The Language of Donald Trump

I thought this sociolinguistic analysis of how Donald Trump uses language is a fascinating video essay. Well worth investing seven minutes of your time in.

... And Neither is Progress "Hard Right"

This time, it was John McDonnell turning up the rhetoric while drowning out the sense. On Channel 4 News last night, he said "there’s a group within the Labour Party who have a right wing conservative agenda. Within Progress itself, there are some who are quite hard right, and I think they’ve never accepted Jeremy’s leadership." I don't think this is particularly helpful, and it might be an idea if someone passed around the chill pills. Progress, of which - surprise, surprise - I'm not a supporter of, does receive generous funds from Lord Sainsbury, but I think people are mistaken for viewing the organisation as a right-wing iteration of Militant.

Progress is a pressure group that publishes a magazine, has its own events and, in some locations, meets at a local level. It has internal elections for its strategy board, sets campaigning priorities, and provides training for members and supporters. Unlike Militant, there is no internal discipline. The views of Richard Angell, Progress's national director, aren't taken as holy writ and no one is expected to parrot a line. Of course, there is some ideological coherence but it's not like Progress possesses a political theology members organise around - it magazine regularly carries debate, which is something you tend not to find in the periodicals of the far left. And because Progress isn't a Blairite monolith, there are members in it reconciled to Jeremy's leadership, but want to steer it into political waters with which they're familiar, and members who moan, whinge, and are disruptive. In other words, just as you'll find on all wings of the party. Lastly, Progress pursues a "best builders" strategy for gaining influence - it has an excellent record of consistently turning activists out for elections at all levels.

Of course, Progress does have disproportional influence in the PLP and therefore, until recently, on the policies of the party, but I don't think there's anything particularly sinister or "hard right" about this. That was a political reality and one, as we know, that is now shifting. Progress nevertheless has the right to organise around their views, as do any members in the party and that remains the case. The party isn't becoming a "Trot cult", to use the words of some more excitable members.

Look, we know what's going on here. Both sides are trying to delegitimise the other. As Progress are seen as a key organisational prop of the Labour right, it's long been the butt of left-wing critiques that portray its politics as non/anti-Labour. Not that the centre and the right are blameless angels, eh Jess Phillips?

The issue is whether the members and the electorate have much of an appetite for endless ding-dongs of this nature, and I don't think they have. There are huge differences over policy direction, and it's fanciful to imagine anyone's going to shut up about them, but when they do come up the party benefits from honest argument and evidence-based discussion. In this regard, I'm in complete agreement with Paul. Only anti-politics and cynicism wins from playground jibes and name calling, so how about it?

Generational Conflict in Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I have seen Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and it was wonderful. That said, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan. There is something jarring about science fantasy that doesn't sit well with my own hard SF preferences. I guess that's what happens when, philosophically speaking, you're a miserable materialist. Yet sitting in the cinema this afternoon, I wasn't prepared for the emotional experience seeing the new film turned out to be.

A story. Star Wars was one of the first films I remember seeing. My parents took me to watch The Empire Strikes Back on its original release. Not long after Return of the Jedi hit the cinemas, a pirated betamax also fell into my family's hands. And like many a family in the early 80s, my mum and dad skimped and saved so Santa could leave my brother and I Star Wars toys. The fixation didn't last but it must have helped shape my earliest years in some way, as it did for millions of others. Until watching the trailer last year, I hadn't realised quite how buried it was in my personality as something evocative of nostalgia and memory. Weirdly, there was none of this when the prequels hit the streets. It might have had something to do with them not building on Jedi and filling out the backstory instead, but those badly-acted CGI-fests left me cold. This time, not only did the trailer establish in advance The Force Awakens as a superior effort, it - at least for me - was a direct bridge across 32 years, from now to the cheeky little kid I was when Jedi's credits first rolled. Powerful stuff, and no doubt Disney were counting on it.

That makes writing about the film in dispassionate tones very difficult, so I won't. Force captured the Star Wars feel perfectly, and was everything it needed to be. Yes, it's derivative but no one was expecting a foray into anything else. It was rammed with fan service, cutting edge visuals, stunning cinematography, exceptional acting, and believable, conflicted characters. The family psychodramas are back along with the original cast, the baddies do a fine job as convincing space Nazis and the plot, while nothing new, ties it together seamlessly. It stands with the three original films, and lords it over the prequels.

