More than 110,000 "problem families" with disruptive youngsters will be targeted as part of a crackdown on knife crime, Gordon Brown has said. They will get parenting supervision, with the worst 20,000 families facing eviction if they do not respond.Excuse me? How can throwing tens of thousands people out on the streets solve the knife crime problem? Can no one in mainstream politics see how stupid this idea is?
Monday, 14 July 2008
Excuse Me?
No time for a big blog today. But this caught my eye from the BBC:
Friday, 11 July 2008
Lest We Forget
That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through.– Nye Bevan, 1948
Hat tip to Jozer by way of Ian Bone.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
The End of Green Politics?
If yesterday's lecture was about the possibility of green politics, then today's session was about its possible end. Ingolfur Bluhdorn's paper, 'The Politics of Unsustainability' was a pretty gloomy (Luhmann-inspired) account of socio-cultural barriers to progressive, environmentally sustainable social change. Therefore he argued that one cannot understand environmental politics without explaining the structures, cultures, patterns of identity construction etc. of advanced industrial societies. Environmental problems are simultaneously 'objective' facts and the outcome of the system's dialectical relationship with the natural world. You cannot get to grips with this without recourse to social theory.
Ingolfur returned to the previous day's discussion of the gap between green attitudes and green actions, but instead of putting forward a bridging strategy he was interested in questioning the notion of a gap. He asks if we are at an eco-political turning point, a point where green politics is not about to take off but where it could give way to a politics of unsustainability.
At first this seems like a bizarre claim. Environmental politics have never been more prominent. Climate change has become a free-floating symbol institutions, agencies, parties and corporations all evoke and address. It is at the centre of political debate and there is pretty much an attitudinal consensus around the need for sustainable policies for sustainable societies. And yet our collective ecological footprint continues to grow. Greater quantities of carbon are pumped into the atmosphere and so-called ecological modernisation is small scale and only has marginal positive impacts. Contributing to this state of affairs is the poverty of the politics of sustainability - it is completely inadequate as a vehicle for the thoroughgoing social change the scale of the crisis demands. It falls short because it is defined in terms of the imperatives of contemporary social systems. For the ruling class and capital, sustainability means continued economic growth, not measured regulation of the social-nature metabolism. It is a means of class pacification and a bulwark against the kinds of change that calls into question the limits of the system.
Ingolfur drew attention to how establishment sustainability politics have been playing out in the media recently. True to the definition above, environmental/ecological sustainability has fallen off the front pages and replaced by food and energy price hikes, the energy crisis and the credit crunch. Sustainability is firmly embedded in finding solutions to these problems, of sustaining the unsustainable social relations that are responsible for them in the first place. This in turn produces a bit of political climate change of its own, where political solutions to Earth system climate change are increasingly out of step with the concern for social imperatives.
This is obviously devastating from the point of view of green politics. The vision offered by sustainable development and political ecology talk about different lifestyles, re-engineered social-natural relations, new (post-capitalist) forms of economic life and a society animated by existential need, not the impoverished vision of acquisitive materialism. When this is pitted against the non-negotiable needs of capitalism - labour flexibility and capital mobility, information, improved transport, nuclear energy and bio-technology, the system wins out every time.
Therefore we are beginning to see the emergence of a post-ecological zeitgeist. But this is not a simple co-option and gutting of formerly radical ideas. As the market has extended its scope over social life with it it has brought more differentiation, complexity and specialisation. But it has also brought about a situation where society's (objective) problem-solving capacities have grown, as has the possibility of fulfilling more social needs. As this contradiction has matured the distinct lack of an equivalent growth in popular values and norms to harness this potential has meant it is constantly resolved in ways not consistent with environmental justice. These "resolutions" can be summed up in one word: uncertainties. Marketisation and complexification, in lieu of anything else, produces its opposing echo: complication reduction. Thus in the face of a bewildering social world individuals retreat into the pursuit of their immediate desires, with the further consequence of fuelling widespread depoliticisation. Our rulers are not immune to the process either. Complexity reduction encourages a managerialist culture where deliberative mechanisms built up in political life and through struggle in the workplace are increasingly bypassed in favour of more autocratic styles of decision making. As far as Ingolfur was concerned, because political ecology cannot deliver rapid innovation, job growth, etc. It is not a simple quick-fix solution but a long-term project with priorities running counter to the system's structural imperatives. In short political ecology is exhausted as a project. It is only listened to if it makes suggestions amenable to sustaining the unsustainable structures of global capital. Such as it exists as a going concern, political ecology is defined by this post-ecological problematic.
Where sociology is concerned this problem has barely made it onto the agenda. The social scientific efforts of environmental research inadvertently contribute toward strengthening post-ecology within the academy. Their work is interested in defining ecological concepts and quantifiable sustainability criteria at the expense of value judgements. There is a pretence of offering scientific certainties and solid accounts of climate change and believe the inarguable merits of their case will be enough to trigger a change in direction. Instead research should swim against the post-ecological current and show the social roots of the environmental crisis and how they are reconstituted through pseudo-scientific discourse into measures that apologise and obscure the social interests who'd prefer to see the world burn than give up their privileges.
Unfortunately I was unable to make the question and answer session afterwards, but there are a few things that can be said about this presentation. First is the level of abstraction. As is the case with systems theory generally theorisation takes place on such a level that political agency is put into question. It is no accident that Ingolfur decides to question the notion of a gap rather than the possibilities of propagating a radical green agenda. It is also telling the only place in this schema where agency is possible is through sociology. Yes, it is important to repeatedly expose how the system is responsible for the environmental crisis but at no point does he link it up to other political agents. The implication is he falls into the trap of post-ecological environmental sociologists, who just put the information out there in the hope someone will listen and act. Another difficulty - again shared with the rest of systems theory - is the lack of empirical evidence to back this account up, or rather his failure to deploy such evidence. From following how mainstream politics, institutions and businesses have adapted to and changed commonplace understandings of green politics and values, I believe his argument about a politics of unsustainability, of sustaining the unsustainable is correct. But that isn't enough to convince others who aren't committed to some form of radical politics.
These issues aside I think Ingolfur has identified a number of social processes that deserve more investigation, which can only serve to help the repoliticisation of sociology and produce work that can add even more indictments to the case against global capitalism.
Ingolfur returned to the previous day's discussion of the gap between green attitudes and green actions, but instead of putting forward a bridging strategy he was interested in questioning the notion of a gap. He asks if we are at an eco-political turning point, a point where green politics is not about to take off but where it could give way to a politics of unsustainability.
At first this seems like a bizarre claim. Environmental politics have never been more prominent. Climate change has become a free-floating symbol institutions, agencies, parties and corporations all evoke and address. It is at the centre of political debate and there is pretty much an attitudinal consensus around the need for sustainable policies for sustainable societies. And yet our collective ecological footprint continues to grow. Greater quantities of carbon are pumped into the atmosphere and so-called ecological modernisation is small scale and only has marginal positive impacts. Contributing to this state of affairs is the poverty of the politics of sustainability - it is completely inadequate as a vehicle for the thoroughgoing social change the scale of the crisis demands. It falls short because it is defined in terms of the imperatives of contemporary social systems. For the ruling class and capital, sustainability means continued economic growth, not measured regulation of the social-nature metabolism. It is a means of class pacification and a bulwark against the kinds of change that calls into question the limits of the system.
