Tuesday, 10 March 2015

The Meaning of Jeremy Clarkson

Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended by the BBC for an alleged "fracas" with a producer for Top Gear. Innocent until proven otherwise and all that, but it does come after years of nudge, nudge, wink, wink racism and associated vicious stupidity. Needless to say, I don't particularly like him and avoid his shows like the plague. Yet Top Gear and his contrived alpha male personage is popular and millions tune in every week for fast cars and funny haha cheeky banter. Far be it for me to stop them.

Yet in the celebrity firmament Clarkson occupies something of a unique position. There aren't many out-and-out right wing celebs knocking about in a culture where a paper-thin veneer of leftyism is usually de rigeur. And he also trades on this too. He says what he thinks, won't be cowed by the PC brigade, and is not afraid to acknowledge that he shares the dodgy bigoted views of some of his fans. He's the carefully constructed maverick, the outsider whose huge BBC salary, media appearances, and member of the Chipping Norton set who's anything but. Reminds you of any other faux anti-establishment media personality?

In fact, the parallels with Nigel Farage are quite striking. Then again, one right wing demagogue is interchangeable with another. It's all about saying the unsayable, of cocking a snook to a largely imaginary lefty establishment, of rubbishing climate change because we sometimes still get snow, etc. etc. But what Clarkson shares above all with Farage is less a man-of-the-people thing - the media commentators keep getting that one wrong - but as someone primarily middle aged men can relate to. As most working class blokes during their lives have come across a gaffer who showed his workers a grudging respect and gave it to them straight, as per NF, Clarkson has been middle aged since Top Gear first broadcast in the late 80s. He's not so much what they call these days 'a lad' and more a down-at-heel playboy. You know the sort. Could never be bothered to get married. Always seemed to have a new sporty motor. Owned his own home. Boast about his womanising down the pub. Clarkson isn't any of these things, of course. He's a happily married got-lucky journo, but the hair (as was), the jeans (oh my life, the jeans), and the swagger evoke a personality millions of people can place in their social circle.

His politics too have a certain coherence about them. In the mid-80s, Mike Dreher, another terribly tedious but oh-so-anti-establishment hard right populist founded the Motorist Party of Switzerland. This before climate change was widely accepted by scientists and politicians, Dreher campaigned against conservation measures and denounced claims about acid rain. Like the kippers today, the acceptance of scientific evidence was not his strong suit. The Motorist Party also wanted speed limits raised on the country's roads, especially on motorways so they could let rip. It was so-called libertarianism before the internet made libertarianism a thing. You can see how car ownership is a handy condenser (and propagator) of this kind of politics. Cars give drivers freedom to roam. The road is their domain to push the motor to its limits, of being free from all authority in one's enclosed four-wheel personal space. Bikes, pedestrians, buses, they all get in the way and should be kept off the roads. Nothing should interfere with the right to drive.

This ideology of the road also underpins (traditionally American) lifestyles, and is not-so-subtly promoted by Top Gear itself. Clarkson could be Dreher too - he doesn't like cyclists, thinks the state is too nannying, and rejects climate change because it threatens his inalienable right to tear arse around the world in growling, gas-guzzling, CO2 emitting monsters. He is a living, breathing middle finger to anyone who wants to make the world a half-decent place to live in, and instantiation of all that is petty, small-minded, and selfish. Unfortunately, a not inconsiderable minority of voters habitually relate to this stuff.

That is why Clarkson is so potent. He bridges the gap between political mindset and social circle familiarity. When you think about it, Clarkson is perhaps the ideal celebrity replacement for Farage should the great leader come unstuck in South Thanet. What an awful thought. If that's the case, Save Clarkson!
Read more ...

Monday, 9 March 2015

Would You Take a Donation from this Man?

Tony Blair wants to give 106 Labour candidates fighting marginal seats a thousand quid. For CLPs used to campaigning on a shoestring, that could stretch a long way. Yet because this largesse comes from Blair's pockets, some parliamentary candidates have a problem with it. All perfectly principled reasons of course, and I respect the right of these comrades to snub the cash. But they're wrong to do so.

We know Blair is a problematic character for a lot of Labour members and supporters for all sorts of reasons, not least the Iraq war. Yet this is a problem not shared by everyone. By now most voters are quite indifferent to Blair and his works. Those that were opposed to his war, which was a majority at the time, might feel negative vibes toward him but few, if any, are going to be basing their vote this May on what happened 12 years ago. In a very few places, like Norwich South, rejecting Blair publicly as Clive Lewis has done might add a sprinkling of Green and wavering left-Laboury votes to his tally and push him across the finish line, but he's virtually unique in that position. For most voters, the principled stand of their Labour candidates will barely register.