While I'm sure film theory-types are going to have fun with the familial entanglements and the signifying chains in which new scenes map onto old scenes and subvert them, there's one line of interpretation I want to throw out there. Perhaps I'm sensitive to this as I approach the outer reaches of middle age, but this is a very young movie or, rather, one about thrusting aside older generations for the new. Some tentative thoughts follow, so spoilers from here on in.

First, there's the disappearance of the olds from the scene. C-3PO and R2-D2 are barely about, with the droid honours going to the brilliant and oddly-charismatic BB-8. Luke's off in hiding, Leia's running the show from base, so it's Rey and Fin doing the ass-kicking honours. Han Solo's return doesn't steal the show, but just in case wayward son Kylo Ren goes oedipal and offs him with his fancy light sabre.

The age/generation thing plays out more interestingly with the dark side. Kylo's obsessed with becoming Darth Vader, who also happens to be grandpapa. As the son put paid to Anakin Skywalker, so grandson wants to wreak generational vengeance against his uncle. Though, interestingly, Kylo's internal conflicts is a moment of The Force's many little reversals. Whereas Anakin and Luke are warned by all and sundry about the temptations of the dark side, in this Kylo wrestles with the impulse to be good. He has "forgotten" the travails of his family and rebelled by teaming up with the new empire, who now fashion themselves as the First Order. And this interests me, too. Apart from their "supreme leader", Snoke (who, sadly, reminds me of Gollum), the troops, the lackeys, the officers, they're all young. Chief among them is General Hux, a nasty piece of work with slicked hair, black uniform, and a dark fanaticism that summons every cinematic Nazi of the last 70 years. In the Star Wars universe, it could be a generation determined to re-enact an empire they grew up without. In real life, it might be a wry comment on the absence of historical memory and the kinds of consequences that result.

Overall, there's generational conflict at its heart, and as it pushes out the old and brings in the new, it appeals across generations to get the bums on seats. As far as I'm concerned, it's a must-see; a cultural moment that will be talked about for decades.

Jeremy Corbyn is Not a Misogynist

Like a lot of members from all wings of the movement, I'm getting fed up of the bullshit swilling about our party. Unfortunately, the latest to stir the stinking, steaming pot is Jess Phillips, the new go-to woman for "plain speaking". Last night on Newsnight, she had this to say:

"What is worrying about the culture of the Labour Party is very left-wing feminists are putting up with a lot more than they would of than any other man because Jeremy Corbyn's saying it. Had Tony Blair not given any of the top jobs to a woman, had that same make-up of his team existed, people would rightly have been up in arms, but it's a bit like some people in the Labour Party are accepting low-level, non-violent misogyny because it's Jeremy doing it."

In the spirit of plain speaking, Jess is talking out of her arse.

Firstly, what exactly is Jeremy Corbyn saying? Has he declared a penchant for young women, as someone else has these past few days? Has he been victim blaming women for the wrongdoing of a man? No, in fact Jeremy has said nothing at all. No sexist remark has crossed his lips since the beginning of the Labour leadership campaign as far as I can tell, and in fact the only comment that could be so construed dates from 1989. If Jezza is coming over all wideboy and having sexist bantz with the boys, let's hear about it.

As for Tony Blair, shall we have a look at his first shadow cabinet? My, what do we find? Leader's a man. Shadow chancellor's a bloke. Home office has a chap. And the Foreign office another fella. Yes, His Blairness, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, and Robin Cook, all holding the "great offices of state", or at least their shadow. Five out of 24 in the first and five out of 26 in his second shadcabs were women. It wasn't until 2006 when Blair appointed Margaret Beckett as foreign secretary - the first time a woman occupied a "great office" on his watch. I've been Googling away, but I cannot find any pieces by Jess Phillips being "up in arms" about Tony Blair's failure to appoint women until his final year as PM. Or, for that matter, much of a fuss being made by anyone - especially those now claiming Jeremy is a latter day Sid James or something*.

And last of all, while it is true that most of Jeremy's appointees behind the scenes are men, to claim he is guilty of "low-level, non-violent misogyny" is as ludicrous as it is contemptible. Basically, Jess is saying that Jeremy hates women. Everyone knows that is not the case, including Jess herself, and refusing to discuss her criticisms honestly makes her look like one of Prescott's 'bitterites' with absolutely nothing positive to say.

