Labour and the Social Workhouse

Is Kemi Badenoch the Prime Minister? I ask because last week prior to Keir Starmer's announcement about increasing military spending, the Leader of the Opposition said it should be part-funded by cuts to social security. And on Wednesday, the BBC was leading with news from "sources" that this is exactly what Rachel Reeves plans to do.

It could be this is more muddying of the water. The government's comms haven't exactly been on point, and "anonymous" downbeat briefings have been made in the past that came to nothing. But in this case, I don't think so. The contempt Reeves has for those subsisting on social security has been known for a decade, since she said Labour doesn't want to represent people who are out of work. Readers will recall that, as Chancellor, Reeves has followed it up with stripping away winter fuel payments and keeping the two child benefit cap. Before Trump came back, there have long been mutterings about doing something about the benefits bill, with disabled people and the long-term sick in the crosshairs.

The way this is being presented is typical of a government drenched in dishonesty. In April last year, 1.5m people reported inconveniences associated with long Covid and a further 381,000 said their day-to-day activities had been limited a lot. A good chunk of whom would be in receipt of sickness benefits. Another gift of Covid and the preceding government's lack of seriousness has been the co-morbidities arising from infection. Susceptibility to auto-immune diseases, cancers, heart disease, respiratory conditions, and more are well known and are exacting a toll from a population that have contracted it many times. These too are adding to the sickness bill. But the most common problems are musculoskeletal conditions to the point of debilitation, and mental illness. We never hear about what's driving these, perhaps because it raises inconvenient questions.

Politicians know some ill and disabled people are unsuitable for work and that the overwhelming majority on sickness and disability benefits are there precisely because of that. Which is why the Tories are past masters at scapegoating them by tarring them with the scrounger/skiver brush. Labour are not so crude, prefer to say the system isn't working for them, and is creating "perverse incentives" to stay away from work. But the effect is the same: the delegitimation of the long-term sick, a denial that their system chews up and spits out broken bodies and damaged minds, and has no further use for them.

The Italian autonomists used to talk about the social factory in which every occupation, including unpaid domestic labour, reproduced the system and were therefore productive of capital. Perhaps we should think about the social workhouse, which is productive of stigma, fear, and forcing unwell people into work. This isn't primarily to make money out of the disabled and the ill, but to reinforce the discipline wage labour depends on. Clamping down on benefits is Labour's way of telling their bourgeois backers that the management of class relations is safe with them.

Image Credit

Rumpus on the Right

Associating a right wing political project with Donald Trump is a risky move. Though you can't say Nigel Farage wasn't warned. There was a four-year record of chaos available for review, well-telegraphed statements of intent, and before he took office Trump's unprecedented and stupid attacks on friendly nations and allies. And now that transatlantic alliance, which has bitten Farage once is back to tear off a larger chunk.

Following the double-team ambush of Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday, the latest entertainment from the White House include suspending military aid to Ukraine, and JD Vance attacking "random countries" (i.e. Europeans) for not having fought a war for 40 years. The latter, of course, is in poor taste considering personnel from almost every NATO member died needlessly in the occupation of Afghanistan. Fewer countries were in Iraq, but the losses were by no means insignificant. And as for Ukraine, its case against Russia is almost sacrosanct as mainstream politics and public opinion goes. Woe betide anyone who sets their face against this.

Farage is having a go, mind. Josh has done a good job listing his recent compromising utterances. These include criticising Zelenskyy for being "rude" in the White House, excusing Trump's treatment of the visiting leader, and supporting the pathetic question about his attire lacking "respect". There was also his suggestion Ukraine was a uniquely corrupt country, admitting he was not a "huge fan". Whether Farage is actually in the pocket of the Kremlin or not is a moot point. Like Trump, he acts as though he is.

Might this dent the (resistible) rise of Reform? As Josh rightly notes, like all far right outfits there is an inherent instability to the project. The evidence is there in the waxing and the waning of its continental counterparts (who, unfortunately, are on the up), and the history of UKIP had similar peaks and troughs. Farage knows this better than most given the dozen or so times he quit as the party's leader, which is why he ensured the Brexit Party and now Reform were private companies he was the majority shareholder of. As noisy the internal life of the party might be, he can never be challenged because it's his personal, private property. So if the combination of Trump's colourful behaviour and Labour's adoption of military Keynesianism does chip away at Reform's polling, Farage is safe in his manor.