Were I a candidate, that money would be going into my campaigning war chest. This for three reasons. In the first place, a cheque from Blair's office won't be dropping through the letter box of your CLP secretary - the cash is going to the national party and then distributed out to marginals. Second, if Blair was dangling a thousand quid with the promise of future favours, or getting chummy with Progress, that is a problem. If Blair was trying to engineer backing for a policy agenda, that is a problem. Yet it's none of those things. The donation is no-strings attached. The money is being distributed without fear or favour, regardless of candidates' politics, on the basis of what the party defines as a marginal.

Most importantly, comrades who want to turn down the money have to remember that ultimately, this campaign isn't about them. This general election really does matter, it's between a party absolutely determined to screw our people and another that will provide some of the poorest and most vulnerable immediate relief. A thousand quid can help in seats where the Tories have been throwing dosh round like confetti, it can help ensure we get most votes, most seats, and get the party vaulting that overall majority hurdle.

My advice is take the money and carry on campaigning. There's more than your possible future parliamentary career at stake.
Read more ...

Sunday, 8 March 2015

In Conversation with Kevin Maguire

It's not very often august media personalities descend upon us Stokies, but Thursday night was one such rare occasion. Stoke North and Kidsgrove Labour Party played host to Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror and Mark Ferguson of LabourList fame. Their mission? To entertain the battle-hardened class warriors of the local labour movement, and raise a few bob for the general election through hard-hitting questions and answers, ably selected by Mark. Unfortunately, some of it was very off the record so discretion dictates the most libellous anecdotes and gossip be skipped over. What then can be related to the good folks who weren't there?

On the campaign, Kevin thought it's going well and he can see Ed Miliband walking into Downing Street in just over 60 days time. He also noted that the hysteria we're seeing from the press is symptomatic of fear, of them thinking that Labour is going to win.

On Labour's coverage in the media Traditionally UK parties have been running scared of the media, but now it's at a low point there is no excuse to allow them to shape our message.

On Prime Minister's Questions As everyone who follows LabourList knows, Mark hates PMQs. Kevin, howeever "likes the theatre". Ed Miliband's problem up until now is that he's tried to ask questions in the expectation of a proper answer. It's taken some time for him to learn that you're supposed to rubbish, abuse, and patronise.

On becoming a MP No chance. Too ill-disciplined and addicted to mischief. The life of being a hack is easier.

Should Labour renationalise the rail? Yes. To use the Blairite mantra, what works is what we should do. Competition in natural monopolies fails, so of course it should be taken back into public ownership. Besides, anything that annoys Richard Branson can only be a good thing ...

Should Labour renationalise Royal Mail? Yes. Kevin argued that the front bench dropped the ball on this one. They had the opportunity to stop the privatisation dead by pledging to immediately renationalise it once Labour come to power again. That would have scared any investor off and scuppered the Tory/LibDem plans. They didn't, and unsurprisingly, as per every single other sell off, salaries at the top have shot up while sackings have mushroomed at the bottom.

How damaging is the Green surge? Kevin thought it was a bit of a threat in the tight marginals, and believed every vote for them will be cheered in Tory towers. However, there's little point trying to "blackmail" Green voters with that attack line - Labour has to win them over instead. There's plenty of good stuff on our policy menu vis a vis some of the cranky ones on theirs.

On the SNP threat Kevin prefaced this with the spectacle of Prime Minister cowering behind Gordon Brown in the final fortnight, and the appalling announcement the morning after the referendum that tied further Scottish devolution to English Votes for English Laws. However, he was of the view that the SNP will not win as many seats as the polls predict and that the approaching election will concentrate some minds. If, however, Labour had to go into coalition with the nats, so be it - they're preferable to the LibDems. Besides, the Tories would go into coalition with anyone to hold onto power. Kevin also related an rumour doing the rounds, that the Tories have approached the SNP with a devomax deal, which would more or less see them exiled from Westminster except in the event of war. Interesting.

What would you build from Lego? A guillotine.
Read more ...

A Labour Majority, Not a Labour/SNP Coalition

It's been a very bad week for the PM. His reputation has taken a beating in the media all because he refuses to debate face-to-face with Ed Miliband. The problem is, if you're trying to make an election all about personalities - as the Tories have been doing - then it's generally not a good idea to put yours through the wringer, especially when it's your team's prime asset. What then to do? The Tories have got nothing to say on policy, having chosen an entirely negative and counter-productive programme. The only option is to find new mud to throw, and they think it's been found: Labour might do a deal with the SNP.