The thing is, I quite like Jess Phillips. Politics needs more women who are prepared to speak up and speak out about the matters they care about, but that doesn't mean she or anyone gets a free pass when they make stuff up about the leader. Like Jess, I remain a Jeremy sceptic. Yet, in case anyone needs reminding, Jeremy won and his position is unassailable. That leaves two options available to his opponents. They can continue to shout their mouths off, risking their own hides when the reselection comes and adding fuel to the stab-in-the-back narrative already getting traction among members. Or one can constructively debate and critique while competing to be the party's best builders. The latter is the only way the centre and the right can come back because once Jeremy's gone, most of the members he brought with him are sure to stick around - and they will remember.

Come on, let's have some honest argument.

* For completion's sake, Gordon Brown appointed Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary from 2007 until 2009, when the "top four" were all taken by men again, and under Ed Miliband Yvette Cooper served as shadow home then shadow foreign throughout.

Simon Danczuk and Narcissism

Hand on heart, I'm not Simon Danczuk's biggest fan. Of all the Labour MPs of this Parliament and the last, his record has been downright appalling. At times when UKIP were surging, he courted will-he won't-he defection rumours in the gutter press. He's taken to the airwaves to attack socialists as the equivalents of the BNP, and we shall not forget that Danczuk was paid handsomely by the two most right-wing rags in the land to dump all over Labour's general election efforts, and then use those same pages to say oh-so provocative things about the party that has provided him a damn good living. As far as I'm concerned, he's no better than a scab, a Westminster equivalent of a working miner who taunted pickets with wads of fives and tens. He brought himself and his office into disrepute a long time ago, and it's a miracle it's taken this long for him to get his comeuppance.

Better late then never, I suppose. And it's fitting his former employers The Sun and The Mail are the ones to stab him in the front, to borrow a popular Westminster phrase. I'm sure readers know the allegations made about him by now, and seeing as he's owned up we can treat them as established fact. Let's just be clear though, what any MP or anyone in the public eye does in their private lives is matter for them. It only becomes a topic of concern and therefore the party's, and possibly Parliamentary standards, when moral transgression puts them on the wrong side of political norms, rules, and perhaps the law. It is therefore right the party have swiftly suspended him pending an investigation. It's exactly what has happened in dozens of cases involving lesser known party representatives over the years. Please take note, Jacqui Smith. Nevertheless, I agree with Jon Lansman: Danczuk is entitled to fair treatment and a fair hearing by the party.

I want to move on to something more substantial, what you might call the figure or person of Simon Danczuk. Or, more properly, his narcissism. The last time this blog looked into narcissism was - ironically - in the case of the paedophile rock star, Ian Watkins. While Danczuk has not plunged into the depths of criminal depravity, framing him in terms of a sociological understanding of narcissism makes a lot of sense of his behaviour. Starting with Danczuk's own account of his actions, he's variously described his behaviour in terms of suffering depression, having a drinking problem, and possessing a "weakness" for young women. While he does deserve a smidgen of credit for avoiding a non-apology, we are being invited by him and those who alibi him to view his behaviour as the playthings of characteristics somehow external to his character, a bit like Nigel Farage blaming his own xenophobic comments about Romanians on tiredness. Now, of course, none of us are prisoners of our problems and our desires. We, as social beings, are a culmination of all the relations that have ever bared down on us since before we were born. These however do not determine who we are, but they condition our existence, our thoughts, our decision-making. The same is true of one's addiction to the bottle, one's mental health, one's sexual predilections. But what they cannot do is excuse our actions. That we are conditioned by our social being does not alter the fact we choose what we do. Social structures structure our agency, but they do not determine it. The same applies to mental health conditions. The fact of the matter is that the self-important, self-publicising Simon Danczuk we know and loathe is a creature of his own concoction. In her series of interviews over the new year, his recent ex-partner Claire Hamilton portrays a man prepared to do anything to get his name in the press, and say anything to inflate his already swollen bank account. A typical exhibit is his recent call for overseas aid to be scrapped and spent on flood defences instead. Effectively, he's Westminster's own Katie Hopkins and it's unsurprising that they would have a long-running coverage-generating feud with one another.