Safe, but politically vulnerable. Vladimir Putin has become a bruise on Reform Labour wants to, and is, punching. Yet this is an opportunity for someone else too. Typically languishing third in the polls and desperately looking for a way back into contention, this is an opportunity to turn the tables on Reform. After all, it was a Tory Prime Minister who was enthusiastic about sending weapons to Ukraine and was critical in persuading Washington to do likewise. Under the Liz Truss interlude and Rishi Sunak, the arms kept making their way to the front lines and there was no suggestion of letting Kyiv roll over. And like Labour, they have tried to capitalise on the moment. At the weekend, Robert Jenrick put out a release condemning the behaviour of Trump and Vance in the strongest terms. Priti Patel has attacked Farage for equivocating on Russia's invasion. The goal is not just open, it's begging the Tories to score against Reform.

Sadly for them, it's Kemi Badenoch in the striker's position. After mildly criticising the Americans at the weekend, she was today making excuses for Vance's comments. The Tory leader said "I've looked at the comments. I don't think he actually said that. A lot of people are getting carried away." Her weak apology meant that Farage, putting self-preservation first, was able to get out a stronger statement that demonstrated a better understanding of how the politics of Vance's comments would land on the right. Instead of Farage looking vulnerable, it was Badenoch. He used the situation to mount a successful rear guard action. The Tory leader completely blew it.

Yes, Reform and their ilk are volatile parties with Russia-sized weak spots. But when the Tory leader is reluctant to get involved in the rumpus to save her party, probability suggests her time at the helm will be short.

Image Credit

Cuddling the Russian Bear

Following the "great television" of Donald Trump and JD Vance berating Volodymyr Zelenskyy in public, the Kremlin have said the new foreign policy positions of the United State largely aligns with theirs. But this begs the question, how has this come to be? From the end of the Cold War up until Trump's re-election, the settled position of the US has been to contain Russia. As the only power that can presently face down the Pentagon thanks to its huge stocks of nuclear weapons and capacity to turn the US homeland into glass, keeping it strategically boxed in tried ensuring it was never in a position to challenge the unipolar world worked out in the Project for a New American Century.

Why the break from this and the spurning of traditional allies? Why does Trump want to cuddle the Russian bear? The theatrics of the last month are overkill if it was all a crafty move to get European governments to cough up more on military spending. Ditto if it's just for domestic consumption too. Some Trump voters will be amused, the majority bemused, and for nearly all of them they're secondary considerations to the cost of living crisis - a key reason why they put him back in the White House. Nor are the intelligence reports that compromises Trump in all sorts of ways. As head of the most powerful military and intelligence capability the world has ever seen, in a sharply divided America front page splashes about Russian money and grim-sounding sex tapes would make little difference where Trump's support is concerned.

The more compelling answer lies in divisions within the American establishment about the strategic orientation their state should have in the 21st century. The shifting economic centre of gravity towards East Asia coupled with the long-term demographic decline of Europe's wealthy markets provides a compelling case for orienting away from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Something that Britain has tried doing too. But this is not just about where the new profitable opportunities lie. Under Barack Obama, the US downgraded Russia as a rival and therefore European states as clients as they switched attention to the strategic challenge of China. During the 2007-8 stock market cataclysm, the US was weakened by its indebtedness to Beijing, and while the winds of recession blew through Western economies China only grew more, and kept on growing. Over the last decade, Chinese multinationals have been winning strategic infrastructural contracts across the West and is starting to threaten American technological supremacy. The desperate efforts at trying to ban TikTok and the embarrassment of the tech oligarchs by China's cut price AI application are harbingers of more to come.

