‘A cartoonist who never offends is most likely not saying anything of value’

What drew you to political cartooning? 

I’ve drawn from the first moment I was able to hold a crayon, and quickly developed a fascination with comic books.

I also painted incessantly, and after school went on to study Fine Art at university. After graduating I taught art for three years while trying to keep up my own practice, but also contributed cartoons to local Trade Union publications. I abandoned teaching intending to paint full-time, but had to support myself with a variety of part-time work from graphic and theatre design to working as a motorcycle courier. However, it took some time to realise that what had been an amusing side line could be a full-time career; winning the Sunday Times Political Cartoon Competition in 1989 was the catalyst. 

In the early years of my professional career, I drew cartoons, strips and illustrations for a range of papers and magazines on a host of subjects, but it was always the editorial political cartoon that most interested me. Politics in its widest sense has always proved one of my motivations, while politics and art have been inextricably linked in my practice, whether as a painter, designer or cartoonist.   

I have been the political cartoonist for The Independent since 1996, and since 2004 my Rogues’ Gallery’ series of cartoons based on famous artworks has appeared every Saturday. At that time I was drawing six days a week for The Independent, and I think in part it was a way to stay in touch with my original career choice of painter. 

In the last few years I have reduced my cartoon output a little to give myself time to return to painting, and most recently sculpture too. 

Many of your cartoons have been highly critical of prominent political figures. How do you decide the line between satirical critique and personal attack? Have you ever regretted any piece? 

Somewhat perversely the political figures a cartoonist most likes to draw are usually those they most dislike. The best caricatures aren’t simply exaggerated physical likenesses, but pieces of psychological character assassination; the caricature doesn’t simply ridicule the politician’s appearance but seeks to create a visual equivalence for their mendacity, venality or corruption.  

I think it is an important tenet of political cartooning that the cartoonist attempts to ‘afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted’, to punch up rather than down. Consequently, I prefer to concentrate my fire on recognisable individual politicians and try to avoid drawing figures representing groups of people, which might result in stereotyping. 

It is never wise for a democratic politician to complain about a cartoon that has upset them, it makes them looks humourless, and smacks of those autocrats around the world who are so keen on imprisoning cartoonists and journalists. No, the smart politician asks to buy the original. Appearing in a cartoon for the first time proves to them that they have ‘arrived’ on the political scene, whilst buying it makes them appear more human, and suggests to the cartoonist that they have failed in their attack. So, yes, I have regretted some cartoons I’ve drawn, I’ve regretted not being even more brutal in my satire! 

Looking back we have seen political cartoonists facing backlash for their portrayal, for instance, the infamous Charlie Hebdo Case and the violence that was unleashed in the aftermath of that event. Has the scenario changed now? Do you feel people are more open to political satires? 

I think in recent years we have seen political cartoonists come under increasing attack for expressing their beliefs through their art. That has come not just from terror groups and autocratic regimes, but also from some supposedly democratic states, where cartoonists and journalists have been imprisoned for expressing opposition to the ruling party. In the U.S.A., in the recent past, there were cases where cartoonists lost their jobs for failing to toe a sufficiently ‘Trumpist’ line. Meanwhile in the U.K., due to cost cutting, newspapers are increasingly going without a regular cartoonist, at just the time when we have had a government going to great lengths to avoid scrutiny.  

Political cartoons are essentially visual comment pieces, but because they have a more visceral and instant impact than the written word, they tend to provoke a stronger reaction. Political satire is an essential correlative to a functioning democracy, and political cartoonists are often the canaries in the coal mine, indicative of a democracy’s health. 

Currently I believe political satire is under greater attack than it has been for many years. Satire may be one of the few weapons left to us when many basic freedoms are revoked, so I believe it would be disastrous if we succumbed to political pressure and neutered cartoonists. 

Considering the present political scenario, be it the Ukraine war or the Palestine issue, and that we live in an age of social media where anything and everything is at the risk of being misunderstood, how do you strike a balance? 

Offensiveness is always subjective; people of different political persuasions will be offended by different things. Personally, I treat being offended as a positive thing which can make us interrogate our own beliefs and assumptions. Therefore, I think it is imperative that cartoonists do offend occasionally. A cartoonist who never offends is most likely not saying anything of value. Unfortunately, there seems to be an increasing trend for people to believe they have a right not to be offended, or worse, that anything deemed offensive should be censored. 

Interestingly, I hardly ever receive criticism for my political point of view. The people who complain about a cartoon almost invariably hold a contrary perspective, but what they choose to criticise is the manner in which I make my point. The cartoons are ‘vile, obscene, grossly offensive’, all cries to suggest they have infringed some law of common decency, but all really designed to close down debate. Of course as a cartoonist I work on that margin of what is acceptable, the cartoon needs to unsettle and discomfort the reader a little if it is to penetrate the target and not simply bounce off. 

While some people undoubtedly have genuine concerns that something is offensive, what is always needed is a proper examination of context, something unfortunately often absent in a social media world of tweets, likes and instant replies. 

This is your first exhibition in India and at the Indian Cartoon Gallery Bengaluru, how do you anticipate your cartoons will be received by the Indian audience? 

Firstly, I’d like to say how grateful I am to the Indian Institute of Cartoonists for mounting this exhibition of my work, and how delighted I am to be honoured in this way. 

I believe the political cartoonist should exhibit a strong personal voice in their work, not merely mirror their audience’s perspective. Having said that I also have to be cogniscient of what my audience will understand, particulary in the cultural references I bring to bear in my work. Many of my cartoons now reach a wider world via online platforms, and I’m sure those same platforms mean an Indian audience will now be acutely aware of much to do with British politics. However cartoons reflecting the day to day minutiae of British politics can rapidly become unintelligible to any audience, even a few weeks after the events, so for this exhibition I have tried to concentrate mostly on more major international events. 

Cartoons are primarily a visual medium, therefore I try always to create visual metaphors to make my point, using as few words as possible, which hopefully helps make them comprehensible to a wider audience. 

So I hope there might be something in this exhibition which people can find to agree with and something to disagree with. Something that offends them, but also makes them think. But primarily… something that makes them laugh!