I find my time for Ed Balls fast diminishing these days (more on that after the election), but he was right to rule out a formal coalition with the Scottish nationalists back when it was first mooted. Ed on the other hand has neither ruled it in nor out, so Dave has pounced. He has argued that a Lab/SNP deal would be the general election's worst outcome. "You could end up with an alliance between the people who want to bankrupt Britain and the people who want to break up Britain" says the man currently overseeing soaring government borrowing, and whose cowardice saw responsibility for saving the union ceded to the previous prime minister. That there's not much stomach in the Labour Party for a deal, and I suspect the same is true of the SNP as well, this offers a space for more scaremongering. I can see it now, Labour willing to swap nukes and the union for nice ministerial salaries.

A distillation of conservative fears can be found in this execrable piece by Allan Massie. The SNP directed a "braying nationalist mob" outside BBC offices, believe in high spending and high taxes, want to scrap nuclear weapons, and the worst crime of all - they do not "respect property rights". This is Scotland North Korean-stylee under Kim Jong Sturgeon. What's worse, seat stacking arithmetic means these policies can swoop far south of the Gretna Green demilitarised zone well before Scotland consciously uncouples itself and sails off into the North Atlantic.

Massie does have one point, and this is something Dave's banking on. Among many other things, UKIP is also kneejerk English nationalism clinging on to made-up traditions and a past that never existed. Both would be boosted by a sense of grievance that Scottish nationalists are dictating policy. Never mind that Scotland was the proving ground for the poll tax, and saw its oil money frittered away by Thatcher and Major in huge tax cuts for the rich. This is an opportunity for UKIP and the Tories both, and this is one scrap in the gutter Farage and Dave's successor will be happy to have. There will be no anti-Scottish bandwagon they won't chase after. That's for the future. In the mean time Dave's going to be playing the nudge, nudge, wink, wink game of Labour's parliamentary strings getting pulled from Edinburgh.

However, where the right have put a minus some on the left have stuck a big fat plus. Some outside the Labour Party see Dave's worst outcome morph into the least worst eventuality. The logic is simple. The SNP will keep Labour honest. While the latter offers austerity lite, as a condition for support - whether as a formal coalition or confidence and supply - one assumes the SNP will live up to their rhetoric and demand the ridiculous and counter-productive programme of cuts be abandoned. Sounds attractive, doesn't it? Doubters might point to the record of Alex Salmond as first minister, which was neoliberal with a few bits added on. However, the SNP is different now for two reasons. Nicola Sturgeon, by all accounts, is a genuine centre left type. Another time and place she could quite easily have been a Scottish Labour leader, were she not also a nationalist. There is also the SNP surge. Right now we are living through what I think is the highest tide of Scottish nationalism. After next year's Holyrood elections the tide will start flowing out again. In the mean time, the SNP is stuffed to the rafters with tens of thousands of new members of a left-wing bent. In many ways, just as UKIP are a Tory home from home, so the SNP has become something of a camp for ex-Labourists. They are just as volatile as their counterparts down in England and Wales, and will cause their leadership trouble should they "sell-out". Sturgeon therefore has incentive to match her policy commitments to her oratory.

The problem is getting the outcome of a SNP-supported Labour government is actually quite tricky. In the first place, many of the people I've seen advocating this "option" mainly live in England and aren't prepared to vote for Labour themselves. Not having the courage to support your favoured option at the ballot box is not a good start. The second point is to be careful what you wish for. Ignoring the silliness of a grand coalition, if Labour are forced into backroom understandings with other parties because the SNP have gobbled up loads of Scottish seats, what's to make you think the SNP will be first in the queue? Do not forget that the odious LibDems will still be in Westminster contention. If Labour doesn't get a majority, the yellows will be more than happy to prop up another Tory administration. Failing that, it won't be difficult for them to put a "left" face on again and try and cosy up to the PLP with confidence and supply. Vote anti-austerity and get austerity-lite.

Something else might happen instead. The SNP threat could wag the Labour dog. Suppose Labour retains enough Scottish seats to push it over the majority threshold. To prepare for Holyrood 2016, and rebuild its withered base across the country requires a turn away from policies that kick its supporters in the teeth. The Tories never make this mistake, and it's high time our party learned not to do it too. There is a possibility, especially if not-all-that-unlikely personnel changes are made post-election, that a different course is chartered to head off threats from the SNP, UKIP, and Greens. The Tories have no hesitation fitting their programme around their immediate needs, even if it could damage British capital as a whole. The difference being that if we do what is necessary, the conditions of life for millions of people improves along with our future political prospects.