This context is most useful for thinking about Trump's foreign policy. As a well-known China hawk, he and his goon squad are executing a turn away from the Biden era's preoccupations (save one) with Europe, Ukraine, and Russia to ultimately face down and box in China. Russia fits this picture for a couple of reasons. Gone are the days of the Sino-Soviet split, China and Russia have grown closer to one another. Beijing has tried exerting a moderating influence on Putin over Ukraine without much success, but that doesn't detract from the common interest they share in resisting the American "international community" of allies, lackeys, and puppets that marked the pre-Trump world. For the White House, its overtures appear to be aimed at prising Russia away from China. It also helps to explain the thinking aloud about readmitting Russia to the G8, and the possibility of joint exploitation of Ukrainian mineral wealth in Russian-occupied zones. The economic and diplomatic reintegration of Putin's gangster state could turn Putin's head and leave Beijing without a major military ally. Secondly, on the subject of minerals the bulk of the vast natural resources of Russia remains in the ground. Bringing Moscow in from the cold not only promises US companies the chance of super-profits from exploiting this wealth, it denies China these strategic resources. A strong friendship between Trump's America and Putin's Russia is not just good for business. It would stymie China and keep the US secure in its position as global hegemon.

Others would prefer to prattle on about Trump's alleged cognitive decline or the doings of the FSB to explain all this. They prefer fairy stories that obscure more than they reveal because anything else compromises the fantasies that have been crafted about the US, its actions, and its prime position in the global order. But Trump's embrace of Russia is not without risks. Another reason why post-war American foreign policy has stressed Transatlanticism is to keep Europe under its thumb. Washington's Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of Western Europe, and the encouragement of the EU created affluent markets for US corporations, while tying the West and later the East to NATO ensured that European states were never strategically at odds with them. Trump deciding to position the US as an unreliable ally has had the desired effect of increasing military spending, but at the price of becoming unmoored from US interests. For as long as Putin or a similar nationalist/military adventurist regime remains in the Kremlin, Ukraine reminds everyone that none of Europe's eastern states are safe. Europe also has the wealth and the military and technical expertise to put together an alliance without Trump that could deter Russia. But the real problem for him is if Europe is shepherded down this road by US vibe, US statements, and US actions (notwithstanding attempts at bridging the divide), then far from isolating Beijing we might find a new alignment of east-west interests without America and without Russia. And that could be a recipe for accelerating the decline of US world dominance.

Trump is playing a high stakes game that many in the State Department and the wider American oligarchy are opposed to because it hurts their immediate interests and weakens them in the long-term. Establishment opposition so far appears thin on the ground, but as their power is at stake they cannot and will not sit back in a bewildered haze forever.

Image Credit

Local Council By-Elections February 2025

This month saw 41,242 votes cast in eight local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 12 council seats changed hands. For comparison with January's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Jan	+/- Feb 25	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	23	9,896	24.0%	+2.7	-7.0	430	0
Labour	23	9,998	24.2%	+7.1	+3.0	435	-6
Lib Dem	20	7,917	19.2%	-2.6	-9.7	396	-1
Reform*	22	8,020	19.4%	+8.9	+18.5	365	+5
Green	20	2,887	7.0%	+1.3	+0.0	144	0
SNP**	2	1,474	3.6%	-6.0	+2.3	737	+1
PC***	0						0
Ind****	5	709	1.7%	-11.9	-5.6	142	+1
Other*****	8	341	0.8%	+0.4	-0.6	43	0

* Reform's comparison results are based on recomputing their tallies from last year's Others
** There were two by-elections in Scotland
*** There were two by-elections in Wales
**** There two Independent clashes
***** Others this month consisted of Alba (63), Christian People's Alliance (14), Heritage (21, 12), Putting Cumbria First (76), Rejoin (68), SDP (69), Sovereignty (18)

Reform take the by-election crown this month, hoovering up councillors (three courtesy of Labour, two from the Conservatives) and finally achieving a vote share that's closer to their polling figures. You might ask why it took them so long, seeing as the news media continues to be framed by the preoccupation of the right wing press and differential turn outs by age give them and the Tories an advantage over the other parties. Whatever the answer is, the catch up is sudden. This time last year Reform could hardly be bothered fielding by-election candidates and scores below 1% were routine. They have quickly become a force not to be dismissed lightly.