We all know that Westminster is pathologically self-referential. As the seat of government power its comings and goings receive a great deal of media attention. There are people paid to write about it, film it, interrogate it. There are even absurd hobbyists providing comment about it off their own bat. And, as we know, if you're lucky (and wily) enough to become one of its inhabitants, a gilded existence can await: £74,000/annum, staff, living costs, power, a profile and, for some, a certain aura that attaches itself to the office. All of these are very attractive to prospective MPs, and helps explain why everyone who was anyone in my local party flung their keys into the fruit bowl when the constituency became vacant in early 2010. Okay, you do have to fancy yourself a bit to take on the responsibility of being an MP, but for people of a certain personality type it's easy to get seduced by the conceit attached to the position, that to have got through a selection and bested an election requires something lesser folk haven't got. A bit like a business owner who thinks their success has nothing to do with the work and ingenuity of the staff they employ. This is Danczuk down to a tee. Over 20 years he's time-served as a councillor, a regional board member, a campaign manager; so having dragged himself through the structures of the party and having seen many a selection, election, and career fall by the wayside it;s understandable why he thinks himself a bit special and therefore entitled to behave as he does. His Parliamentary position flatters his ego, and what flows from that - the press attention, the telly appearances, the selfie-loving Karen, and, of course, sexting with a young women 32 years his junior all flatter his ego. And his political interventions, if they can be called that, around the floods, around Jeremy's leadership, around Ed Miliband before him, even with regard to the late and unlamented Cyril Smith, are each ostensibly about other matters but ultimately it is Danczuk who is at the centre. This is Danczuk the courageous naysayer and campaigner, or rather Danczuk inviting people who follow such things to see him in this light. In the most self-referential of locales, he is the most self-referential of its citizens.

That in mind, I'm afraid anyone hoping that Danczuk will do the decent thing and resign his seat are going to be disappointed. If he gets expelled by the party (which is likely) but the police and the Commons take no action against him (which I also think is likely), he'll soldier on as an independent. There is no job with a nice salary waiting on the outside, and no one that would give him a serious media gig. His bankability with the gutter press is dependent on remaining a Labour MP. Once gone, no one will care for his anti-Jeremy and anti-party ranting. Though some might shell out for a well-publicised journey through rehab, and he has the right kind of tarnish attractive to producers of Celebrity Big Brother. Either way, the time is soon when Danczuk and his galloping narcissism shall disappear from our political horizon. Let us hope no one fills the huge gap his ego leaves behind.

New Blogs December/Jan 2016

New month. New year. New(ish) blogs.

67 Job Applications in a Fortnight and Sanctioned (Unaligned)

Jess on Politics (Labour) (Twitter)

The Alternative Politics (Labour) (Twitter)

The Wilderness Years (Labour) (Twitter)

Thomas Mauchline (Labour) (Twitter)

University of London IWGB (Uanligned/Union)

If you know of any new blogs that haven't featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email, Facebook or Twitter. Please note I'm looking for blogs that have started within the last 12 months. The new blog round up appears on the first Sunday of every month, usually.

Jeremy Corbyn, Women, and the Shadow Cabinet

I know the so-called women's pages in the Telegraph aren't meant for incisive political comment, but Cathy Newman's piece on Jeremy's will-he won't-he reshuffle is a strong contender for idiocy of the year. And we're only on 2016's second day. It has it all: bad faith, banalities masquerading as analysis, omissions of fact. It's awful.

Cathy sets out a thought experiment. What if Jeremy Corbyn chooses to stuff his shadow cabinet full of women? What indeed. The shadow chancellorship should go to Angela Eagle, the foreign office to Yvette Cooper, to Liz Kendall social security or health, promotions for Gloria de Piero and Sarah Champion, and jobs found for Rachel Reeves, Emma Reynolds, Naz Shah, Stella Creasy, and Jess Phillips. She rounds off by noting that "the Labour leader has no excuse as he ponders his next move. If he cares about promoting women, there is no shortage of talent. Now he needs to tap it."

