There is a spectre haunting the Union, the spectre of Englishness! I was down in London Monday evening for the launch-cum-discussion of Rupa Huq's new book, On the Edge: Contested Cultures of English Suburbia. Having skimmed the first 50 pages by way of preparation, Rupa argues the suburbs have long been the repository and incubator of the tensions and characteristics that one can find condensed in English national identity. For example, chatting with an ex-trot comrade yesterday, we mused how we didn't define ourselves as 'big E' English, but there are certain eccentricities and quirks we share that are quintessentially English. Perhaps this self-denying ordinance is a peculiar feature of Englishness? If that is the case, it probably counts toward explaining the unremarked presence, or the absence of an 'out and proud' Englishness in the Britishness our state and culture industry projects to us and the rest of the world. What Englishness is, why it is seldom mentioned outside a sporting context, and the anomalous position England occupies in a jury-rigged constitutional set up that conveys political life on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London are all matters politics in general and the left (from the centre to the fringe) in particular do not talk about. Rupa's book, and the meeting that launched it lifts the lid on these issues and invites us to take a deeper look. Rupa was joined on the panel by Shadow Environment Secretary Mary Creagh, and the writer, Paul Kingsnorth. Proceedings were chaired by Tristram Hunt. Paul’s opening emphasised the neglect of England and Englishness. He recalled trips around the American deep south and the ubiquity of the General Lee - a flag still flown some 150 years after the crushing of the Confederacy. He thought it acted as a reminder, a message to those who would prefer to forget another United States exists that "we're still here". He believes the St George's Cross plays a similar sort of role here. For instance, devolution allowed for a proud, positive and mainly inclusive flourishing of Scottish and Welsh national identities. Years of official multiculturalism promoted by the government reached its finest, most explicit and deeply moving expression of self-projected modern Britishness at last summer's Olympic opening ceremony. But for the millions who stubbornly enter 'English' instead of 'British' on their census forms, it can appear that political and media elites are content to forget England. However, it is neither gone nor forgotten. Paul suggested that Englishness is tied to a sense of place and weaves the fabric of the land and its communities tightly together. Its unremarked subsumption beneath Britishness and the places afforded Scotland and Wales in the multicultural firmament can and is becoming a mote of discord, a speck of disenchantment that can accrete and roll with all kinds of discontent and negativity. We, as in the centre left and the labour movement, don't so much need to 'reimagine England', but rather rediscover it. That isn't an exercise in trying to impose a fluffy, civic-minded Englishness a la Scottish and Welsh nationalism, but rather an exercise in political listening. His immediate advice was for Ed Miliband to make a high profile speech about England specifically, open a conversation about its place within his One Nation idea; and think about addressing the anomalous position it occupies in our constitution. Rupa began her contribution by saying the real England is found in our suburbs. With 80% of England living there, this gives us a good idea about what Englishness looks like. And, if you like, the untold story of modern England is synonymous with the tale of the suburb. Musical movements from punk to dubstep, the teddy boys, the indie kids, and the emos, these were not born out of the English equivalent of downtown Detroit or Brooklyn - their self-identification with inner city cool masks their roots in suburbia. They decry the environment that gave birth, nurtured, and listens to them. This cultural scepticism is the latter day inheritor of the way suburbia was spurned by the likes of George Orwell and JB Priestley. In the inter-war years, suburbia was the safe domestic spaces carved out of the English countryside by the middle classes. They were quickly likened to torture chambers of pitiless monotony and conformity. Suburbia was the place the human spirit went to die - a gulag fronted by prim and proper gardens. Perhaps this denial of the authenticity of suburban space maps onto the self-denying core of a certain sense of Englishness? But what do I know, I'm a village-raised bumpkin turned inner city slum dweller. But the contradiction of a place and a national identity in tension with itself places suburbia on the edge of changing Englishness. The reaction represented by the BNP and UKIP are both English and suburban phenomena. The 2011 summer riots were mixed race and suburban, and suburbia conceived in optimism as safe havens from the rigours of modern life, are at the forefront of the human costs of austerity. For Rupa, Labour needs a strategy that can speak to the suburbs, as she spells out in this interview with The Graun. Mary's contribution concentrated on the English landscape. Most of us may live in suburbs, but their inauthenticity allows the vision of England to be tied with neatly parcelled fields, orchards, and woods swaying above babbling brooks. When one speaks of England, the national parks are more likely to spring to mind than a 70s semi in the commuter belt. But this traditional sense of place and with it the Englishness tied up within it is under significant environmental pressures. Climate change, frequent flooding, food processing scandals, the complacent and light-minded attitude the government has to the countryside Toryism has traditionally championed, all of these demand effective collective action to mitigate and repair. All of these, for Mary, are amenable to One Nation rhetoric and, if you like, present a back door way the centre left can address these (easily coded) English issues. There followed a number of audience contributions that addressed an English parliament, a lack of a specifically English politics, the relationship between national identity, ethnicity and class, whether London is different from England, and if Conservatives are better at speaking to suburbia and Englishness. One point that particularly struck me was how the silence greeting Englishness within British multiculturalism has allowed an opening for a pernicious ethno-nationalist identification of Englishness with white people, an identity the BNP and the EDL have tried to capitalise on. A rediscovery and engagement with Englishness has to preserve the anti-racism and tolerance of the now hegemonic sense of Britishness while ensuring it is a positive, not a reactive identity. But for this outcome Englishness can no longer hide in the shadows. As Labour articulates One Nation ahead of the 2015 election, England and Englishness must not only be acknowledged - it demands practical recognition lest it becomes a rallying point for the forces of reaction against the kind of society 21st century social democracy wants to build.
