These last five weeks there's only been one place for Third Reich geeks. And that's been More4, 9pm Sunday evenings for the fantastically-named documentary series, Nazi Megastructures. At the centrepiece of each programme was a terrible, maniacal, yet ingenious Nazi scheme designed to strike the allies a crippling blow. They were truly windows into this most barbarous of regimes.
The first episode focused on the U-boat threat and particularly the base built at Lorient, on the French Atlantic coast. This structure, built between 1941 and 1942 provided three huge bunkers for the repair, resupply and storage of up to 30 submarines at a time. Encasing them were steel-reinforced concrete walls up to three metres thick and gaps between differently levels of the structure to deflect away blast force of any incoming bombs. As the air war turned against Germany, Lorient was attacked many times and hit directly by some of the heaviest conventional bombs at the allies disposal. Fortunately for the U-boats inside they remained unbowed and undamaged. But unfortunately for the town itself, it, the support roads and the rail heads leading to the complex were totally flattened, significantly reducing the operational efficacy of the base - at the price of thousands of dead French civilians.
The second looked at the development of von Braun's V-2 rocket. The initial part of the programme was concerned with the secret army research centre at Peenemünde. It describes the dedicated factories, test beds, barracks and offices, and the facility's dedicated power plant for manufacturing rocket fuel. Despite the secrecy, the Allies got wind of the the launch site in 1942 and bombed it. Undeterred, the Nazis distributed the manufacture of rockets across Germany. In some cases, it led to underground factories. In others, bizarre and outlandish structures. La Coupole near Calais is typical of this. The Nazis constructed a vast bomb-proof concrete dome under which they excavated a warren of tunnels and chambers. This was an all-in-one facility. It was designed to build rockets, wheel them out on to the launch pad, and fire them. The unforeseen problem, again, was that while the structure was virtually indestructible the land surround it was not. The project was abandoned after bombing raids made supply to and from the site impractical, as well as ensuring the launch area was thoroughly cratered.
The third dealt with Hitler's love-in with supersized tanks. This episode is a history of Wehrmacht tank production, and details the development and deployment of the fearsome Tiger (my late granddad had to face these at Anzio - he wasn't a fan). Hitler was though, and wanted to see even larger tanks take to the field. The second part of the programme introduced the Panzer VIII, known as the Maus. This beast was over 200 tons and had armour 19cm thick at its weakest point. As such it was virtually impervious to any battlefield opposition. The problem, however, was its weight, speed, and sheer impracticality. The Germans didn't have an engine small but powerful enough to drive it more than eight miles an hour, had no machine guns to ward off infantry ambushes, and would either have bogged down in wet ground or collapsed any bridge it tried to cross. There seems to be a pattern emerging to these megastructures.
Episode four looked at the development of the notorious Me262, the world's first operational jet fighter. This far outperformed anything in the Allied and Soviet air forces, except the British Gloster Meteor that briefly saw active service. The development of the craft was delayed as both the Luftwaffe and Willy Messerchmitt himself believed/had an interest in continuing the manufacture of piston-driven planes, and thought the war could be won using them alone. By the time the funds started flowing in this direction, the air war was lost and Messerschmitt factories were systematically bombed. Matters weren't helped by an intervention by Hitler who cost development time by insisting the jet be a fighter bomber rather than an interceptor, before eventually relenting. Like the V-2 programme, production was dispersed across Germany. The site of interest to this episode was Walpersberg Hill. Here the Nazis excavated an underground factory/base designed, like La Coupole, to launch machines straight from the production line from a makeshift runway at the hill summit. It was a colossal engineering effort that cost huge quantities of resources, the lives of over 900 slave labourers and produced just 27 fighters before the Americans overran the site.
The final episode looked at the ring of fortifications built around Berlin as the Soviets prepared for their final assault. As such this was about structures rather than a singular construction. It took in the huge anti-tank ditches dug by civilians on the approaches to the capital, the super-bomb proof Führerbunker (not only was it buried beneath the Reich Chancellery, it was capped by a roof of steel-reinforced concrete some four metres thick), and the three flak towers. Constructed in 1940 as anti-aircraft artillery placements during the Battle of Berlin these doubled up as strongpoints and shelters from the fighting. An estimated 60,000 people stayed in them as the war raged outside. Their 11 foot thick walls also proved impervious to Soviet guns and were, unsurprisingly, among the last areas of the city to surrender.