Indeed he does, but given how unassailable Jeremy's position is , is it likely his closest political ally is going to get dumped for someone who refuses to be drawn on whether Jeremy should be Prime Minister or not? Or, again, given the position of strength from which the putative reshuffle is to be made, why would Jeremy hand the shadow foreign office brief to someone, like Yvette, who thinks bombing raids over Syria in the absence of a plan is fine and dandy? And, to be frank, Jeremy would be out of his tree to hand health to Liz Kendall who, lest we forget, wants more markets and more businesses in the NHS - because she thinks they know how to run public services better. Cathy is an experienced political journalist, so to leave out the politics highlights either shocking incompetence or cynicism: when none of these get the call, Jeremy is obviously an awful sexist.

Let's also note that the MPs getting the Newman seal of approval - Yvette, Liz, Rachel, and Emma - were not passed over by Jeremy when he appointed his first shadcab. They ruled themselves out of participating. If they want to put themselves up for future consideration that's a matter for them, but let's not rewrite history and pretend they were unjustly marginalised by bolshevik brocialism.

The other thing about Cathy's list is that it's very, for want of a better word, metropolitan. It's only a matter of time before Jess Phillips is on Question Time more than Nigel Farage seeing as the media can't get enough of our blunt-talking comrade, and all of the others are very well known to the TV studios. Cathy's known to occasionally hang out with some of them too. Meanwhile, there's a pool of 99 female Labour MPs to choose from - many of whom never got a look-in under the blessed Ed, and who Cathy wouldn't know from Adam. For instance, she notes that Anna Turley has "laid low". No, since her election Anna's been neck-deep campaigning for Redcar steel works and is now dealing with the aftermath - I suppose Cathy cannot be blamed for such a non-Westminster trifle not figuring on her radar. There are plenty of other very able women currently knocking about in junior briefs and doing the business from the back benches. Perhaps now it's time they were given a chance instead of the same old same old.

Just like last time, Jeremy's appointments will reflect the political make up of the party, and given the strength of the left and the tilting of the balance against the PLP since his election, I imagine its bent will be more reflective of the new normal. I am sure any women who are brought in will, as with the men, get positions on the basis of their politics, their competence, and likelihood of their not undermining the leader. Whoever gets a job I'm sure Cathy and her ilk will find something to moan about, but tough. This is politics, not the bloody X-Factor.

Antonio Gramsci on New Year's Day

Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci casts a long shadow over leftist thought. But few are likely to have read this, a 100 year old missive about New Year's Day. Needless to say, old Antonio wasn't a fan. Many thanks to Viewpoint for digging this out last year.

Every morning, when I wake again under the pall of the sky, I feel that for me it is New Year’s day.

That’s why I hate these New Year’s that fall like fixed maturities, which turn life and human spirit into a commercial concern with its neat final balance, its outstanding amounts, its budget for the new management. They make us lose the continuity of life and spirit. You end up seriously thinking that between one year and the next there is a break, that a new history is beginning; you make resolutions, and you regret your irresolution, and so on, and so forth. This is generally what’s wrong with dates.

They say that chronology is the backbone of history. Fine. But we also need to accept that there are four or five fundamental dates that every good person keeps lodged in their brain, which have played bad tricks on history. They too are New Years’. The New Year’s of Roman history, or of the Middle Ages, or of the modern age.

And they have become so invasive and fossilising that we sometimes catch ourselves thinking that life in Italy began in 752, and that 1490 or 1492 are like mountains that humanity vaulted over, suddenly finding itself in a new world, coming into a new life. So the date becomes an obstacle, a parapet that stops us from seeing that history continues to unfold along the same fundamental unchanging line, without abrupt stops, like when at the cinema the film rips and there is an interval of dazzling light.

That’s why I hate New Year’s. I want every morning to be a new year’s for me. Every day I want to reckon with myself, and every day I want to renew myself. No day set aside for rest. I choose my pauses myself, when I feel drunk with the intensity of life and I want to plunge into animality to draw from it new vigour.

No spiritual time-serving. I would like every hour of my life to be new, though connected to the ones that have passed. No day of celebration with its mandatory collective rhythms, to share with all the strangers I don’t care about. Because our grandfathers’ grandfathers, and so on, celebrated, we too should feel the urge to celebrate. That is nauseating.

I await socialism for this reason too. Because it will hurl into the trash all of these dates which have no resonance in our spirit and, if it creates others, they will at least be our own, and not the ones we have to accept without reservations from our silly ancestors.