Labour was everyone's punching bag in February. They had better get used to it. We'll see if what's been happening with Donald Trump shifts the dial on national polling. The Tories managed to hold steady, winning and losing in equal measure. February was another strong month for the Liberal Democrats. If this persists, it would be reasonable to assume they have permanently annexed a section of liberalish soft Tory opinion. The upward momentum of the Greens, however, has been halted by Reform's advance and its new role as a repository of protest votes. They gained one and lost one council seat, but annoyingly came within four votes of taking a seat off the Tories in East Suffolk.

Over the course of this year, I'll be running a side project keeping an eye on the Independents and Others. Now Reform are a proper contender and by-elections typically have a range of choice, will Reform become a) a new vehicle for self-styled local heroes to get on their councils who might otherwise have stood as Independents, and therefore depress the number of candidacies from this quarter? And b), is it going to have a similar effect on the candidacies from Others? We'll see.

As for next month, unfortunately it's likely Reform will carry on doing well. I expect the Lib Dems to turn in a creditable performance, and Labour and the Tories get vote shares commensurate with their polling. And for the Greens ... maybe they will surprise us.

6 February
Hyndburn, Baxenden, Con gain from Lab
Medway, Rochester East & Warren Wood, Ref gain from Lab x2
Medway, Gillingham South, Lab hold
Tendring, The Bentleys & Frating, Ref gain from Con
Wokingham, Winnersh, LDem hold

11 February
Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest Prendergast, Ind gain from Con

13 February
Barnet, Burnt Oak, Lab hold
East Dunbartonshire, Kirkintilloch North & East & Twechar, Lab gain from LDem
New Forest, Bransgore, Burley, Sopley & Ringwood East, Con gain from Grn
Stevenage, Manor, LDem hold
Torfaen, Trevethin & Penygarn, Ref gain from Lab
Warwick, All Saints & Woodloes, Grn gain from Lab

18 February
Brent, Alperton, LDem hold

20 February
Barking & Dagenham, Whalebone, Lab hold
Colchester, Tiptree, Con hold
East Ayrshire, Kilmarnock North, SNP gain from Lab
Hammersmith & Fulham, Hammersmith Broadway, Lab hold
Hammersmith & Fulham, Lillie, Lab hold

27 February
Breckland, Bedingfeld, Ref gain from Con
East Suffolk, Rushmere St Andrews, Con hold
East Suffolk, Woodbridge, LDem hold
Westminster, Vincent Square, Con gain from Lab
Westmorland & Furness, Eamont & Shap, LDem hold

Image Credit

Five Most Popular Posts in February

There might be a crisis in the transatlantic alliance, but nothing, I mean nothing will stop the customary monthly round up of what's hot on this here blog.

1. The Politics of Noticing
2. The Radicalisation of Young Women
3. Blue Labour and the Working Class
4. The Sacking of Andrew Gwynne
5. Revisiting Brexit and Corbynism

Coming out top was a piece on how sections of the left/liberal press and academia are beginning to notice that Keir Starmer isn't necessarily on their side. A crisis in the making for the Prime Minister. This was followed by a crisis of another sort. While commentators were falling over themselves and wringing their hands about the advance of the AfD in Germany, little noticed was the much deeper left wing radicalisation of young women. What's going on? In third was my exasperated piece on Blue Labour, the theory middle class right wingers in the Labour Party keep trying to resurrect to cover for their own prejudices. Not far behind was a look at the arrogant stupidity of Andrew Gwynne and how this brief episode lifts the lid on the mundane culture of Labour parliamentarians. And last was a trip down memory lane on news that there were talks between Dominic Cummings and Jeremy Corbyn's office back in the day. Ah, what simpler times they were.

A couple of other pieces for your consideration. The first is last night's scrawlings reflecting on the profound shock establishment political opinion received after Trump's public bullying of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Friday. A far cry from the clubby atmos of Keir Starmer's visit the day before. This one's going to reverberate. The second is February's sole foray into science fiction with a look at Norman Spinrad's The Void Captain's Tale.