In each case, these buildings and the projects they supported say everything about Nazi Germany. They were all brutally functional to the point of being dysfunctional - time and again the facilities were made vulnerable and inoperable by the 'soft' civilian structures surrounding them to which the Nazis paid scant regard. And all had an element of desperate madness about them. As the war swung against Hitler, his regime preferred to chase wonder weapons that would somehow turn the tide back their way. Yet the V-2, the Me262, the Tiger, all fearsome weapons in their own right showed up too late and in too few number - thankfully. But also how scant resources continued to be poured into these projects right up to the very end of the war says something about the collective madness gripping the Nazis - a flight from a reality their crimes brought down on their heads.
Where Nazi Megastructures was good was it spared no detail about the use of slave labour in these schemes. This was not an indulgent "the Nazis were bad but what amazing engineers they were!" apologetics. The real human costs were shown, as well as the absurdity and pointlessness of the projects.
Yet there was a curious omission. Where was the Holocaust? Surely, the most ambitious, far-reaching, extensive, complex and, sadly, ruthlessly efficient megastructure of all were the networks of death camps, murder factories and crematoria that exterminated between six and seven million people. In terms of resources expended, this monstrous enterprise dwarfed the underground factories, the slave labour assembly lines, the concrete domes and useless tanks. As Third Reich documentation makes clear, throughout the war the wholesale murder of Jews and other "underdesirables" were the Nazis' top priority. Not even chronic labour shortages in German factories stopped the killing. The madness and barbarity of the Nazis can be glimpsed in the concrete ruins they left behind. But to see it truly, fully, Nazi Megastructures needed to go where it failed to do so - the dark heart of their largest, most secret, most disgusting project.
Tens of thousands of people pouring out onto that there Twitter showing support for Ed Miliband? What has the world come to? Stranger things have happened, just not that often.
And so it came to pass that for the best part of 24 hours, #webackEd trended on Twitter. It still is at the time of writing. Starting before last night's round of hyped-up difficulties by @CharlieWoof81 and @jon_swindon, as hashtags go it can be described as an unqualified success. It even managed to resist blandishments and hijackings by trolls and the like.
Of course, trending topics are here today, gone in 30 seconds time. They often mean very little. They (mostly) denote an activity, like, ugh, watching Question Time or Strictly; are questions tweeted in to a celebrity Q&A; or just pick up phrases lots of people are throwing into their tweets. Like 'Happy Christmas'. But not all trends are equal. Tweeters frequently use them to make a point, as per the case here. Tweets of this type are qualitatively different: they reflect a movement of opinion among a large group of people with a computer or mobile device to hand. Can anything then be gleaned from the many tens of thousands of tweets backing Ed Miliband?
Ask any marketing company, they will tell you it is incredibly difficult to get something going viral on Twitter. This is not the brain child of a staffer down One Brewer's Green. It came from real Labour Party supporters and has been picked up by Labour Party supporters. The unity among Labour members of all wings of the party is real enough. There might be grumbles from time to time, but all are united in wanting the party to win next year. They realise the stakes are that high. The same cannot be said of the Tories. Or, it would seem, a couple to a handful of whingers in the PLP. And the members are pissed off. If they can be disciplined and fall in behind the hard work of shifting Dave and co from office, then why can't those who supposedly represent them in Parliament? So there's anger.
There's also an element of grievance, and from that grievance comes forth a new phenomenon: Labour identity politics. In reality, it's nothing novel. People have been talking about and describing themselves as 'tribal Labour' for donkey's years. What is new here is the first collective manifestation of Labour identity politics appropriate to Twitter. The ceaseless drip-drip of tittle-tattle and undermining of Ed Miliband, the comparatively easy ride the Tories get despite insurmountable divisions, the frustration with scabbing Labour MPs, and, crucially, evidence of thousands of like-minded others. Just as the self-described 45'ers banded together in the wake of Scotland saying no, here we have Labour supporters showing a united front on social media as their party comes under sustained attack by its enemies. If that spurs comrades into real world activity and helps recruit a few sympathetic, wavering lefties, that's all to the good. It also shows to the "normal" people on Twitter that contrary to what the rest of the media are saying, there is backing for Ed.