Ingolfur drew attention to how establishment sustainability politics have been playing out in the media recently. True to the definition above, environmental/ecological sustainability has fallen off the front pages and replaced by food and energy price hikes, the energy crisis and the credit crunch. Sustainability is firmly embedded in finding solutions to these problems, of sustaining the unsustainable social relations that are responsible for them in the first place. This in turn produces a bit of political climate change of its own, where political solutions to Earth system climate change are increasingly out of step with the concern for social imperatives.
This is obviously devastating from the point of view of green politics. The vision offered by sustainable development and political ecology talk about different lifestyles, re-engineered social-natural relations, new (post-capitalist) forms of economic life and a society animated by existential need, not the impoverished vision of acquisitive materialism. When this is pitted against the non-negotiable needs of capitalism - labour flexibility and capital mobility, information, improved transport, nuclear energy and bio-technology, the system wins out every time.
Therefore we are beginning to see the emergence of a post-ecological zeitgeist. But this is not a simple co-option and gutting of formerly radical ideas. As the market has extended its scope over social life with it it has brought more differentiation, complexity and specialisation. But it has also brought about a situation where society's (objective) problem-solving capacities have grown, as has the possibility of fulfilling more social needs. As this contradiction has matured the distinct lack of an equivalent growth in popular values and norms to harness this potential has meant it is constantly resolved in ways not consistent with environmental justice. These "resolutions" can be summed up in one word: uncertainties. Marketisation and complexification, in lieu of anything else, produces its opposing echo: complication reduction. Thus in the face of a bewildering social world individuals retreat into the pursuit of their immediate desires, with the further consequence of fuelling widespread depoliticisation. Our rulers are not immune to the process either. Complexity reduction encourages a managerialist culture where deliberative mechanisms built up in political life and through struggle in the workplace are increasingly bypassed in favour of more autocratic styles of decision making. As far as Ingolfur was concerned, because political ecology cannot deliver rapid innovation, job growth, etc. It is not a simple quick-fix solution but a long-term project with priorities running counter to the system's structural imperatives. In short political ecology is exhausted as a project. It is only listened to if it makes suggestions amenable to sustaining the unsustainable structures of global capital. Such as it exists as a going concern, political ecology is defined by this post-ecological problematic.
Where sociology is concerned this problem has barely made it onto the agenda. The social scientific efforts of environmental research inadvertently contribute toward strengthening post-ecology within the academy. Their work is interested in defining ecological concepts and quantifiable sustainability criteria at the expense of value judgements. There is a pretence of offering scientific certainties and solid accounts of climate change and believe the inarguable merits of their case will be enough to trigger a change in direction. Instead research should swim against the post-ecological current and show the social roots of the environmental crisis and how they are reconstituted through pseudo-scientific discourse into measures that apologise and obscure the social interests who'd prefer to see the world burn than give up their privileges.
Unfortunately I was unable to make the question and answer session afterwards, but there are a few things that can be said about this presentation. First is the level of abstraction. As is the case with systems theory generally theorisation takes place on such a level that political agency is put into question. It is no accident that Ingolfur decides to question the notion of a gap rather than the possibilities of propagating a radical green agenda. It is also telling the only place in this schema where agency is possible is through sociology. Yes, it is important to repeatedly expose how the system is responsible for the environmental crisis but at no point does he link it up to other political agents. The implication is he falls into the trap of post-ecological environmental sociologists, who just put the information out there in the hope someone will listen and act. Another difficulty - again shared with the rest of systems theory - is the lack of empirical evidence to back this account up, or rather his failure to deploy such evidence. From following how mainstream politics, institutions and businesses have adapted to and changed commonplace understandings of green politics and values, I believe his argument about a politics of unsustainability, of sustaining the unsustainable is correct. But that isn't enough to convince others who aren't committed to some form of radical politics.
These issues aside I think Ingolfur has identified a number of social processes that deserve more investigation, which can only serve to help the repoliticisation of sociology and produce work that can add even more indictments to the case against global capitalism.
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Theorising Green Political Action
This week Keele is playing host to the annual ECPR summer school on environmental politics and policy, which means I'll be taking some time off to sit in on papers covering green political theory, ecological modernisation, green parties and movements and much else besides.
Today's keynote speaker was the well-known green political theorist, Andy Dobson. Among other things, Andy is famous for pretty much writing the book on ecological citizenship, which is a major contribution to political theory and the debates around what constitutes the 'good citizen'. It is also a concept that has come of age. He argues there is an impasse in environmental politics today - practically everyone accepts climate change poses a very serious problem, but while people are rightly concerned there is a collective and individual unwillingness to act upon it. In other words, there is a disjunction between widely-held green attitudes and the take up of green behaviours. How then might this gap be bridged?
The policy front runner in the UK and Ireland at present are systems of fiscal incentives/disincentives. The two highest profile examples are the London congestion charge and the Irish plastic bag environmental levy, and there is some evidence they can work. Depending on who you believe, the implementation of congestion charging on week days has reduced traffic between one fifth to one quarter. Since the PBEL was introduced six years ago, one billion plastic bags have been removed from circulation. So they do work, but are there problems? Yes. First because they are political measures they can be rescinded by subsequent political decisions - see for example Boris Johnson's decision to scrap his predecessor's plan to institute a carbon charge on London's Chelsea tractors and high performance sports cars. So has the fiscal disincentive been in place long enough to affect habitual behavioural change? Second, and not unrelated to Andy's first point, are people responding to the fiscal prompt as opposed to the green values that underlie it? Is too much political attention being spent on managing these schemes instead of emphasising the message that needs sending out? Third, how big does a tax/break have to be to affect behavioural change? For example, Andy cited research suggesting since hitting $2/gallon in the USA, there have been an estimated 20 billion fewer car journeys. Finally, fiscal prompts have a very one-dimensional view of human behaviour - where is the room for virtue and the common good? Can other motivations produce results?
Andy believes there is an alternative and this is where ecological citizenship comes in. But before offering some practical suggestions he took us on a genealogical tour of his concept. When he first began theorising what he then call *environmental* citizenship (there is a difference, which will become apparent) the obvious place to start were the existing citizenship traditions to see if they offered anything useful. First he looked at what liberalism had to say and extended its notions of individual rights. Put simply, he suggested citizens have the right to a liveable environment. Indeed, because without it life would be impossible it is the precondition for the enjoyment of all other rights. Then looking at the civic republican tradition he was able to green its concerns. For example, the common good is served by living in a sustainable society. Therefore citizens are obligated to behave in an environmentally responsible manner, and encourage others to do so because it is a virtue in its own right.