Labour's prospects for the Eastleigh by-election don't look too great. Being that rarest of beasts a safe(ish) Liberal Democrat seat, the 2010 general election left a yawning gap of just under 20,000 votes between Chris Huhne and third-placed Labour. The majority over his Tory opponent was around 3,800 and it's a seat where Labour hasn't known second place since the 1994 by-election. Even Blair at his newest and shiniest wasn't enough to turn the heads of LibDem-supporting locals. On 3rd May last year, the more or less co-terminous borough council elections saw the LibDems cement their dominance and increase their representation by two to 40 councillors vs four Tories. With Nigel Farage throwing in the towel, it's all a foregone conclusion, isn't it? Possibly. Possibly not. I think an interesting indicator of Labour's coming performance may be found in last year's votes in the 15 borough council seats. This is appropriate for a couple of reasons. These were second order elections (i.e. elections where, for most people, the outcomes do not matter as much as the 'first order' general elections) and are more likely to reflect disaffection/protest votes, and it is reasonable to assume that LibDem voter dissatisfaction with their dark doings would be reflected in some way. It's reasonable to expect to see a proportion of the softer LibDem vote returning to the Labour fold, and anticipate the Tories losing ground to UKIP. The May 2012 vote broke down like this: LibDem 12,210 45.35% (46.5%) Tory 7,202 26.75% (39.3%) Labour 4,050 15.04% (9.6%) UKIP 2,887 10.72% (3.6%) Others 576 2.14% (1.0%) Total = 26,925 Percentages in brackets are proportions at the 2010 general election. The borough council site is here. The 2012 shares indicate that indeed Labour has won back a section of the hardcore voters who turn out for local elections and UKIP is breaking away Tory votes. But, surprisingly, the LibDem vote has remained large and virtually unchanged. There could be a couple of reasons for this. I'm not au fait with Eastleigh Borough Council's performance, but there is little change from the previous year's results, indicating at least satisfaction. The second is it's quite possible that a number of LibDem borough councillors have a personal following who turn out time after time. And lastly, Huhne - as one of the few recognisable LibDem MPs - was apparently very visible during the campaign. But that was then and this is now. The manner of Huhne's resignation will likely negate any incumbency advantage, though given the character of the constituency I doubt the LibDems as a brand would be damaged in the eyes of their support. Local issues can have something of an impact too. Though it didn't have much of an influence on the borough election outcomes, disquiet and protests over building 1,700 new homes could be amplified by the national media spotlight and impact negatively on the LibDem vote. So, it's not looking good for Labour then. That said, I still think Labour should campaign hard and fight to win. As Luke Akehurst notes,
* We’ve had a bunch of good by-election results but, with the exception of Corby, they have all been in places where the media can discount it as our core vote holding up or coming home. An opportunity has come up for us to demonstrate what is happening in the “deep south” where many would like to write us off. * One or other of the coalition parties has to lose. They can’t both win so this election will either damage the Tories or the Lib Dems. It might even damage both if we recover and UKIP does well. In contrast we have nothing to lose as we are starting from such a low base. A Lib Dem loss would be serious – the first Liberal or Lib Dem seat they have lost in a by-election since 1957. A Tory failure to take a target marginal off the Lib Dems in these circumstances shows they are not in the game for a winning a majority in 2015. * We need to prove there are no no-go areas for Labour. If Ed’s “One Nation” message is to work, we have to get credible Labour results – not necessarily wins, but traction in our direction – in places like Hampshire. * If we do well here it helps us argue that a Labour vote is not a wasted vote in lots of the rural shire county councils which go to the polls this May.