What's coming up in March? I've got four or five posts queued in my brain so if nothing appears, it's not for want of material. The resignation of Anneliese Dodds, Trump's affinity to Russia, and a couple of SF commentaries immediately spring to mind. I'm sure the comings and goings of politics will provide unforeseen occasions for content creation too. As ever, if you haven't already don't forget to follow the (very) occasional newsletter, and if you like what I do (and you're not skint), you can help support the blog. Following me on Bluesky, Facebook, and for what it's worth Twitter, are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Image Credit

The End of the American Illusion

With Donald Trump in the White House, the political climate can change with the wind. The grotesque spectacle of the tangerine tyrant and JD Vance berating Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office (and him giving as good as he got) has revealed the truth of American power in its naked obscenity. What normally takes place behind closed doors was allowed to hang out. Or, to be more accurate, was contrived to be shown off. And with the huge wave of revulsion sweeping over a broad range of political opinion, swathes of the establishment here and in Europe have finally seen what the USA is: a rapacious, ruthless power. The jitters that Keir Starmer tried settling on Thursday among his base are well and truly back.

Liberal illusions in what the United States is about lie shredded. And the disgust among polite circles at Trump and Vance's behaviour will find a corresponding echo among the public at large here, in Europe, and in the US itself. The basic injustice of Putin's invasion plus the reams of friendly media coverage hitherto enjoyed by the Ukrainian cause will guarantee a popular reaction against Trump. But amid the disgust, I'm reminded of the hypocrisies of those elites who styled themselves as the "resistance" to Trump in his first term. What they found intolerable (abandoning the Paris Agreement, North Korean peace talks, moving the embassy to Jerusalem) were occasions for excusing, minimising, ignoring, and sometimes endorsing similar when it was their turn in power again. And so it is this evening. "The most disgusting thing I've ever seen" is the consensus liberal view, accidentally-on-purpose failing to remember that the previous administration shovelled money and weapons to a regime that livestreamed and boasted about its massacre of tens of thousands of people. Attacking Zelenskyy in front of the world's press was really bad form, as are tasteless social media stunts, but none of that is as damning as aiding and abetting a genocide and lying about it.

Therefore, while for some this might be an eye-opening moment that leads to a deeper understanding of US power and imperialism for some, most will put this episode down to the repugnant personalities of those who run the US. Once they're gone, everything will be alright again. Nothing structural going on, everything else is fine under the hood. Change the drivers and it will be a-okay. Theirs are not illusions discarded, but illusions suspended. Assuming the next set of presidential elections (if they happen) turf out the Trump crew and a new Democrat replaces him, the bulk of establishment opinion will go back to how it was before Trump took office a month ago. But this won't change the facts of US behaviour on the world stage. West Europeans, liberal media elites, and establishment figures are seeing the face the US routinely presents to the nations of the global south. And the truly shocking thing is they're now getting the same treatment.

Trump/Starmer

Keir Starmer had two objectives when he met Donald Trump on Thursday. To keep intact the so-called special relationship, and therefore the "bridge" this represents between the US and a chastised/hurt Europe. And ensuring Britain does not fall victim to Trump's tariff scheme, which is threatening to fall on European Union exports when the whim takes the White House. The Prime Minister will be very glad to have banked Trump's assurances on these.

But Starmer got much more than that. Yes, the government's increased military spending was noted and appreciated by Trump, and the letter from the King inviting the Donald for an unprecedented second state visit went down very well indeed. No one does flattery quite like the Brits, and so Starmer will come home lugging two big bonuses: the possibility of a trade deal (hello again, chlorinated chicken!), and US backing of the Chagos Island plan. The very same one Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have berated Starmer for because it serves China's interests or something. I look forward to the leader of the opposition rising at the next PMQs and taking credit for the negotiations she was against, until Trump supported them.

Trump also spoke approvingly of the Ukraine mineral deal that has been cooked up in double quick time. Asked by the BBC's Chris Mason about whether the President still thought Volodymyr Zelenskyy was still a dictator, Trump replied dead pan, "Did I say that? I can't believe I would say that". Some would take that as evidence of cognitive decline. Others as someone who enjoys toying with and discombobulating the press pack. Either way, the Ukrainian president is due to visit Washington, and while Trump refused to be drawn on security guarantees he's unlikely to begin digging without the threat of force backing US investments. However, knowing most of the resources he wants to dig up are in the Russian-occupied east, a partnership there with Putin's regime is unlikely to spark off a shooting war once the signatures are on the armistice. Therefore, the security guarantee isn't there in words but it's implied in the scheme the White House are drawing up for Ukraine after the war. In short, Starmer got all he wanted and then some.