Lastly, there is every chance the constant personal attacks on Ed Miliband could come undone. As a general rule, the British electorate are fair minded. Sections of it might swallow scapegoating of powerless minorities, but generally they do not like what can be interpreted as bullying. When the press gang up on a politician, the deep seated sense of fair play tends to kick in. It's something we saw during the 2010 general election, until Gordon Brown showed himself up as a cynic in light of Gillian Duffy fiasco. And it will happen again. Weird Ed, nerdy Ed, can't-eat-a-bacon-sandwich Ed will work against the peddlers and crankers when policy comes to the fore. When in the leaders' debates it's Ed Miliband arguing for the abolition of the bedroom tax, the curbing of zero hours contracts, of boosting the minimum wage, guaranteeing an energy price freeze, and for more taxes on the rich it all becomes clear why the Tories and their running dogs will stoop to any level to ruin him.
Even the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday is sometimes forced to print the truth. But this morning's front page was not one of those occasions. Apparently, Tristram Hunt "plunges in the dagger and has joined the much-trailed revolt of Labour MPs. Except he hasn't. If you read behind the headline he "revealed his doubts in private conversations with senior Labour colleagues". This is tantamount to writing "we've made this up" or, rather, taking the comments made by Simon Danczuk and transposing them on to someone else.
Much the same can be said of of the reputed 20 shadow ministers working behind the scenes to give Ed Miliband the heave ho. Evidence of a plot? If The Observer's claims want to be taken seriously they have to be a bit more substantial than that. It sounds to me that Danczuk and co are inflating their importance. What in reality has happened is every single whispered whinge, every rolled eyes in Strangers, every grumble in the Members dining room has been puffed up into something it's not. Are there shadow ministers who moan about Ed Miliband. Of course there is - who doesn't moan about their boss. Does that mean a putsch is in the offing? No, absolutely not.
Apart from shedding light on appalling journalistic standards, as well as the efforts - in The Mail's case - the right will go to to demonise and traduce a Labour leader with the temerity to stray ever so slightly from the neoliberal consensus, what else can we take away from this sorry episode? It says a little something about the Westminster bubble, for starters. Imagine what the inside of that universe looks like. It's bounded by narrow point scoring in the chamber, has stakes and obsessions peculiar to it and, at all times, is walled in by what the press and pollsters say. The trip to the monthly constituency meeting, the surgery, and the weekly trek across voters' doorsteps are the few points of contact with the real world. So, after a session in which a member has knocked on and had conversations with 25 or so, what will stick out in their mind. The concerns about anti-social behaviour? Cracked pavements and overhanging trees? Or the one or two voters who have unedifying - pun intended - words to say about the Labour leader? The "truth" of Westminsterland finds confirmation in the cognitive biases it inculcates.
Our plotters have an inability to think beyond polling numbers too. We've been here before. In January 2010 Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt circulated a letter calling for Gordon Brown to go and his replacement by someone else. Then, as now, no leading shadow cabinet figure came forward. They knew that doing so within spitting distance of an election would inflict unnecessary division on the party and, rightly, be seen by party members and close supporters as outright scabs. Learning from that shambles, Danczuk's cosy chats with The Mail are an attempt by an unremarkable UKIP-lite backbencher to bounce one shadcab member into committing career suicide. It has failed, but when they see polling numbers saying a Labour Party led by virtually anyone else would extend the polling lead you can understand the logic of it. Leaving aside the unholy mess a leadership election would now cause, there is absolutely no guarantee a Alan Johnson, or a Chuka Umunna, or an Yvette Cooper-led Labour wouldn't also go downbank. The problem with Labour, ultimately, is political. If the party doesn't address itself to the insecurities that bedevil everyday life, support will remain locked where it's at. A short fillip in the polls from a new leader would not sustain itself all the way to the Spring if nothing else changes.