While it looks unlikely at the moment a strong Labour campaign, difficulties among the Coalition (the LibDems are sure to revert to dirty type if it looks like the Tories are gaining traction), high profile idiocies between now and the 28th, AND the UKIP media circus could, in total, be a great leveller. It's an outside chance, but a challenge is there to be met, not avoided. So, see you on the streets of Eastleigh.
If it wasn't churning up waters polluted by the most bigoted filth the Tory benches can muster, you could almost sit back, have a nice cup of tea and watch the Conservative Party tear itself apart over gay - or as I prefer to call it - equal marriage. It was almost entertaining to read The Telegraph's forensic job on the havoc it's wreaking upon the party's body politic. Constituency chairs stepping down and resigning, activists going on strike, around 180 Tory MPs set to abstain or vote against ... on the surface it looks like the worst crisis the Tories have faced since Thatcher was ousted. All this begs the question. If we are to take the protestations of the withering grass roots at face value and equal marriage is driving the activist base away, then why is Dave so determined to pursue such a self-destructive course? Presumably he would like to win in 2015? I think there are four things going on. Dave really believes in marriage, whether it's between a woman and a man, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. As rare an instance it may be these days, here we have a party leader acting out of genuine conviction. It's therefore difficult to disagree with Michael Gove(!) who, batting for Dave in Sunday's Mail says "It's wrong to say to gay men and women that their love is less legitimate. It's wrong to say that because of how you love and who you love, you are not entitled to the same rights as others. It's wrong because inequality is wrong." Well said. But Dave is nothing if not the consummate politician. Equal marriage is much more than the disinterested pursuit of sincerely-held convictions - there are a couple of important political stakes in play. The first, and most obvious, is the attempt to move away from the 'nasty party' image. True, attacks on our poorest and most vulnerable people so millionaires can have a hefty tax cut isn't something I would do if I was overly concerned with cultivating a compassionate conservative image. But Dave is gambling that people really don't care about attacks on social security and "skivers" and that it will all be forgotten in time for 2015 by when, he hopes, the economy will have picked up. So by enthusiastically embracing equal marriage he hopes the Tories can start making inroads into LGBT communities. His aim, no less, is to make the Tories the party that champions same-sex relationships - not the party of Section 28. At the price of the stop-the-world-we-want-to-get-off types who infest the constituency associations, Dave must hope the swing voters lured by the liberal conservatism of his "hug a husky" phase will give him another punt. The second, and probably the most overlooked aspect of the row is how it can, and is, strengthening his leadership. On the face of it the opposition talked up by the Telegraph looks serious. But, electorally speaking, equal marriage - like Europe - is a second order issue. As has been pointed out, it's not likely to have much of an impact on the Conservatives' performance - and they may, in fact, gain more than is lost. Nevertheless, what we have here is a party leader going against what appear to be the immediate interests of his party. He's caved to backbenchers on Europe and Lords reform, but not this time. With Labour and LibDem backing the legislation (on the whole) Dave will get his way in the teeth of a feral but declining internal opposition. And once they lose the Commons vote tomorrow, the less able they can mount an opposition in the future. Just as victory emboldens an insurgency, defeat can work to demobilise one. With his internal enemies weakened or decamping, the less likely Dave's Irritant Tendency can derail his plans for the remainder of this parliament. Lastly, and to strike a conspiratorial tone; Europe, equal marriage, they're all rather good for keeping the NHS and the economy out of the headlines.