The Prime Minister knows he had to walk a tricky tightrope with Trump. He knows how unpopular he is here (and undoubtedly there will be a large crowd welcoming Trump to London, just like last time), how toxic Tony Blair's relationship with George W Bush was, and would like to avoid similar problems. But while most don't like Trump, public opinion knows that Starmer cannot denounce the president from the roof tops and has to deal with him. The game of diplomacy must be played, and Starmer has so far managed this well. He had to avoid was looking like a supplicant, and for those watching at home this pit fall was side stepped. For now at least, where domestic politics are concerned, Labour is probably going to avoid any negative fall out from this meeting. But it won't always be as easy as this.

Image Credit

The Obscenity of Trump Gaza

"This could be so magnificent" says Donald Trump when waxing about the riviera real estate future he's imagining for Gaza. Others might call it the glitzy burial of an obscenity. Hollywood has a long history of glamourising colonial genocide, but this tacky AI-generated slop is something else.

The New Realpolitik

Two speeches about changed geopolitical realities. Ahead of his visit to see Donald Trump on Thursday, Keir Starmer has announced an acceleration in the government's plans to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% after the next election. This will be funded by cuts to the foreign aid budget, reducing it from a "protected" 0.5 to 0.3%. It was a "hard choice" said Starmer, but with uncertainty abounding ("a dangerous new era") and an aggressive Russia on the edges of Europe he maintained there weren't any other options. But there is the happy by-product of this boosting jobs as war industries are expanded.

There was also a speech by Kemi Badenoch, who readers might recall is the leader of the opposition. Trying to pre-empt whatever Starmer was going to announce on Tuesday afternoon, the Tory leader demanded an increase in military spending to 3% of GDP by gutting foreign aid entirely. She also doubled down on a suggestion made by James Cartlidge, the shadow defence minister, on Sunday's Laura Kuenssberg. He floated the idea of cutting more from social security for disabled people specifically to buy bombs and bullets. Badenoch confirmed that further "savings" could be made from the welfare bill, one of many "painful decisions on government spending" she would find morally wrenching in an unfortunate world where she becomes Prime Minister.

She went much further than Starmer did on Britain's place in the world. Badenoch said Britain believes rules are important because it is a trading nation. "... other countries are breaking the rules and we need to get serious about that and not pretend that those things aren't happening ...". Is she saying that the UK should take rule breakers to task for flouting global obligations, or is she suggesting we should be prepared to discard them ourselves? The implication tends toward the latter as she attacked Britain's membership of the European Convention, saying the ECHR should not stop this country from doing what is right for its people. This is "conservative realism". Not the "progressive internationalism" supposedly characterising Labour's approach to world affairs (a demonstrably stupid charge).

"It was so bland, formulaic, and unsurprising that it would have made Chat-GPT blush" went Conservative Home's scathing review. Quite. But Badenoch's address wasn't without politics. Because the Tory leadership are desperate, desperate to court Trump's administration they are in their own pathetic, twee way pantomiming US unilateralism and prostrating themselves as doormats and supplicants. Ironically, the US strategy they're kowtowing to was the stock-in-trade of the Tories themselves for the latter half of the last government. This was sovereignty without limits, or to put it more baldly, power without checks. Having seen off the encumbrances of the labour movement and institutional autonomy within the state during the Thatcher/Major years, and then extricating the country from the very limited checks on executive authority represented by the EU via Brexit, the Tories want to set Britain free from any remaining obligations, including those enforced by treaty, allowing it to pick and choose. For what purpose? To give them maximum flexibility to manage class relations at home in an uncertain world where unexpected, unwelcome upsurges happen.

But this is so very academic considering how Badenoch is exceedingly unlikely to see the next election as leader, let alone be within a shout of capturing Number 10.