This is all well and good as far as it goes, but these two primary traditions have a number of blind spots. The first is the relationship between the public and private spheres and the assumption that politics belongs to the former and not the latter. However, green politics calls for sustainable living, and this necessarily includes the "private" behaviours of consumption and waste disposal. Secondly liberalism and civic republicanism are state-centric and primarily address problems in that framework. The problem is environmental issues transcend borders. Therefore something stronger than environmental citizenship, which is merely a greening of the existing traditions is demanded. Hence ecological citizenship.
So what are the basics of ecological citizenship? Above all it is not a status, it is something only attained by the active pursuit of a set of values. Justice is the primary virtue and working towards it always serves the common good. The political space of action is not the nation state but the ecological footprint. This is his metaphor for the global impacts of global capitalism, of the interconnectedness between the worldwide division of labour, of grasping how some footprints are smaller than others and how it collapses any dichotomy between the public and the private. The citizen has a duty to reduce their footprint and act to influence politics and institutions. Nor do they expect anything back in return - it is the highest expression of 'post-materialist' politics. The ecological citizen is not a lifestylist - they are engaged in the struggle for environmental and social justice.
In Andy's opinion if we are to overcome the attitudes/behaviours gap we need to create more ecological citizens. But is there proof it is an effective strategy for confronting climate change? There's evidence aplenty for fiscal measures but any on values-based behavioural change? Andy believes so. Writing in Environmental Politics 15 (2), Neil Carter and Meg Huby argued behaviours among some 'ethical investors' were indicative of ecological citizenship. Surveying a 1,000-strong sample, what distinguished them from mainstream investors were (as to be expected) values and lifestyle (i.e. recognised that private decisions have public consequences). But also 80% said they were prepared to lose money for ethical reasons, which dovetails nicely with the non-reciprocal basis of ecological citizenship. Further evidence comes from Johanna Wolf's study on coastal communities in British Columbia, which found a high incidence of behaviours framed in terms of non-reciprocal (green) civic duty and obligations to generations not yet born. Finally, Christer Berglund and Simon Matti wrote a piece in EP (Vol 15, no. 4) that found fiscal prompts were effective, but the (Swedish) respondents ascribed more importance to the altruistic values undergirding them.
So what conclusions if any can be made? For Andy on first impression the way to bridging the gap is by employing both kinds of measures, the money and the virtues. But unfortunately the two don't necessarily rub along well together. Can the introduction of material incentives erode the non-marketised relations virtue depends on? As an anecdote he cited a study about a retirement home. Its management came up with the idea of offering the residents vouchers in return for making their beds in the morning. It worked a treat, but eventually the residents were demanding vouchers for everything. Therefore incentive schemes can lead to perverse behaviours. But this aside Andy felt there was enough evidence to suggest an ecological citizen sensibility was beginning to emerge - it's a value set people are responding to and therefore it is something policy makers are going to have to take account of.
A couple of pertinent questions were raised in the discussion afterwards. Clearly his discussion of the public and the private was influenced by feminist thinking, but one questioner felt this still avoided confronting the gendered (i.e. feminine) character of the private. It's almost as if ecological citizenship is asking women to save the world *on top* of looking after the home. Andy conceded he'd overlooked its structural inequalities and oppression and argued this should be the last thing ecological citizenship does. As the neoliberal state continues to peel away its social responsibilities more and more devolves on to individuals, and women in particular. He admitted he had no short answer to this issue. But if my understanding of ecological citizenship is correct, if social justice is at its heart then it should be plastic enough to accommodate feminist concerns. Rather than dumping green responsibilities on women the argument should be that the state takes its social obligations seriously and use this as a means of socialising the private sphere and liberating women from it.
The second interesting question asked where ecological citizenship as a phenomena is coming from, and how would we go about inculcating it outside the seminar room. For Andy the answer is fairly simple - it is experience that leads to environmental and social justice conclusions. Whereas ecological citizenship was theorised from 'above', it is instantiated from below by those who struggle against injustice. However if you try and educate people with ecological citizenship classes at school, one problem I can foresee is that a frame imposed from above by well-meaning educators may not chime with the experience of those below. At best it can encourage a superficial environmental sensibility but at worse it can breed hostility and resentment. If experience is the best way to become an ecological citizen, then citizenship classes should train pupils how to go about tackling injustice - an argument he has made elsewhere.
There was plenty of food for thought in this contribution. If we are going to escape a climate change catastrophe behaviours are going to have to change. Ecological citizenship as a concept is able to grasp the many fronts the struggle for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society must proceed on, but as a category too nebulous to make sense of the social structures driving us toward environmental catastrophe. It seems environmental sociology is beginning to identify groups of people who approach the ideal type of the ecological citizen, but the social distance between the groups so far identified is vast. A common politics that unites them is a utopian idea. Can working class community campaigners against dumping and David Cameron go together? This for me suggests ecological citizenship needs to be even more political and nail its colours firmly to the mast of a project dedicated to systemic and permanent socialist change.
Today's keynote speaker was the well-known green political theorist, Andy Dobson. Among other things, Andy is famous for pretty much writing the book on ecological citizenship, which is a major contribution to political theory and the debates around what constitutes the 'good citizen'. It is also a concept that has come of age. He argues there is an impasse in environmental politics today - practically everyone accepts climate change poses a very serious problem, but while people are rightly concerned there is a collective and individual unwillingness to act upon it. In other words, there is a disjunction between widely-held green attitudes and the take up of green behaviours. How then might this gap be bridged?
The policy front runner in the UK and Ireland at present are systems of fiscal incentives/disincentives. The two highest profile examples are the London congestion charge and the Irish plastic bag environmental levy, and there is some evidence they can work. Depending on who you believe, the implementation of congestion charging on week days has reduced traffic between one fifth to one quarter. Since the PBEL was introduced six years ago, one billion plastic bags have been removed from circulation. So they do work, but are there problems? Yes. First because they are political measures they can be rescinded by subsequent political decisions - see for example Boris Johnson's decision to scrap his predecessor's plan to institute a carbon charge on London's Chelsea tractors and high performance sports cars. So has the fiscal disincentive been in place long enough to affect habitual behavioural change? Second, and not unrelated to Andy's first point, are people responding to the fiscal prompt as opposed to the green values that underlie it? Is too much political attention being spent on managing these schemes instead of emphasising the message that needs sending out? Third, how big does a tax/break have to be to affect behavioural change? For example, Andy cited research suggesting since hitting $2/gallon in the USA, there have been an estimated 20 billion fewer car journeys. Finally, fiscal prompts have a very one-dimensional view of human behaviour - where is the room for virtue and the common good? Can other motivations produce results?
Andy believes there is an alternative and this is where ecological citizenship comes in. But before offering some practical suggestions he took us on a genealogical tour of his concept. When he first began theorising what he then call *environmental* citizenship (there is a difference, which will become apparent) the obvious place to start were the existing citizenship traditions to see if they offered anything useful. First he looked at what liberalism had to say and extended its notions of individual rights. Put simply, he suggested citizens have the right to a liveable environment. Indeed, because without it life would be impossible it is the precondition for the enjoyment of all other rights. Then looking at the civic republican tradition he was able to green its concerns. For example, the common good is served by living in a sustainable society. Therefore citizens are obligated to behave in an environmentally responsible manner, and encourage others to do so because it is a virtue in its own right.