What has the Soviet Union ever done for us? Well, to put it bluntly, the USSR saved our asses. Between 1941 and 1945 three quarters of the armed forces of the 3rd Reich were systematically ground down by the Soviet people at almost unimaginable human cost. Compared to the horror Hitler unleashed in the east, everything we officially celebrate about the Second World War in Europe - the victories in the desert, the Normandy landings, the doomed heroism of Arnhem, these were but sideshows to the bloody main act that played out on the Russian steppe. That's why everyone with a progressive bone in their body should at least spare a thought for the events that came to a close 70 years ago today on the banks of the Volga. After conquering or subduing all of continental Europe under the hegemony of Nazi Germany, Hitler's Operation Barbarossa was a gamble that aimed to knock out the Soviet Union in a single, almighty blow. It almost succeeded. From 22 June 1941 Germany and its allies advanced deep into the USSR across a front some 1,800 miles long, inflicting almost crippling losses and taking hundreds of thousands of POWs. By December advance forces were poised just 16 miles from the Kremlin. Rumours abound that at the darkest hour, Stalin had his train ready for a quick get away. But fatefully he elected to stay to publicly front the successful Soviet winter counter-offensive. Using reserves fresh from Siberia, it hit the German front lines with all the force of an avalanche and pushed the invaders well away from Moscow. Come summer 1942 and the scales were already tipping against the Nazis. Having declared war on the United States on the same day Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, it was only a matter of time before its vast industrial potential would come into contention. And so Hitler gambled again. An offensive in southern Russia toward the oil fields of Baku could cut the Soviets off from their primary source (the region was responsible for 90% of the USSR's oil production), capture Stalingrad, and, crucially, shorten Axis fuel supply lines for further military operations. In sum, it could have knocked the USSR out of the war. Case Blue, as the overall operation was called launched at the end of June and, like Barbarossa, was initially successful. But buoyed by this success Hitler modified the plan to give the Wehrmacht additional, multiple objectives - just as lengthening supply lines and fuel shortages began to bite. This operational confusion brought the Red Army crucial time to ship out crucial food and rolling stock resources from Stalingrad, and rush in more reinforcements. The Battle of Stalingrad proper began that summer as it came under heavy and sustained bombardment from the air. By August's close the majority of the city was rubble. However this ultimately proved the Nazis' undoing. The Luftwaffe's bombs scattered debris across the city's streets, making them impassable to tanks and other vehicles. Partially destroyed and collapsed buildings were also perfect fortresses, and it forced the German 6th Army to engage in house-to-house fighting. Very quickly Stalingrad became an abattoir of attrition. The fate of the 20th century turned upon unknown and undocumented battles in living rooms, across roof tops, in the dank of Stalingrad's drains. Apartment blocks, factories, train stations, all became strategic strongpoints. The city locked two million soldiers in a death grip unparalleled in the history of warfare before or since. Despite this, the Germans continued to make slow progress and by November occupied 90% of the city. But this ultimately fruitless effort marked the high point of the Nazi advance. As the Germans tried to break the city's remaining resistance the Red Army reserve crashed into their lightly-defended northern and southern flanks. The Soviet attack swept aside the under-equipped Romanian and Hungarian divisions with such speed that it took just four days to encircle Stalingrad. The besiegers became the besieged as some 265,000 Axis troops were cut off from their lines. Permission was sought from Hitler for the army to stage a break out. He refused. Believing Goering's boasts the Luftwaffe could resupply the army from the air, a trickle of supplies were flown in while a German relief offensive to re-open the land route to Stalingrad barely got within 40 miles of the suburbs. With food and ammunition running low, intense fighting continued as the Soviets threw fresh troops into the city. The battle ground on for a further two months but the conclusion was foregone. On the 31st January 1943, the head of the 6th Army, Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus, surrendered as the Soviets closed in on his HQ. On the 2nd, apart from a few holdouts, the remainder of the army laid down its arms and capitulated. Some 22 generals and 105,000 troops went into captivity, of which only about 6,000 ever returned home again. Of the rest, between 25,000 and 35,000 were evacuated before the last air field was overrun in late January. In total Stalingrad claimed 850,000 Axis dead, missing, wounded or captured. Soviet casualties were approximately double at just under 1.7 million. This was the blow from which Nazi Germany would never recover. There was two more years of the bloodiest, fiercest fighting imaginable between Stalingrad and Berlin but the writing was on the wall. Everything else the Wehrmacht managed in the east, including the thwarted offensive at Kursk, could at best only delay the inevitable. But it was an inevitable whose delay was bought by countless deaths and the devastation of entire countries. Despite the awful crimes of Stalin and his regime, the barbarity of Nazi Germany was an order of magnitude greater than anything else ever seen in history. Had Hitler been victorious a new dark age would have settled over Europe and, quite possibly, Africa and the Middle East too. The Holocaust was a foretaste of a world of routine industrialised mass murder and the enslavement of tens, if not hundreds of millions. The Battle of Stalingrad ensured this Nazi hegemony, this hellish abyss was not fallen into. All of us, wherever we are, owe the Soviet people who lived, fought and died battling Germany's military might the profoundest of debts. And we owe it to their memory and ourselves to ensure nothing of its like ever happens again.