– Translated by Alberto Toscano

Top 100 Independent Tweeting Bloggers 2015

Here's the other list you've waited 365 days for - the top 100 independent tweeting bloggers' list of 2015. Some definition issues first - how do you define "independent"? I play with a fairly loose definition. I.e. If a blog is maintained regularly (i.e. in the last month), isn't attached to an established media outlet, and is filled with political content, it's in. Party blogs like ConHome and LabourList are out as they're professional outfits with paid staff whereas similar for the LibDems and UKIP on this list are volunteer efforts. But, I hear you cry, can't you say the same for Guido? Yes, but it is a self-funding indie affair. Moving onto MPs, while plenty maintain a blog very few of them use it politically. If they talk about politics and ideas, they're in. If they merely recycle press releases about dog shit removal, then no. Lastly, it has to be self-maintained in the sense that freelancers without a home to lay their hat are out.

I know, it's not a perfect definition by any means, but it will do. Right, on with the list!

1. (1) Alastair Campbell (331k followers)
2. (3) Guido Fawkes (174k followers)
3. (4) Louise Mensch (94.9k followers)
4. (5) Iain Dale (68.1k followers)
5. (6) Left Foot Forward (60.1k followers)
6. (9) Wings Over Scotland (45.8k followers)
7. (15) Douglas Carswell (42.6k followers)
8. (12) Bella Caledonia (42.1k followers)
9. (NE) Nick Tyrone (40.9k followers)
10. (14) Open Democracy (40.7k followers)
11. (10) Political Scrapbook (40.5k followers)
12. (11) The F-Word (38k followers)
13. (16) Richard Murphy (33.1k followers)
14. (18) Labour Left (29.1k followers)
15. (19) Mike Smithson (26.3k followers)
16. (20) Exaro News (25.7k followers)
17. (34) Coppola Comment (23.9k followers)
18. (25) Another Angry Woman (18.9k followers)
19. (32) UK Media Watch (18.7k followers)
20. (29) Pride's Purge (17.3k followers)
21. (26) Libcom (16.9k followers)
22. (22) Labour Uncut (16.9k followers)
23. (27) LibDem Voice (16.7k followers)
24. (35) Disabled People Against Cuts (16.6k followers)
25. (31) Jon Worth (15.9k followers)
26. (24) Archbishop Cranmer (15.5k followers)
27. (NE) Chi Onwurah (15k followers)
28. (38) Carl Gardner (14.1k followers)
29. (NE) Exposing UKIP (13.6k followers)
30. (NE) Steve Topple (13.4k followers)
31. (37) Lenin's Tomb (13.1k followers)
32. (45) Paul Flynn MP (13.1k followers)
33. (33) The Commentator (12.8k followers)
34. (NE) Paul Bernal (12.7k followers)
35. (NE) Neil Clark (12.5k followers)
36. (42) Angela Neptustar (12.5k followers)
37. (NE) The Optimistic Patriot (12.4k followers)
38. (60) Lallands Peat Worrier (12k followers)
39. (36) Mark Thompson (11.9k followers)
40. (47) John Redwood MP (11.7k followers)
41. (50) Hopi Sen (11.4k followers)
42. (54) The Enlightened Economist (10.9k followers)
43. (75) Mainly Macro (10.9k followers)
44. (49) Sarah Ditum (10.7k followers)
45. (57) Big Brother Watch (10.2k followers)
46. (59) Mark Pack (9,481 followers)
47. (56) Kate Belgrave (9,145 followers)
48. (NE) I'm a JSA Claimant (9,000 followers)
49. (65) The Void (8,255 followers)
50. (68) Welsh Not British (8,214 followers)
51. (62) David Hencke (8,085 followers)
52. (NE) Novara Media (7,608 followers)
53. (NE) Tim Bale (7,446 followers)
54. (71) Left Futures (7,277 followers)
55. (NE) Anthony Painter (7,022 followers)
56. (67) A Dragon's Best Friend (6,948 followers)
57. (RE) Bloggerheads (6,901 followers)
58. (73) Zelo Street (6,880 followers)
59. (NE) Dilly Hussain (6,403 followers)
60. (78) Karen Ingala Smith (6,334 followers)
61. (74) Chris Dillow (6,202 followers)
62. (77) Stephen Tall (5,935 followers)
63. (79) Flip Chart Fairy Tales (5,873 followers)
64. (NE) Social Abjection (5,411 followers)
65. (NE)  5 Pillars (5,400 followers)
66. (NE) David Skelton (5,385 followers)
67. (NE) Twll Dun (5,266 followers)
68. (NE) Bloggers 4 UKIP (5,255 followers)
69. (89) Bright Green (5,222 followers)
70. (83) All That Is Solid (5,152 followers)
71. (NE) Look Left (5,089 followers)
72. (NE) Kate Godfrey (4,933 followers)
73. (95) Vox Political (4,806 followers)
74. (88) Tim Worstall (4,722 followers)
75. (86) Liberal England (4,691 followers)
76. (NE) All That's Left (4,303 followers)
77. (NE) A Room Of Our Own (3,931 followers)
78. (96) Rob Marchant (3,860 followers)
79. (NE) Political Sift (3,815 followers)
80. (90) Anna Chen (3,770 followers)
81. (NE) Genders, Bodies, Politics (3,754 followers)
82. (NE) Chelley Ryan (3,629 followers)
83. (NE) Neil Scott (3,504 followers)
84. (NE) SCOT goes POP! (3,393 followers)
85. (93) Lisa Ansell (3,382 followers)
86. (NE) Public Policy and the Past (3,322 followers)
87. (NE) Bishop Hill (3,122 followers)
88. (NE) Think Left (3,048 followers)
89. (NE) Joel Taylor (3,002 followers)
90. (NE) Sarah Brown (2,965 followers)
91. (NE) Cllr Alice Perry (2,941 followers)
92. (NE) Tom Owolade (2,925 followers)
93. (97)  Liberal Burblings (2,882 followers)
94. (NE) Jade Azim (2,818 followers)
95. (100) Luna17 (2,736 followers)
96. (NE) Bob from Brockley (2,663 followers)
97. (NE) The Thoughtful Campaigner (2,606 followers)
98. (NE) Dick Puddlecote (2,554 followers)
99. (NE) Revolution Breeze (2,549 followers)
100. (NE) Labour Hame (2,443 followers)


