I do think it matters that most well known and mediatised left-wing commentators who want to communicate leftist ideas to the electorate come from mainly two universities and so share a particular (social) vocabulary.

Doesn't feel like they always realise not everyone else does. Ideas get stuck in the bubble and only people who speak the same language can communicate.

I wonder what genuinely non-elitist vehicles there are for activist political conversation. So much seems to presuppose cultural/actual/academic capital. Is theatre one such vehicle? Perhaps theoretically but much of UK theatre isn't interested in that. Not that it has to be.

I think this has something to do with our obsession with content as activism to the detriment of form. We're often rearranging language to 'illuminate' different issues without asking whether the form is right for the encounter. We expect people to speak our language too.

What would it actually mean to always ask questions about form, never assuming a base structure that fits all stories and people?