds – are exactly what is needed. In her career, Reinhardt is known for going where things are uncomfortable, for entering terrain that is politically fraught or typically avoided by curators. She thrives in the difficult – and confronts it. Perhaps this is because she was born in a small GDR town in the early 1980s and was raised under socialism, but then grew up in Bavaria – the very embodiment of West German order. Reinhardt studied American literature (with a focus on Black writing), art history and international management in Bayreuth, Amsterdam, Los Angeles and Santa Cruz. She speaks four languages and holds a PhD on the American conceptual artist Theaster Gates. She has managed the studios of the South African artist Candice Breitz and the Kosovar artist Petrit Halilaj, and has curated high-profile exhibitions at the Dresden state art collections. In 2022, she became director of the Georg Kolbe Museum in Berlin. Located on a quiet, tree-lined street in what still smells like old West Berlin, the museum was once sleepy and conformist. But it now attracts curators, artists and critics with its radical reprogramming. Reinhardt's exhibitions there aim to reveal ambivalences, focusing on fracture rather than polish. But it's not just her CV that points to something worth noting about millennial Germans shaped by the GDR. I interviewed Reinhardt a few weeks ago, and I came away realising that women like her play in a league of their own. She wants to understand how it all connects – who we are today and the past we emerge from – while keeping a healthy scepticism towards grand narratives. That in itself feels almost avant garde in a time when stories from then and now are being instrumentalised, appropriated, bent or simply glossed over. On one of her first walks through the museum's garden, Reinhardt encountered The Dancer's Fountain by Georg Kolbe – a 1922 commission from the Jewish art collector Heinrich Stahl, who was later deported to Theresienstadt and murdered. The fountain had vanished during the Nazi era, resurfaced in the 1970s and was reinstalled with no explanation. At the top: a graceful, dancing female figure. At the base: stylised Black male bodies supporting the basin. Reinhardt's reaction? She started to dig. Working with art historians and provenance researchers, she traced the fountain's journey, uncovered records and identified a likely model whom Kolbe had used. She brought to light the complex and violent histories of the 20th century inherent in this object, becoming the first director in the museum's 75-year history to refuse to look away. Earlier this summer, she invited Lynn Rother to the museum to take part in a panel discussion on provenance research, its current status and future potential. Like Reinhardt, Rother has an East German background. Born in 1981 in Annaberg-Buchholz, she now lives between Berlin, Lüneburg and New York. She is the Lichtenberg-professor of provenance studies at Leuphana University and the founding director of its Provenance Lab. Last year, the Museum of Modern Art in New York created a new position just for her: its first curator for provenance. Rother's work is also about the stories behind objects. Who owned them? Who lost them – and why? Her research lays bare the darker infrastructures behind museum collections: looting, coercion, legal grey zones. She exposed the largest art deal of the Nazi era and now leads two major digital research projects backed by €1.8m in funding, exploring how machine-readable data can help trace – and eventually close – gaps in provenance. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Art, as Rother told me, has always been a mobile asset in times of war and crisis. Museums and the art market have benefited, directly and indirectly, from the tragedies of the 20th century. Some works in today's collections were acquired through murky channels in moments of extreme horror. The great challenge of Rother's work is to recognise and document those entanglements. You could say it's a dirty job. Provenance researchers are seen as troublemakers. Their work sometimes leads to restitution, and with it, uncomfortable questions about national narratives and institutional pride. Rother's team recently ran a computational analysis of provenance records and found a striking pattern: married women were systematically erased. Even when a work had belonged to a woman, her husband was listed as the owner. 'That's not a clerical error,' she said. It shows that structural discrimination and patriarchal mechanisms are just as present in the art market as anywhere else. Like Reinhardt, Rother has spent years inside global institutions. I haven't shared their stories just to chart the rise of two exceptional women, but because it's been a hard-fought road since German reunification in 1990. We, the women from the East, have come a long way. For years, we were ridiculed, overlooked and reduced to stereotypes. Even Angela Merkel was first seen as a quiet little girl, then branded a Mutti, a motherly figure, a term simultaneously condescending and comforting and used to downplay her authority. But we're no longer a punchline. Today, women from the East – not just in politics and culture, but now also in the global art world – hold some of the most influential positions. To me, the stories of Reinhardt and Rother show how exclusion and institutional rigidity can – slowly, painfully – become insight. How memory, for those shaped by the GDR, is rarely linear. And how power, when approached from the margins, can be exercised more critically, and with greater care. In Bavaria, Reinhardt often felt she wasn't in – but not completely out either. 'What I had was school. Education. That was my little step up.' Her parents, a factory worker and a utility clerk, provided support but no privilege. It was similar for Rother, who was driven from early on. After studying art history, business and law, she earned a traineeship at Berlin's state museums in 2008. There, she came to see that it wasn't only about hard work – her origins suddenly mattered. She was constantly asked: 'Are you from East or West?' The hierarchy was obvious. Westerners ran the institutions. Eastern directors were deputies – at best. Even the art mirrored this: East German works were written off as second-rate. Both women have long rejected the patronising West German gaze. The 'east', Reinhardt argues, is not a special case, but a prism – a way to look at broader geopolitical lines and ask bigger questions about how we approach history and transformations in societies. Or in Rother's words: 'With artworks, labels matter. But we as people shouldn't be bound by them.' What these women offer isn't nostalgia. It's clarity. A resistance to simplification. A belief that history is not a finished room. In Reinhardt's office, there's a poster that reads: 'You don't have to tear down the statues – just the pedestals.' Both of these millennials are doing just that – carefully, insistently, telling it all again. We need more like them. Carolin Würfel is a writer, screenwriter and journalist who lives in Berlin and Istanbul. She is the author of Three Women Dreamed of Socialism