This is all well and good as far as it goes, but these two primary traditions have a number of blind spots. The first is the relationship between the public and private spheres and the assumption that politics belongs to the former and not the latter. However, green politics calls for sustainable living, and this necessarily includes the "private" behaviours of consumption and waste disposal. Secondly liberalism and civic republicanism are state-centric and primarily address problems in that framework. The problem is environmental issues transcend borders. Therefore something stronger than environmental citizenship, which is merely a greening of the existing traditions is demanded. Hence ecological citizenship.
So what are the basics of ecological citizenship? Above all it is not a status, it is something only attained by the active pursuit of a set of values. Justice is the primary virtue and working towards it always serves the common good. The political space of action is not the nation state but the ecological footprint. This is his metaphor for the global impacts of global capitalism, of the interconnectedness between the worldwide division of labour, of grasping how some footprints are smaller than others and how it collapses any dichotomy between the public and the private. The citizen has a duty to reduce their footprint and act to influence politics and institutions. Nor do they expect anything back in return - it is the highest expression of 'post-materialist' politics. The ecological citizen is not a lifestylist - they are engaged in the struggle for environmental and social justice.
In Andy's opinion if we are to overcome the attitudes/behaviours gap we need to create more ecological citizens. But is there proof it is an effective strategy for confronting climate change? There's evidence aplenty for fiscal measures but any on values-based behavioural change? Andy believes so. Writing in Environmental Politics 15 (2), Neil Carter and Meg Huby argued behaviours among some 'ethical investors' were indicative of ecological citizenship. Surveying a 1,000-strong sample, what distinguished them from mainstream investors were (as to be expected) values and lifestyle (i.e. recognised that private decisions have public consequences). But also 80% said they were prepared to lose money for ethical reasons, which dovetails nicely with the non-reciprocal basis of ecological citizenship. Further evidence comes from Johanna Wolf's study on coastal communities in British Columbia, which found a high incidence of behaviours framed in terms of non-reciprocal (green) civic duty and obligations to generations not yet born. Finally, Christer Berglund and Simon Matti wrote a piece in EP (Vol 15, no. 4) that found fiscal prompts were effective, but the (Swedish) respondents ascribed more importance to the altruistic values undergirding them.
So what conclusions if any can be made? For Andy on first impression the way to bridging the gap is by employing both kinds of measures, the money and the virtues. But unfortunately the two don't necessarily rub along well together. Can the introduction of material incentives erode the non-marketised relations virtue depends on? As an anecdote he cited a study about a retirement home. Its management came up with the idea of offering the residents vouchers in return for making their beds in the morning. It worked a treat, but eventually the residents were demanding vouchers for everything. Therefore incentive schemes can lead to perverse behaviours. But this aside Andy felt there was enough evidence to suggest an ecological citizen sensibility was beginning to emerge - it's a value set people are responding to and therefore it is something policy makers are going to have to take account of.
A couple of pertinent questions were raised in the discussion afterwards. Clearly his discussion of the public and the private was influenced by feminist thinking, but one questioner felt this still avoided confronting the gendered (i.e. feminine) character of the private. It's almost as if ecological citizenship is asking women to save the world *on top* of looking after the home. Andy conceded he'd overlooked its structural inequalities and oppression and argued this should be the last thing ecological citizenship does. As the neoliberal state continues to peel away its social responsibilities more and more devolves on to individuals, and women in particular. He admitted he had no short answer to this issue. But if my understanding of ecological citizenship is correct, if social justice is at its heart then it should be plastic enough to accommodate feminist concerns. Rather than dumping green responsibilities on women the argument should be that the state takes its social obligations seriously and use this as a means of socialising the private sphere and liberating women from it.
The second interesting question asked where ecological citizenship as a phenomena is coming from, and how would we go about inculcating it outside the seminar room. For Andy the answer is fairly simple - it is experience that leads to environmental and social justice conclusions. Whereas ecological citizenship was theorised from 'above', it is instantiated from below by those who struggle against injustice. However if you try and educate people with ecological citizenship classes at school, one problem I can foresee is that a frame imposed from above by well-meaning educators may not chime with the experience of those below. At best it can encourage a superficial environmental sensibility but at worse it can breed hostility and resentment. If experience is the best way to become an ecological citizen, then citizenship classes should train pupils how to go about tackling injustice - an argument he has made elsewhere.
There was plenty of food for thought in this contribution. If we are going to escape a climate change catastrophe behaviours are going to have to change. Ecological citizenship as a concept is able to grasp the many fronts the struggle for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society must proceed on, but as a category too nebulous to make sense of the social structures driving us toward environmental catastrophe. It seems environmental sociology is beginning to identify groups of people who approach the ideal type of the ecological citizen, but the social distance between the groups so far identified is vast. A common politics that unites them is a utopian idea. Can working class community campaigners against dumping and David Cameron go together? This for me suggests ecological citizenship needs to be even more political and nail its colours firmly to the mast of a project dedicated to systemic and permanent socialist change.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Journal Watch: Sociology
Forgive the relatively glamourous title for what is likely to be a decidedly un-hip post (edit: this post was initially published as 'Tales from the Cutting Edge'). All will become clear in due course. Since last week's exchange with Matt Wardman I've been thinking about what other niches AVPS could occupy among the great blogging ecology, and then it came to me. A little bit inspired by Liam Murray's regular Think Tank round up at Liberal Conspiracy, I thought it might be a useful idea if I occasionally dipped into the interesting but seldom-read area of sociology journals. After all, this is still a blog ostensibly about sociological things and there is good cutting edge research that deserves a wider, non-sociological audience. However, someone has beaten me to it. Journal Flood does pretty much what I wanted to do, and has been at it for a few weeks. But anyway, I'm still going to give it a go. I just hope I don't tread on JF's toes too much.
So my first journal preview in this semi-regular round up is the June edition of Sociology, one of three peer-reviewed journals run by the British Sociological Association. Here are a few pieces from Vol 42, No. 3 that caught my eye.
First is Teela Sanders' article, 'Male Sexual Scripts: Intimacy, Sexuality and Pleasure in the Purchase of Commercial Sex'. This is an interesting piece that compares the 'scripts' (i.e. styles of interaction, in this case around sexual relations) of men who regularly pay for sex or some kind of sexual "service" with those of heterosexual men who do not. Sanders' argument is that where clients' behaviours are concerned, one cannot infer much beyond the commercial/non-commercial division. The patterns found in straight men's sexual relationships - romance, courtship, mutual satisfaction, etc. are mirrored in client/sex worker relations too, at least on the buyer's side. Controversially, she concludes "the relationships between sex workers and clients can be nurturing, respectful and meaningful" and suggests that a strategy can be developed that make men more aware of their responsibilities to sex workers. I'm not completely convinced, but at least Sanders has helped bring out the complexity of why some men pay for sex.