This list proved more consuming this year because of the massive amount of churn that has occurred over the last 12 months. The 2014 list was starting to resemble the mainstream commentators' one what with sclerosis at the top and few new entries. In 2015 there has been a huge shift: loads of people have simply packed it in. Some, like Tom Watson and Harry Cole have gone on to do other things, and a few others are people I've missed in previous years, but mainly large numbers of bloggers have simply stopped. I make it 41 new entries, which is crazy.

That also means the list is a little rough so, by all means, treat this as a beta build. If you know of anyone who regularly blogs politically and has more than 1,611 followers on Twitter let me know and the list will be duly updated.

Update 10th January
Well, that was a bit previous of me. Folks have got in touch with me thick and fast to - gleefully, in some cases - point out where I've gone wrong and who got missed off. Still, we got there in the end. The same observations apply, of course, except the threshold is now 2,443 followers as held by Labour Hame. This is the moment when a smart arse turns up in the inbox with two dozen names that have passed me by. Anyway, this is the updated list and the same observations apply. It's amazing to think 40 people who were with us last year have stopped blogging on their own personal platforms - no one has dropped off the list because they couldn't muster enough followers. It can't be that everyone's been made deputy leader of the Labour Party, or has got a professional writing gig somewhere. There has to be something going on. Suggestions welcome.

Five Most Popular Posts in December

The five most read last month were ...

1. Top 100 Tweeting Politics Commentators 2015
2. Hilary Benn's Appalling Speech
3. Advice for "Bullied" Labour MPs
4. The Anti-Imperialism of Fools
5. Farewell to Dan Hodges

What a month and what a year. This was the best December for traffic ever, after the busiest ever year for the blog. In the end it clocked up 695,399 hits - just over 1,900 a day. Let's see if that can be smashed out the park in 2016!

Anyway, back to the matter to hand. As is traditional, the tweeting commentators list is top of the pile, followed up by the brouhaha surrounding Hilary Benn's speech and the moaning of moaning Labour MPs. My little rant about Stop the War comes next, followed by yet another resignation from serial resigner, Dan Hodges. More of the same next month?

What delights have I plucked from the blogging treasure chest for another airing? It has to be my Essay in Self-Criticism in which I make a stab at sorting out the fog a lot of Labour people have been caught up in since Jeremy's election, and some reflections on the coming shadcab reshuffle.