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 ...

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

Masculinity and Penis Anxiety

"It's not what you've got, but what you do with it." That's the advice I imbibed from reading reams and reams of agony aunt columns as I was growing up. Not because I was seeking advice or reassurance mind (hung like a hoss, of course) but because men and boys fraught by their penis size were regular fixtures in Dear Deidre and the like. School, college, adult life, the banter about one's "third leg" is a not infrequent intrusion in conversation (we all have that friend who refuses to call a trip to the restroom anything other than going off to "siphon the python"). All utterly juvenile, but then so much of being and presenting as a man is.

It's interesting. There have always been some anxieties around female genitalia, but it's only a relatively recent thing that a widespread concern around shape and appearance has come to the fore. Penis anxiety, on the other hand, has always been about this. It's a real concern for some men, and as it remains a man's world that helps explain why studies establishing the average size of the male member come along fairly frequently. The study published in the British Journal of Urology International took tape measures to a sample of 15,000 men and found the average willy is 5.16 inches when erect, with a circumference of 4.6 inches. In its flaccid condition the figures are respectively 3.6 and 3.7 inches. Just shy of 2.3% of men are endowed with an abnormally large member (anything above 15cm) and a similar amount with the very small (under 10cm). Overall, there isn't that much variation in size from one bloke to the next. Does that make the gentleman reader feel better?

Ironically, heterosexual masculinity is obsessed with penises. And this obsession comes in three sizes, so to speak. The first is the commonplace supposition that you can measure one's manliness by the size it comes in, and those most likely to believe this is men themselves. Imagine the boorish, be-muscled beer-watching football-swilling beast of a man, exactly the sort of bloke with the build and presence that suggests "don't mess". Yet his willy is a bit on the dinky side, below the average certainly but definitely not in the bottom two per cent. On every measure, our friend is superficially a manly man, and would be accepted as such by his social circle. Yet, undoubtedly, his penis size would likely be a source of insecurity and worry. It's as if the accoutrements of masculinity, the boozing, the build, etc. are just that. They are perceived inessential or as compensatory behaviours making up for an essential lack. This is the measure that matters, the core of being a man. It's the chink in his armour and lives in dread of ex-lovers and friends wiggling their little fingers behind his back. It's the fear that the effete hipster, bookish-types he looks down on are not lacking where he thinks it counts.

You don't have to be a manly man to experience this anxiety, nor does one's tackle necessarily have to be lacking in the grand scheme of things. The cocks most straight men ever see are the schlongs they very, very definitely pay little attention to in the pornographic clips of their choice. Quite apart from porn being a performance staged for a camera, the faux climactic whimpering of the women nevertheless serves to affirm the cult of the cock. They gasp at the size and set about performing with it with gusto. Every blow job, hip thrust, and money shot reinforces the essential maleness of the penis as the seat of sexuality and source of (grateful) women's pleasure. The bigger it is, the greater the sense of potency, this is one of the ideological effects of porn or, rather, how porn as ideology is affected. Porn that features small dicks on the other hand is a niche fetish and is definitely out where conventional straight masculinity is concerned. Porn is supposed to be about women with whatever attributes engaging in whatever activity turns the viewer on. Going for dick-themed hetero porn makes it all about the dick and not about the female performer, which raises questions about sexuality and whether one is as heteronormative as one thinks.

It's not always about width and length though. Therein is the second obsession: other men's penises. Straight-and-narrow heterosexual masculinity absolutely fights shy of other men's willies. You should definitely avoid displaying your own. In the post-PE school showers, many a young lad learned the art of trying to keep one's todger obscured while absolutely, definitely averting one's eyes from the sausage party surrounding him. Woe betide anyone accused of espying a portion of meat-and-two-veg. Even worse was to be accused of getting a stiffy in the shower. Likewise, men's public conveniences. It doesn't matter where, the custom and practice is to either fixedly stare at the wall right in front, or making sure your aim does not go awry. Under no circumstances must one glance at what other men are doing with theirs. Through the act of omission is the importance of the penis observed. As simultaneously the seat of masculinity and sexuality, to pay attention to the heat another man's packin' must definitely, obviously betray a sexual interest thereby marking the observer out as non-straight. However, it has a double-edge. If another guy is gawping at your penis, that says something about you too. It marks you out as someone another man might find attractive, and if that's the case what sort of vibes are you giving off? Could you unknowingly be walking around town with a neon 'hello boys!' flashing above your head discernible only to gay fellas? Best keep the old man out of sight as much as possible as it can attract the wrong sort of attention.

Then there is the ultimate anxiety: dysfunction. The elision between masculinity and sexual prowess finds itself thwarted in premature ejaculation and impotence. The first betrays a lack of mastery if not stamina, of being weak, inexperienced, over-excitable. If word gets round you're crap in bed, who else would want a dive under the covers? I still remember laughing about one guy from college and another from university who respectively presented as macho soldier wannabe and womanising wideboy. When "reports" of their prowess, or lack thereof, did the gossip circuit their reputations never recovered. Most mirth was had by their fellow gentlemen, but beneath the piss-taking and bitching lurked an anxiety, a fear that the curse of the involuntary, too-brief knee trembler might strike them as well and hence their masculinity put into question. Impotence on the other hand, once the curse of the older man, a cruel injunction from nature that one's days as properly sexual man are done no longer has the finality it once commanded thanks to Viagra. As one's youth and looks slip away with age, the blue diamond pill returns functionality. Through pharmacological intervention one's maleness does not have to melt into the past. The option of remaining a man is indefinitely open, as the spectacle of middle-to-old aged sex tourists bouncing between here and Bangkok demonstrates.