My second selection is 'Performing the Hidden Injuries of Class in Coal-Mining Heritage' by Bella Dicks. This article looks at the experiences of former miners re-employed as heritage guides and teases out the central contradiction of this experience; "a continual equivocation between foregrounding dignity and autonomy on the one hand, and acknowledging subjugation and defeat on the other". What heritage demands is an evocation of a collective class identity simply as spectacle, it is an evocation that disappears almost immediately after it has manifested. Except this is part of the life experience of the miners themselves - its original meanings and functions remain alive 'backstage'. Their post-industrial work in a colliery turned tourist attraction is the embodiment of class subjugation and the environment demands this subjugation takes place on a day to day basis.
The final piece, 'Does Class Matter Equally for Men and Women? A Study of the Impact of Class on Wage Growth in Sweden 1999-2003' comes from Erik Bihagen. His argument is fairly simple. He suggests the received sociological wisdom holds that class analysis is better suited to investigating men than women because of discrimination and the heavy gendering of women's roles in the division of labour. Despite this Bihagen's data set demonstrates (uncontroversially, for Marxists) that not only is there a clear class dimension where wage growth is concerned, but these patterns operate fairly equally across the genders. Against post-industrial theorists who suggest class is a property of the bygone age of manufacturing, Bihagen argues it is just as relevant for understanding the contemporary world of work.
The full contents of this edition of Sociology can be found here.
So my first journal preview in this semi-regular round up is the June edition of Sociology, one of three peer-reviewed journals run by the British Sociological Association. Here are a few pieces from Vol 42, No. 3 that caught my eye.
First is Teela Sanders' article, 'Male Sexual Scripts: Intimacy, Sexuality and Pleasure in the Purchase of Commercial Sex'. This is an interesting piece that compares the 'scripts' (i.e. styles of interaction, in this case around sexual relations) of men who regularly pay for sex or some kind of sexual "service" with those of heterosexual men who do not. Sanders' argument is that where clients' behaviours are concerned, one cannot infer much beyond the commercial/non-commercial division. The patterns found in straight men's sexual relationships - romance, courtship, mutual satisfaction, etc. are mirrored in client/sex worker relations too, at least on the buyer's side. Controversially, she concludes "the relationships between sex workers and clients can be nurturing, respectful and meaningful" and suggests that a strategy can be developed that make men more aware of their responsibilities to sex workers. I'm not completely convinced, but at least Sanders has helped bring out the complexity of why some men pay for sex.
My second selection is 'Performing the Hidden Injuries of Class in Coal-Mining Heritage' by Bella Dicks. This article looks at the experiences of former miners re-employed as heritage guides and teases out the central contradiction of this experience; "a continual equivocation between foregrounding dignity and autonomy on the one hand, and acknowledging subjugation and defeat on the other". What heritage demands is an evocation of a collective class identity simply as spectacle, it is an evocation that disappears almost immediately after it has manifested. Except this is part of the life experience of the miners themselves - its original meanings and functions remain alive 'backstage'. Their post-industrial work in a colliery turned tourist attraction is the embodiment of class subjugation and the environment demands this subjugation takes place on a day to day basis.
The final piece, 'Does Class Matter Equally for Men and Women? A Study of the Impact of Class on Wage Growth in Sweden 1999-2003' comes from Erik Bihagen. His argument is fairly simple. He suggests the received sociological wisdom holds that class analysis is better suited to investigating men than women because of discrimination and the heavy gendering of women's roles in the division of labour. Despite this Bihagen's data set demonstrates (uncontroversially, for Marxists) that not only is there a clear class dimension where wage growth is concerned, but these patterns operate fairly equally across the genders. Against post-industrial theorists who suggest class is a property of the bygone age of manufacturing, Bihagen argues it is just as relevant for understanding the contemporary world of work.
The full contents of this edition of Sociology can be found here.
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Spinning Survey Data
As a short follow up to my recent review of the TUC's interesting pamphlet on democratising public services, I took a look at the CBI's press release demanding the pace of public service reform (i.e. the transformation of more services into money-making opportunities) be sped up. Usually they prefer fiscal arguments peppered with warnings about the credit crunch, economic slow down and the need to rein in public spending to try accelerate reform. But now the public are demanding it too, or so the CBI claims.
Richard Lambert, the CBI's director-general (pictured) claims a recent YouGov survey commissioned for the bosses' organisation makes uncomfortable reading for the government and anyone opposed to the great public services sell off. In fact, the CBI boasts "both the unions and the ministers they are targeting need to recognise how out of kilter with public mood any anti-reform stance is.” And there's more. Only a minority of the public think the government's reform programme has improved public services over these last 11 years, and around 59% have no objection to the private sector delivering services. Attached to their release is an Excel spreadsheet with the results.
To be honest, if a student handed in these bold conclusions on the basis of the CBI's data, any self-respecting sociologist would hand them a big fat fail. Let's take a look at these claims more closely. Take the claim about private sector delivery. The question YouGov asked its sample of telephone respondents was "Currently public service providers include organisations from the public (i.e. state), private and voluntary (i.e. charitable). Assuming they are of equal quality does it matter to you who provide your public services?" Talk about a leading question! Of course, the truth is that on the whole, the intrusion of the private sector into public service provision costs more, produces more bureaucracy and offers no appreciable improvement in the service in question. The waste of PFI schemes, the internal market in the NHS; the targets cultures in schools, colleges and universities; the drip-drip privatisation of Royal Mail; the sell off of local council services - the evidence just keeps piling up. Small wonder the CBI neglected to include this in the question!
Then there is the pace of public services reform. YouGov invited respondents to give their opinions on the pace of reform, ranging from 'should be much faster' to 'shouldn't be any reform'. Why should we be surprised that 66% that the pace needed speeding up in the context of a question that says nothing about the content of the reforms taking place? It is a meaningless question that elicits an equally meaningless response. To add to the illiteracy YouGov reports only 32% think public services have gotten better since Labour have been in power (45% said worse). Hold on a moment, didn't John Cridland, deputy director of the CBI note in their January report, The Market for Public Services in the UK that "over the last twenty years, private sector involvement in providing public services has been growing." Has it not occurred to our captains of industry that there maybe be a link between this deepening involvement of capital and dissatisfaction with the outcomes of their increasing interference?
What the CBI has done is not commission a serious piece of research. This is ideological foil for their warmed over neoliberalism, nothing more. But allow me to put a more credible and positive spin on one piece of data the survey helpfully provided. YouGov asked "which if any of the following ways would you like to be involved in deciding how your local services ... are delivered?" Only 15% said they wouldn't be interested in the decision-making process, while (60%) indicated a preference for customer satisfaction surveys. However, the preferences were not mutually exclusive. 62% of respondents indicated a willingness to participate in some way - 32% favoured panels, 22% public meetings and 8% some kind of councillor/volunteer role, all of which is the lifeblood for the Public Value approach and poison to markets. It's not surprising the CBI ignores this data, but despite themselves they have gifted us an argument that strengthens the socialist case for democratically accountable public services.