Starmer, however, must be eagerly awaiting how this militarist turn lands. Yes, it will go down well with with the Donald on Thursday - especially the move to cut foreign aid (which is equally as stupid as the USAID cuts, considering how much soft power is bound up with the disbursement of funds). But domestically, more military spending might cut the mustard with the Reform-curious reactionary Labour voter. It's Britain standing on its own feet and not being reliant on America any more (therefore being implicitly anti-Trump), while being framed as against Russia - something that Nigel Farage and the other bad boys of Brexit have an ambiguous relationship with. Starmer is pummelling Reform exactly where they have a significant weakness and are in a position to challenge its patriotism, and without Reform having a convincing counter-argument. Starmer, therefore, is well positioned to reap some much needed political capital from the changed circumstances and reverse Labour's mediocre polling position. Badenoch? Not so much.

Image Credit

The Radicalisation of Young Women

"Why does 25% AfD among young men spark a thousand "what is going on with young men?" posts yet Die Linke 34% among young women generates...nothing at all? Yes, young men voting for the radical right is an important phenomenon. But so is young women going rad left *at even higher rates*." So writes Rob Ford, reflecting on the marked gender split among 18-24 year olds at Sunday's general election in Germany. The reasons why few if any have remarked on this trend probably has something to do with politics never taking women that seriously. But what is driving the gender divergence - also seen in this country - that sees younger women bolshevising at the rate of knots?

Three quick and dirty interlinked hypotheses.

1. Maria writes "I’m so looking forward to all the articles on why young women are being ‘pushed into the arms of the far-left’ due to their ‘legitimate concerns’ about things like bodily autonomy, rape culture and the hollowing out of state welfare protections, right?". Yes. Young women are encountering misogyny every day among their peer groups and the swill of social media. The election of the misogynist-in-chief in the USA, the antics of Elon Musk, and the widely publicised rejection of the gender equity lip service paid by American tech companies for a dorkish, inauthentic "masculine energy" reinforces the message that women don't matter. This is the background noise to efforts by the far right to politicise young men as incels and misogynists. While this commands the chin-stroking and concerned frowns, political science and political sociology has overlooked how this is politicising women in the opposite direction. Precisely because the far right politics of gender means stuffing women into a narrow straitjacket that comes in two sizes only: pornified objects and tradwives. Young women's embrace of the radical left is not just a reaction against forcing on them a stultifying subaltern identity. It's a realisation by them that contemporary misogyny is inseparable from the politics of oligarchy. That taking on patriarchal social relations is inseparable from the struggle against capital. They can clearly see who is pushing this drivel and why.

2. For well over a decade, concerns with the "new misogyny" has found a ready explanation in the changes to work and configuration of the labour market. Less attention, however, has been paid to the consequences this has had for women. On paper, immaterial labour - the dominance of 21st century work by the production of knowledge, services, care, social relations affords some advantages to those whose childhood and teen socialisation has stressed the importance of caring for others, having emotional intelligence, and developing a more pro-social as opposed to competitive, atomised individuality. Which largely remains the norm for the upbringing of girls. As noted many times here before, for the new working class of immaterial labourers/socialised workers, social liberalism is the practical everyday consciousness. Workers are required to mobilise their social being, their sociality in the service of their employer to collaborate with others and meet the needs of clients/customers. This is a set of tools capital cannot own, though it won't be for want of trying. Therefore efforts that the right use to mobilise its supporters. I.e. Making scapegoats out of vulnerable minorities is one reason why younger cohorts are repulsed by centrists and the mainstream right. However, survey after survey shows women are less susceptible to racism, anti-immigration politics, and transphobia. Why? Because they are more more likely to have been socialised into empathetic structures of feeling than men, which are continually reinforced by the capacities required by contemporary work cultures. And so women are more likely to feel an affinity between the belittling of minorities and their life experiences of becoming women, and draw the necessary (radical) political conclusions.

3. Younger women are more likely to go to university than men. This is partly because the growth areas in the professions - consistent with the rise of immaterial labour - offer a growing array of gender normative pathways to career success. More people with people skills are needed than ever before. However, as Dan Evans has rightly observed, there are not enough graduate positions to go around with many stuck for years, if not forever in non-graduate jobs after leaving university. The outcome of this is downward social mobility and a radical frustration with the world that, inter alia, provided many a shock troop to Jeremy Corbyn's campaigns. This is still true, whether we're talking about the UK or Germany. Because of the gender imbalance in universities, this crisis of the graduate is going to be disproportionately felt by young women. Their expectations frustrated and ambitions stymied, why not a radical politics that provides convincing explanations for why they are in this predicament? Certainly makes more sense than anything the far right and the mainstream have to say.