That is why a Labour majority is the best outcome at the general election.
Read more ...

Saturday, 7 March 2015

Electro Velvet - Still in Love (UK Eurovision Entry 2015)

It's here. What do you think?



Well ... it's alright. It's certainly different fare to the usual UK Eurovision entry. Electroswing is definitely not my thing (this is), but it has just enough cheesy quirkiness to go down well with the Eurovision audience. And the scatting in the middle reminds one of the late and much-missed Scatman John, which will endear our entry to come corners of Europe.

The fly in the ointment is, unfortunately, the appalling lyrics. Have a listen. Alex is acting the part of the controlling boyfriend who's laying the law down to Bianca about how she should and shouldn't behave on holiday. Basically if she "gets into trouble" while out on the lash it's because she didn't handle herself well. Come on, this is 2015. Is that the sort of message we want to be putting out there?
Read more ...

Friday, 6 March 2015

Labour's TV Debates Attack Ad

The words 'petard' and 'hoisted by' spring to mind. There is one man in Britain terrified by Ed Miliband, and his name is David Cameron.


Read more ...

Thursday, 5 March 2015

Dave's Debate Dodging

The weak man of British politics is at it again. Having moved heaven and earth to try and avoid the television debates, Dave has now condescended to appear in a single contest with six other party leaders. In what can only be described as some of the barest face lies I've ever seen the witless Grant Shapps utter, on today's Daily Politics he charged the broadcasters with the muddle. Never mind that Dave's been body swerving this with the deft of a Conservative donor expecting a tax bill. Never mind CCHQ has thrown a Kalahari's worth of sand into the face of the broadcasters to prevent this from happening.

As far as I'm concerned, I am of the school that the debates can suck life from an election campaign. A chance for an audience to interrogate leaders as per special Question Time episodes in 2001 and 2005 are preferable, in my opinion. However, the genie's out the bottle and it is undeniable that in 2010 the debates reached a much wider audience than the 65% who did turn out. Anything that encourages political participation, even if it's only voting, has to be take seriously and encouraged even if it runs counter to one's own (slightly geeky) preferences.

With Dave though, we know accountability is his Achilles heel. The one discernible political talent he has is looking the part. There is no "Daveism", no political creed that is uniquely his. This appalling and vicious government are a Thatcher tribute act, minus her zealotry and pretense to be acting in the best interests of everyone. Beneath the polish and faux decisiveness lies a man with no discernible talent. Completely absent is a burning passion to use his premiership to do things. Dave's there because, in his own words, "I thought I'd be rather good at it". Well Dave, you have proven "rather good at it" if you're a tax-dodging parasite with tens of millions, give or take, in the bank. Take it from me, you've been pretty lousy for nearly everyone else. The problem for Dave is that being held to account will see his act dissolve into quivering jelly. Going up as an insurgent against Gordon Brown last time is different to having an appalling, indefensible record to stand on.

Here's the strategic thinking behind conceding a single debate. Firstly, TeamDave have got to be hoping this will allow him to hide in plain sight. With seven participants the broadcasters will be under pressure to ensure each party has equal air time. If it's an hour long, that just eight-and-a-half minutes for the Prime Minister. Secondly, as no doubt there will be squabbles between the other parties as discussion moves on to tuition fees, or Trident, or Scottish independence, this allows Dave to a) show the Tories are the only party with a serious plan to tackle the issues they think ordinary voters care about, and b) present themselves as a stable alternative to the "chaos" of three or four party coalitions of Labour & friends. Lastly, if the worst comes to the worst and all the other parties tacitly cooperate to attack Dave, Crosby will be banking on it looking like a dog pile with the poor old PM at the bottom. However, as we know the British love an underdog - there's a chance he might emerge with the sympathy of an extra layer of voters. Then again, if Bennett, Clegg, Farage, Miliband, Sturgeon, and Wood choose to berate him over his abject cowardice things could get a bit messy.

Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things though? CCHQ are banking on the row about the debates being seen as a bubble issue that doesn't resonate out there. They're wrong. If BBC News website is an accurate barometer of such things, it is right now the most read item on site and will also be leading all the evening's news bulletins. This is one of those issues that crosses over into the public imagination, and what are they seeing? A Prime Minister trying his damnedest to avoid debating his opponents. What a pitiful spectacle.
Read more ...