This is crossposted at Socialist Unity and Union Futures.
Richard Lambert, the CBI's director-general (pictured) claims a recent YouGov survey commissioned for the bosses' organisation makes uncomfortable reading for the government and anyone opposed to the great public services sell off. In fact, the CBI boasts "both the unions and the ministers they are targeting need to recognise how out of kilter with public mood any anti-reform stance is.” And there's more. Only a minority of the public think the government's reform programme has improved public services over these last 11 years, and around 59% have no objection to the private sector delivering services. Attached to their release is an Excel spreadsheet with the results.
To be honest, if a student handed in these bold conclusions on the basis of the CBI's data, any self-respecting sociologist would hand them a big fat fail. Let's take a look at these claims more closely. Take the claim about private sector delivery. The question YouGov asked its sample of telephone respondents was "Currently public service providers include organisations from the public (i.e. state), private and voluntary (i.e. charitable). Assuming they are of equal quality does it matter to you who provide your public services?" Talk about a leading question! Of course, the truth is that on the whole, the intrusion of the private sector into public service provision costs more, produces more bureaucracy and offers no appreciable improvement in the service in question. The waste of PFI schemes, the internal market in the NHS; the targets cultures in schools, colleges and universities; the drip-drip privatisation of Royal Mail; the sell off of local council services - the evidence just keeps piling up. Small wonder the CBI neglected to include this in the question!
Then there is the pace of public services reform. YouGov invited respondents to give their opinions on the pace of reform, ranging from 'should be much faster' to 'shouldn't be any reform'. Why should we be surprised that 66% that the pace needed speeding up in the context of a question that says nothing about the content of the reforms taking place? It is a meaningless question that elicits an equally meaningless response. To add to the illiteracy YouGov reports only 32% think public services have gotten better since Labour have been in power (45% said worse). Hold on a moment, didn't John Cridland, deputy director of the CBI note in their January report, The Market for Public Services in the UK that "over the last twenty years, private sector involvement in providing public services has been growing." Has it not occurred to our captains of industry that there maybe be a link between this deepening involvement of capital and dissatisfaction with the outcomes of their increasing interference?
What the CBI has done is not commission a serious piece of research. This is ideological foil for their warmed over neoliberalism, nothing more. But allow me to put a more credible and positive spin on one piece of data the survey helpfully provided. YouGov asked "which if any of the following ways would you like to be involved in deciding how your local services ... are delivered?" Only 15% said they wouldn't be interested in the decision-making process, while (60%) indicated a preference for customer satisfaction surveys. However, the preferences were not mutually exclusive. 62% of respondents indicated a willingness to participate in some way - 32% favoured panels, 22% public meetings and 8% some kind of councillor/volunteer role, all of which is the lifeblood for the Public Value approach and poison to markets. It's not surprising the CBI ignores this data, but despite themselves they have gifted us an argument that strengthens the socialist case for democratically accountable public services.
This is crossposted at Socialist Unity and Union Futures.
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Anti-BNP Leaflet
As the world and its uncle know we have a big problem with the BNP in Stoke. They have nine council seats and are the second largest party on the council after the increasingly hapless Labour Party. Next year they're convinced they can make the sort of breakthrough that puts Richard Barnbrook's London Assembly seat firmly in the shade. In 2009 Stoke's elected mayor will be up for re-election, and Mark Meredith, the incumbent, is every inch the model New Labour mayor. It will take nothing short of a miracle to get the local party to go out and campaign for him, let alone win Meredith a second term. The BNP are very well placed to snatch the mayoralty, which will give them a solid platform for the European elections the month after should they win. Needless to say a BNP mayor for Stoke would be a disaster on a scale greater than anything Labour or the Tories could come up with. It is in no ones interests except those who want to divide our class and keep us down for the BNP to succeed. It would be a tragedy if they become a permanent if minor fixture of the British political system, especially at a time when their opportunities could start drying up under an incoming Conservative government.
This Sunday marks a year since the death of Keith Brown. Brown was a BNP activist involved in a long-running dispute with his neighbour, Habib Khan, ostensibly about the latter's building plans. On July 6th last year the tensions boiled over and Khan stabbed Brown to death as Brown was in the process of attacking his son. Khan was charged with murder but was cleared by a jury at Stafford Crown Court at the end of May. Instead they found Khan guilty of Brown's manslaughter and of wounding Brown's son. Khan is now waiting to be sentenced.
In an attempt to capitalise on this affair the BNP have been trying to portray the killing as a racist murder, as something that fits into the narrative of white Britons under siege by Muslim fanatics. To mark Brown's death the BNP planned to have a national demonstration in Stoke. Unfortunately for the fascists, all isn't well in the BNP at the moment. It was more likely a lack of interest from members outside of Stoke that prevented the demo from taking place instead of Griffin's feeble excuse that it would be better after Khan had been sentenced. But they were planning on leafleting around the Normacot area tomorrow to squeeze as much capital from the occasion as possible. However, Stoke Socialist Party beat them to it. We had comrades out today countering the poison they want to pour through peoples' letter boxes. The text of our leaflet is below. Any comments about its content are welcome.
NO to the BNP's attempt to divide our communities!
In Britain this year at least 17 young people have lost their lives through knife crime. Recently 400 mainly young people marched through North London to protest against the stabbing of 16-year-old Ben Kinsella demanding, "Stop Knife Violence". This expressed the view of millions across the country who want an end to ALL knife crime.
On the other hand, the BNP are planning to hold a national rally in Stoke-on-Trent not to campaign against knife crime but to exploit the tragic death of Keith Brown from Normacot for their own vile purposes.
By highlighting the tragic death of one person the BNP are trying to sow division among the community in Normacot and beyond. Creating division will do nothing to stop knife crime or solve any other problems faced by ordinary working class people and will make things even worse.
The BNP's aim is to promote disunity in our communities by setting one section of the community against another so that they can then pose as the defenders of the "whites" in Britain. But this is a con!
More BNP councillors - Worse for working class people!
The BNP are now the second largest group on Stoke-on-Trent city council with nine councillors but this has done nothing to defend ANY working class people.
In fact as the number of BNP councillors has increased our council had got worse! 1,000 much needed council jobs disappeared in the last year alone as week as an increase in closures and privatisation of services. Scapegoating sections of our communities will do nothing to stop this onslaught.
ALL working class people need to stick together and fight to defend our jobs, services and communities. The BNP's divisive policies make us weaker and create a smokescreen to make it easier for the government and local councils to close and privatise our care homes, schools, NHS, postal services etc.
NO! TO ALL RACISM
YES! TO DECENT JOBS, HOMES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
Time for a New Workers' Party!
Big business and the bosses now have three parties to represent them - New Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems. The BNP offer no solution to the problems we face.