One of my abiding memories of 1985 is of a members’ meeting in Scotland, where I lived, held in the week when Healy’s supporters comprised a faction, i.e. after the charges had been tabled but before they had been heard. The meeting was addressed by the late Corin Redgrave (brother of Vanessa), for the CC minority, and myself for the CC majority. Redgrave opposed charging Healy, on the grounds that it would damage the revolutionary leadership. In discussion, a veteran member of the Scottish organisation asked Redgrave whether he could “look me in the eye and tell me, honestly, that these charges are to your knowledge utterly without foundation”, i.e. should not be brought because they were false. Redgrave replied by citing the WRP’s achievements (publication of a daily Trotskyist newspaper, building of a big youth movement, influence in trade unions, etc) and concluded: “If this is the work of a rapist, let’s recruit more rapists.” (In other words, he knew the charges had substance, but thought they should be dropped because Healy’s “party building” achievements rendered them irrelevant.) This statement deeply shocked those present, and we only managed with some difficulty to continue the meeting in good order.
Read the rest of this post here. Of course, nothing like that could happen on today's far left, could it?
Some lowlights from yesterday's DWP session in the Commons. Dignifying Ministers' replies with the appellation 'answers' is to duff up the English language. I've focused on the landlords' subsidy and the bedroom tax for this sorry selection from Hansard. Studious straight-answer avoidance and whataboutery rules the roost. They treat it like a game because, for the government, it is. I guess you can expect this from a snake oil merchant like IDS but Steve Webb (pictured), the LibDem minister for pensions, is supposed to be some kind of "lefty". Oh really? Then I'm a hatstand. Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): Last week in Westminster Hall Ministers made great play of the savings that the Government might expect from the bedroom tax. In Wales there is a chronic shortage of smaller houses, so why will the Secretary of State not admit that those who are hit by this cruel policy in Wales will have to go into the insecure private sector where rents will be higher and local housing allowance rates will cost more? Mr Duncan Smith: What the hon. Lady and her party presided over when they were in power was a complete mess in housing—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to shout like a bunch of discombobulated monkeys bouncing up and down on the Benches; the reality is that their housing benefit record left many thousands of families unable to find housing because they were in a queue, while others occupied housing that had far too many rooms. We have to put that right, and that is what we are doing. The Labour party never did that when it was in government. Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the potential effect on low-income families of planned changes to housing benefit eligibility in respect of under-occupancy in the social rented sector. [139395] The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb): Our impact assessment shows that of the 3.4 million social sector tenants receiving housing benefit, up to 660,000 could potentially be affected by this measure. Mr Hepburn: Do this Government ever get fed up of hammering the poor of this country? Punishing the poor seems to be the mandate that is running this Government. In my constituency, 2,000 households will lose anything up to 25% because of this bedroom tax. Will the Minister change this callous measure now, or will he wait until it becomes this Government’s poll tax and comes back to haunt them? Steve Webb: If we leave aside the issue of people in his constituency who are living in over-crowded accommodation, who would very much like the opportunity to live in one of these houses, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that for many years under Labour people who rented in the private rented sector were not allowed a spare bedroom. Why is it fair not to allow private renters a spare bedroom, but to allow social tenants a spare bedroom? David Wright (Telford) (Lab): The bedroom tax will have an impact on thousands of people in Telford. Many might want to move to smaller accommodation, but it is not available and the Government know it is not available. The policy is designed to penalise people—it is nothing to do with the housing market. Steve Webb: There is a danger that this is viewed in a very static way. Many of the best housing associations are looking at groups of constituents, some of whom are over-occupying and are overcrowded, and are moving people around to create space. In the longer term, we need a housing stock that better meets the needs of people on the waiting list, and it is time that successive Governments addressed that. Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Because of the shameful under-investment in social housing by the previous Government, there are simply not enough properties for people to downsize to. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the number of families who will end up moving to smaller, more expensive accommodation and end up receiving more in housing benefit? Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right: successive Governments have failed to build enough affordable housing. It is worth stressing that moving is one option, but only one option, for those in work. Just two or three extra hours on the minimum wage would cover this deduction. There are a range of options—going into work, taking in a lodger or sub-letting—and good housing associations are working with their tenants to achieve best outcomes.
The market and the people - both of them understood as grand principles of social life ... were essentially one and the same. By its very nature the market was democratic, perfectly expressing the popular will through the machinery of supply and demand, poll and focus group, superstore and internet. In fact, the market was more democratic than any of the formal institutions of democracy - elections, legislatures, government ... The market was infinitely diverse, permitting without prejudice the articulation of any and all tastes and preferences. Most importantly of all, the market was militant about its democracy. It had no place for snobs, for hierarchies, for elitism ... and it would fight these things by its very nature.
From Thomas Franks, One Market Under God 2002, p.29