The penis then fills the hegemonic masculine imagination because what it means to be a man is tied up with it. To think an organ that spends most its life dangling uselessly between the legs of half the population is imbricated with so many cultural codes, ideologies, anxieties, fears, and more is, when you think about it, totally weird and ever so slightly absurd.
Read more ...

Monday, 2 March 2015

Tony Benn's Bandwagon

A charismatic leader. A people's army. A set of "commonsense" policies. An increasingly worried party leadership concerned about the electrifying effect one man's oratory is having among the grassroots. This is not 2015, and the actors are not an insurgent UKIP under Nigel Farage. This is 1981, and the captivating hero of the hour is Tony Benn. The film below, again from TV Eye, tracks Benn and his loyal following on the union conference campaign trail as part of his Labour Party deputy leadership bid. It was very nearly successful too. Only one per cent separated him from the victorious Dennis Healey.

With the benefit of hindsight, Benn's challenge was the postwar highpoint of the Labour left. Already the stirrings of deindustrialisation and the consumer-oriented individuation of popular culture was starting to eat at the institutional feet of our movement. Without the nourishment of much widespread participation in labour movement matters, the left was ill-equipped to resist the disastrous fall-outs of the miners' strike defeat, the mass privatisations and attacks on trade union rights, and the loss of general elections in 1983, 1987, and 1992.

Would it have been different had Benn won the deputy leadership 34 years ago? Playing 'what if' is a very difficult game, but without a doubt a land of milk and honey did not await. Had he proved victorious Labour would have carried on as a deeply fractious party. There would have been battles between the leader's and deputy leader's office so fierce and frequent that anything approaching effective direction was impossible. At this point, the Gang of Four had cast their die and were openly trading as the SDP. It is quite possible that more of the right would have given the Labour Party up as a bad job and thrown their lot in with them rather than tolerate Benn in position. A left split with Benn at the helm would have been less likely unless the differences between the left on the one hand, and the centre and the right on the other proved utterly intractable. It's very difficult, for example, to see how Benn as deputy would have gone along with Michael Foot's support for war over the Falklands. Either way, a left split or a right split, that would have put Labour in an even more perilous and difficult position than it was in after the 1983 general election. Could it be that Healey's victory, albeit a defeat for the left, was actually a lesser evil in the long-run? We will never know for sure.



Once again, many thanks to Dave for digging this one out.
Read more ...

Sunday, 1 March 2015

New Blogs February 2015

It's March! Time for a round-up of new(ish) left, labour movement, and radical blogs.

1. Exposing UKIP (Unaligned) (Twitter)
2. Games and Class (Morning Star) (Twitter)
3. genders, bodies, politics (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
4. Huseyin Kishi (Green) (Twitter)
5. Jacqui Berry for Gillingham and Rainam (Socialist Party/TUSC) (Twitter)
6. London Green Left Blog (Green)
7. More Known Than Proven (Labour) (Twitter)
8. Nora Mulready (Labour) (Twitter)
9. Red and Black Leeds (Unaligned/Anarchist) (Twitter)
10. Secretly Radical (Unaligned/Feminist)
11. Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory (Labour)
12. The Gerasites (Unaligned) (Twitter)
13. The Search for Socialism (Unaligned) (Twitter)
14. Trade Union Group (Labour) (Twitter)

It's been a couple of months since I last did one of these, so here's a nice haul of blogs for your pleasure and delight. With the general election on view I expect candidates here, there, and everywhere will be taking to blogging for the durée. Speaking of elections, here's a new unaligned blog. Whippersnapper (@whipper_snap on Twitter) is designed for young people thinking about politics. I wish the project well.

As always, if you know of any new blogs that haven't featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email or Twitter. Please note I'm looking for blogs that have started within the last 12 months. The new blog round up usually appears on the first Sunday of every month. And if it doesn't, it will turn up eventually!
Read more ...

Five Most Read Posts in February


The most popular posts last month were:

1. The Unavoidable Horizon of Lesser Evilism
2. Labour vs The Militant Tendency
3. Peter Oborne and the Crisis of Conservatism
4. The Sociology of Tory Stupidity
5. Labour's Scottish Bloodbath ... And What Needs To Be Done About It

A personally gratifying month, to be sure. You give people stuff they want to read about and they will come. As someone who writes mainly about politics, it's good that this sort of material is finally finding an audience. Back when this blog was an eclectic mix of social theory and sectariana, posts looking at the comings and the goings of mainstream parties and politicians were relatively few and far between and seldom read. Now the terms are almost reversed. Well, not quite. This month's look back at the Militant Tendency pulled in a hefty chunk of readers, but it wasn't enough to dislodge the home truths about not voting Labour for "radical" reasons. The crisis in Conservatism attracted good audiences. It appears I'm not alone in delighting at the slow death of the Tory party. And bringing up the rear were considerations on Labour's equally grave crisis in Scotland. The fortunes of both can be turned around on the basis of consistent work, but for the former it's a case of "crisis, what crisis?" and the latter being in hock to austerity lite is, as you might euphemistically put it, "profoundly unhelpful".

I'm going to throw three posts out there for a second consideration. As I don't blog about it anywhere near enough, here are two social theory-related posts: Theorising the Mortality of Advanced Societies and The Postmodern Effacement of Class are pretty much self-explanatory. And one more from politics: Rumours of UKIP's Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated. Shame it were not otherwise.
Read more ...