A new mass party that fights for the interests of ALL ordinary working people is crucial in the struggle against the blind alley of racism and division. In a situation where all three main parties act in the interests of big business, the BNP have been able to make some gains falsely posing as a party of the white working class.
We now urgently need a new party that clearly puts the blame for crumbling public services and low pay where it belongs - at the feet of big business and the government. A party that leads a united struggle to improve the living conditions for all. This would have a tremendous effect in undermining all forms of racism and provide a real voice for millions.
Find out more about the Campaign for a New Workers' Party
* Unite and fight against low pay and cuts in jobs and services.
* No to war - No to racism - No to terrorism.
* End cheap labour. For a minimum wage of £8 an hour. No exemptions.
* A massive public spending programme to create more houses, schools, hospitals
and all the facilities we need. End privatisation.
* Campaign to form a new mass party of the working class.
Why not join the Socialist Party now!
This Sunday marks a year since the death of Keith Brown. Brown was a BNP activist involved in a long-running dispute with his neighbour, Habib Khan, ostensibly about the latter's building plans. On July 6th last year the tensions boiled over and Khan stabbed Brown to death as Brown was in the process of attacking his son. Khan was charged with murder but was cleared by a jury at Stafford Crown Court at the end of May. Instead they found Khan guilty of Brown's manslaughter and of wounding Brown's son. Khan is now waiting to be sentenced.
In an attempt to capitalise on this affair the BNP have been trying to portray the killing as a racist murder, as something that fits into the narrative of white Britons under siege by Muslim fanatics. To mark Brown's death the BNP planned to have a national demonstration in Stoke. Unfortunately for the fascists, all isn't well in the BNP at the moment. It was more likely a lack of interest from members outside of Stoke that prevented the demo from taking place instead of Griffin's feeble excuse that it would be better after Khan had been sentenced. But they were planning on leafleting around the Normacot area tomorrow to squeeze as much capital from the occasion as possible. However, Stoke Socialist Party beat them to it. We had comrades out today countering the poison they want to pour through peoples' letter boxes. The text of our leaflet is below. Any comments about its content are welcome.
NO to the BNP's attempt to divide our communities!
In Britain this year at least 17 young people have lost their lives through knife crime. Recently 400 mainly young people marched through North London to protest against the stabbing of 16-year-old Ben Kinsella demanding, "Stop Knife Violence". This expressed the view of millions across the country who want an end to ALL knife crime.
On the other hand, the BNP are planning to hold a national rally in Stoke-on-Trent not to campaign against knife crime but to exploit the tragic death of Keith Brown from Normacot for their own vile purposes.
By highlighting the tragic death of one person the BNP are trying to sow division among the community in Normacot and beyond. Creating division will do nothing to stop knife crime or solve any other problems faced by ordinary working class people and will make things even worse.
The BNP's aim is to promote disunity in our communities by setting one section of the community against another so that they can then pose as the defenders of the "whites" in Britain. But this is a con!
More BNP councillors - Worse for working class people!
The BNP are now the second largest group on Stoke-on-Trent city council with nine councillors but this has done nothing to defend ANY working class people.
In fact as the number of BNP councillors has increased our council had got worse! 1,000 much needed council jobs disappeared in the last year alone as week as an increase in closures and privatisation of services. Scapegoating sections of our communities will do nothing to stop this onslaught.
ALL working class people need to stick together and fight to defend our jobs, services and communities. The BNP's divisive policies make us weaker and create a smokescreen to make it easier for the government and local councils to close and privatise our care homes, schools, NHS, postal services etc.
NO! TO ALL RACISM
YES! TO DECENT JOBS, HOMES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
Time for a New Workers' Party!
Big business and the bosses now have three parties to represent them - New Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems. The BNP offer no solution to the problems we face.
A new mass party that fights for the interests of ALL ordinary working people is crucial in the struggle against the blind alley of racism and division. In a situation where all three main parties act in the interests of big business, the BNP have been able to make some gains falsely posing as a party of the white working class.
We now urgently need a new party that clearly puts the blame for crumbling public services and low pay where it belongs - at the feet of big business and the government. A party that leads a united struggle to improve the living conditions for all. This would have a tremendous effect in undermining all forms of racism and provide a real voice for millions.
Find out more about the Campaign for a New Workers' Party
* Unite and fight against low pay and cuts in jobs and services.
* No to war - No to racism - No to terrorism.
* End cheap labour. For a minimum wage of £8 an hour. No exemptions.
* A massive public spending programme to create more houses, schools, hospitals
and all the facilities we need. End privatisation.
* Campaign to form a new mass party of the working class.
Why not join the Socialist Party now!
Friday, 4 July 2008
A Very Strange Man Writes
Politics can be a funny old game. And here's one of the reasons why. Jane Mellalieu, our Socialist Party candidate in Burslem South for the local elections received this letter through the post. When it was read out at branch last night, comrades were stumped. Is it poetry? Is it an example of what the kids these days like to call 'epic fail'? You decide. (Spelling as is).
Dear Ms Mellalieu,
Illegal substances.
As to illegal substances, we are hearing various arguments.
One is that it is a question of liberty. Liberty of the individual person. Each person to decide. And so on.
About that, you could say that that's it. Nothing more to say. The view of.
Yet, do we not have this? What is Socialism?
Where do we hear that expressed, are we to gather that we may look forward to a socialist state or a socialist society in which, as to drugs, it's a matter of 'as and when'?
Another has to do with, you could say, assessment. Somehow or other, the law against is unenforceable. We may oppose. But, to no avail. Use is widespread enough, difficult to detect, it's a matter of 'logic'.
'Given that we couldn't possibly agree to the re-introductions of corporal punishment'.
Let's be candid. Somehow. That gets omitted.
Another.
It's not an issue. Not to be bothered about.
To get involved, would be to be side - tracked. Hope. Perhaps, something like that. Other things, a lot of other things, need changing.
As we make headway, ..........................
That, at least, is debateable.
Is it mere co-incidence?
A politics that goes on and on about 'law and order'. An intelligentsia that edges toward 'decriminalisation'.
Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Snouts in the Trough
I haven't been long in from tonight's Socialist Party branch meeting and from a quick glance at the News at Ten I see our august members of parliament have (albeit narrowly) voted to leave their rather generous expenses arrangements intact. So we can now look forward to Alistair Darling lecturing our class about pay restraint "to fight inflation" (forgetting that some 93% of workers had below inflation pay rises this year), while we're supposed to forget 30 ministers voted along with "hard up" MPs to keep the £24 grand to furnish their second homes.
When record numbers of the electorate are alienated from parliamentary politics, MPs voting to line their pockets in this grotesque manner isn't astute public relations. But it doesn't have to be like this. The three Militant MPs, Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall managed to juggle their casework and everything else demanded of socialist representatives only on the salary of an average worker. The rest of their income and expenses went into the movement and made them more effective tribunes of our class. How many of our current crop of parliamentarians would be willing to follow their example?