Two Points on the German Election

Two points. One's big. The other's small. But it might become big.

The German exit polls have mirrored those taken during the election. The CDU/CSU are out in front with circa 30% of the vote, the far right AfD on around 20%, the SPD have collapsed to around 16% - its worst result since the 1880s. The Greens are on about 13%, and the late surge for Die Linke puts them between eight and nine per cent. In political terms, Germany has become a "normal country". The centre has caved in (the FDP are on course to lose all their seats), the centre left have taken a battering, and the rise of the extreme right has grabbed the headlines.

There are obvious parallels between what's happened in Germany and what's unfolding here. A centrist coalition of sensible grown ups have presided over years of economic stagnation and lacklustre investment. Coincidentally, farmers' protests over the cancellation of a tax break was one of the nails driven into the SPD-FDP-Green coalition's coffin. The final straw was the provocative proposal of the FDP to take the axe to social security and public spending, which proved to be so popular that again they find themselves without representatives in the Bundestag. Having learned nothing and uninterested in the lessons of history, the SPD and Greens both pursued policies at odds with their popular constituencies and have paid the political price. As such, it was easy for the AfD to pose as the champions of ordinary Germans against a political establishment tone deaf on immigration, the cost of living, and efforts at undermining German identity.

The AfD have been assisted in this by Friedrich Merz, the Union's leader and incoming chancellor. Like the Tories his party have banged on about immigration, legitimating and amplifying an AfD that can easily outflank their positions. Indeed, if Merz has achieved anything long-lasting in toppling a decrepit opponent on his party's second lowest federal vote share, it is to confirm the Christian Democrats as the main right wing party in the west while allowing AfD to monopolise "real concerns" in the east. Merz has already courted notoriety by effectively cooperating with them in the Bundestag vote on a vote about immigration, and undoubtedly further such "accidental" alliances will be forged over the course of the next parliamentary session. As the party appears to have lost a million supporters to the far right, Merz will be hoping his "tough" approach will ensure further AfD-curious Union voters will stick with them, and that the old east/west border will confirm his partitioning of the right and stop them from setting up shop in his heartlands.

No one should not be complacent about the rise of the AfD. A fifth of the popular vote is only going to inspire more extremism and with it more violence against immigrant communities, sexual minorities, women, and political opponents. A Merz-led government doesn't care. Defeating the AfD and driving them out of politics will not come from above.

Which makes the small story of Die Linke's resurgence significant. First, they saw off the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, a reactionary split from the Left that embraced Blue Labourism with German characteristics. Going right on culture and left on economics is on-paper smart politics, since the AfD are effectively the FDP plus open racism and overlaps with fascist groups. But then again, none of the far right's supporters have voted AfD because they think free markets and neoliberalism are very good actually. Here, as there, it was a hiding to nothing and Die Linke have squelched them. Quite the turn around since BSW were beating them in the polls a few months ago. Some might put this down to the viral anti-fascist speech of co-leader Heidi Reichinnek, and there is some evidence - thanks to the largest turnout since 1987 - that a mix of this, its socially liberal pro-working class messaging and policies struck with the rising generation. Die Linke were by far and away the most popular party among younger voters.

Obviously, Die Linke are not perfect. The self-removal of the anti-woke, pro-Russia right has undoubtedly helped the party, but divisions remain between those elements who are soft left and want a slice of the government pie and those wanting more radical social change, and criss-crossing this are divisions about Israel and Palestine. Undoubtedly, given the unexpected successes, German media actors and others looking to rebuild the shattered SPD at their expense will try using these divisions to sap the party's energy and drive new supporters away. Because having a mass fascist-adjacent party as the second party in the Bundestag is a trifling concern versus a left wing insurgency. Nevertheless a harbinger of good things to come, one hopes.

Image Credit