When record numbers of the electorate are alienated from parliamentary politics, MPs voting to line their pockets in this grotesque manner isn't astute public relations. But it doesn't have to be like this. The three Militant MPs, Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall managed to juggle their casework and everything else demanded of socialist representatives only on the salary of an average worker. The rest of their income and expenses went into the movement and made them more effective tribunes of our class. How many of our current crop of parliamentarians would be willing to follow their example?
Terry Fields: Socialist, Friend and Fighter
This obituary from Tony Mulhearn, leader of Liverpool DLP during the Militant era on the city council appears in the latest edition of The Socialist.
Tragically Terry Fields has died from lung cancer at the age of 71. Terry was a supporter of Militant, forerunner of the Socialist Party, and a defender of the working class. In 1983, after many years as a lay official for the fire fighters' union, he was elected as an MP for Liverpool Broadgreen on a clear socialist programme. His campaign slogan was 'vote for a workers' MP on a worker's wage'.
There was no doubt in the minds of the Broadgreen electorate that Terry was a dyed-in-the wool radical socialist, because it was published in his campaign material and the capitalist press told them so. Terry was celebrated for his dedication to workers in struggle. He was a regular on the miners' picket line. He supported the printers at Warrington when they fought Eddie Shah, the stalking horse for the press magnates who were preparing to smash the print unions.
It wasn't only British workers who enjoyed Terry's support and solidarity. He was invited in 1990 to a conference in Novokuznetsk setting up a Confederation of Labour of the USSR. As a socialist and internationalist he addressed the 600 delegates and visitors - mostly mineworkers - congratulating them on their strikes and struggles to throw off the old, parasitic bureaucracy. He warned them against taking the "road to the market", and defended the ideas of genuine socialism against both Stalinism and capitalism.
In addition to fighting for a remedy to the problems facing working-class families in his constituency, he gave unconditional support to the Liverpool 47 in their titanic battle with the Tory government and Labour right wing. The Liverpool 47 were Liverpool's socialist councillors who built five thousand houses, created thousands of jobs, and opened many nursery schools in 1983 - 87.
Terry kept his pledge to take only a worker's wage and donated the remainder back to the labour movement. On this score he invited the bile of career MPs whose snouts in the parliamentary pig trough have been an ongoing scandal.
Terry played a leading role in opposing Thatcher's hated poll tax. The non-payment campaign eventually defeated both the tax and Thatcher. Alongside 18 million people he refused to pay the tax. For this he served 60 days in Walton jail. In his response to Terry's imprisonment, former Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock, showed his true colours. His reaction was not a condemnation of the poll tax, but an attack on Terry for breaking the law!
Terry supported the slogan of the imprisoned Poplar councillors of 1919, adopted by the Liverpool 47: 'Better to break the law than break the poor.' He pointed out that if people had not been prepared to break unjust laws in the past there wouldn't be a Labour Party for Kinnock to lead.
He refused to pay his poll tax even though some, who later deserted Militant's ranks, urged him to pay it.
A role model for today
Standing over six feet, Terry was a big man in every sense. His lifestyle was that of the working class. Not for him the fancy cars and silk suits. In fact he was known in parliament, to the annoyance of the chief whip, for wearing his trademark leather jacket.
He had a deft turn of phrase. At a meeting to mark the 20th anniversary of the 47 councillors' surcharge he said: "Neil Kinnock had been a young firebrand with socialism spewing out of every orifice - but he finished up with something else spewing out of every orifice!"
In his private life he enjoyed a social life in the local club mingling with working people from the community. He was a good singer and sang with a skiffle group in the 1960s, and he was no mean bingo caller.
These days there are calls for millionaire professional footballers and other sporting celebrities to act as role models for the youth. Terry Fields was the perfect role model for today's young people who look for a solution to their everyday problems of work and security for the future. But they look in vain at the current crop of parliamentary miscreants.
Tragically Terry Fields has died from lung cancer at the age of 71. Terry was a supporter of Militant, forerunner of the Socialist Party, and a defender of the working class. In 1983, after many years as a lay official for the fire fighters' union, he was elected as an MP for Liverpool Broadgreen on a clear socialist programme. His campaign slogan was 'vote for a workers' MP on a worker's wage'.
There was no doubt in the minds of the Broadgreen electorate that Terry was a dyed-in-the wool radical socialist, because it was published in his campaign material and the capitalist press told them so. Terry was celebrated for his dedication to workers in struggle. He was a regular on the miners' picket line. He supported the printers at Warrington when they fought Eddie Shah, the stalking horse for the press magnates who were preparing to smash the print unions.
It wasn't only British workers who enjoyed Terry's support and solidarity. He was invited in 1990 to a conference in Novokuznetsk setting up a Confederation of Labour of the USSR. As a socialist and internationalist he addressed the 600 delegates and visitors - mostly mineworkers - congratulating them on their strikes and struggles to throw off the old, parasitic bureaucracy. He warned them against taking the "road to the market", and defended the ideas of genuine socialism against both Stalinism and capitalism.
In addition to fighting for a remedy to the problems facing working-class families in his constituency, he gave unconditional support to the Liverpool 47 in their titanic battle with the Tory government and Labour right wing. The Liverpool 47 were Liverpool's socialist councillors who built five thousand houses, created thousands of jobs, and opened many nursery schools in 1983 - 87.
Terry kept his pledge to take only a worker's wage and donated the remainder back to the labour movement. On this score he invited the bile of career MPs whose snouts in the parliamentary pig trough have been an ongoing scandal.
Terry played a leading role in opposing Thatcher's hated poll tax. The non-payment campaign eventually defeated both the tax and Thatcher. Alongside 18 million people he refused to pay the tax. For this he served 60 days in Walton jail. In his response to Terry's imprisonment, former Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock, showed his true colours. His reaction was not a condemnation of the poll tax, but an attack on Terry for breaking the law!
Terry supported the slogan of the imprisoned Poplar councillors of 1919, adopted by the Liverpool 47: 'Better to break the law than break the poor.' He pointed out that if people had not been prepared to break unjust laws in the past there wouldn't be a Labour Party for Kinnock to lead.
He refused to pay his poll tax even though some, who later deserted Militant's ranks, urged him to pay it.
A role model for today
Standing over six feet, Terry was a big man in every sense. His lifestyle was that of the working class. Not for him the fancy cars and silk suits. In fact he was known in parliament, to the annoyance of the chief whip, for wearing his trademark leather jacket.
He had a deft turn of phrase. At a meeting to mark the 20th anniversary of the 47 councillors' surcharge he said: "Neil Kinnock had been a young firebrand with socialism spewing out of every orifice - but he finished up with something else spewing out of every orifice!"
In his private life he enjoyed a social life in the local club mingling with working people from the community. He was a good singer and sang with a skiffle group in the 1960s, and he was no mean bingo caller.
These days there are calls for millionaire professional footballers and other sporting celebrities to act as role models for the youth. Terry Fields was the perfect role model for today's young people who look for a solution to their everyday problems of work and security for the future. But they look in vain at the current crop of parliamentary miscreants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)