As it stands right now, the ghost of a plot has not effected a corporeal one. Ed remains in place and isn't going anywhere. All it has done is solidify most of the PLP and the membership behind the election-winning task at hand, highlighted how desperate sections of the press are, and underline the bankruptcy and stupid empiricism of would-be regicides.
I can't remember the last time I heard a song I had completely forgotten. But it happened to me yesterday just as my wig was getting cut. I loved this song when it came out. Loved it so much that it disappeared down the memory hole for 29 years. Here it is in case it slips my mind again ...
Earth shattering events have earth shattering consequences. The consequences of the Scottish referendum have been seismic. Labour north of the border is a bruised sack of bones and skin, punch drunk by a collapsing membership and a fed up electorate. Meanwhile, the nationalist parties - the SNP, but also the Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party - are riding high on the many hundreds of thousands drawn into politics for the first time. Things will never be the same again.
Nor will it be for one of Britain's most dogmatic Trotskyist groups. The group known after its dull and dreary journal, Socialist Appeal, has distinguished itself during the last 23 years of its existence as one of the most undistinguished components of British Trotskyism. SA was born of a split in the old Militant Tendency after a factional struggle over the character of and orientation to the Labour Party. The majority's argument was that as radicalised workers and youth were to be found increasingly outside Labour's ranks, it made sense for Militant to abandon its orientation toward capturing constituency parties and other official bodies and intersect with this potential pool of new recruits. The minority, containing Militant founder and guru Ted Grant, opposed this perspective. Their view was that as the working class start moving, they mechanically work their way through the institutions the labour movement had built up - including Labour.
The disappearance of militant trade unionists and radicalised young people from Labour's ranks, and the political shift to the right was a consequence of the strategic defeats of the 1980s and the restructuring of British capital. These tended toward the disaggregation and individuation of class, making collective action harder to sustain and throwing back consciousness of its potential. Indeed, those same tendencies continue unabated, still. So both the majority and minority were wrong. There were no radical rich pickings to be had outside the Labour Party. Nor were the battalions of fresh, angry proletarians going to appear to fill out the party's ranks. And yet, both factions were right: neither orientation allowed for the building of a substantial revolutionary party organised along (self-defined) Leninist lines.
Yet, SA have now changed their minds. In an article that makes it sound as though Scotland is in a pre-revolutionary situation, they note that post-referendum, many radical embers remain aglow. Compared with plodding along among the "13,000, mostly inactive older people" of Scottish Labour, the leftwing of the Yes movement is pregnant with opportunities. Unfortunately, SA's attempt to intersect with the 45'ers is hindered in two significant respects.
1. The SSP has clearly regained some ground it lost in the late part of the last decade, showing there may well be life after being left for dead by "Scotland's most iconic post-war socialist". As such, they are the initial focus of the SA entry job. The potential difficulty is the Grantites haven't done their homework. Tommy was able to almost destroy the SSP because he was aided and abetted by the CWI and Socialist Worker platforms, both of whom owed their loyalties to leaderships outside the SSP. True, Appeal have - at best - a handful of members in Scotland, but there will be more than a few party activists knocking about less than keen to see another centralist Trot sect pony up asking for admittance. Especially when the article is explicit that it sees the SSP as a means to an end.
2. Socialist Appeal have a huge disadvantage. The SSP are a pro-independence organisation. The much-reduced SWP and Scottish CWI are likewise. Chris Bambery's International Socialist Group were/are a big player in the Radical Independence Campaign. The IMT is not. In fact, in an article published on referendum day, they argued "a separate Scotland would serve to divide Scottish workers from their brothers and sisters down south. An independent Scotland would put Scottish workers and those in the rest of Britain in direct competition." And "On a class basis, an independent Scotland would be a step backward for the historic unity of the working class in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK." Oh dear.
The prospects for the IMT's Scottish turn aren't looking good, and that's before you consider them alongside their much more dynamic, colourful competition and the dead end stupidity of building a (ostensibly) revolutionary organisation. And what does this mean for SA elsewhere? Their entry into the SSP jeopardises their relationship to the Labour Representation Committee. And if it doesn't, the LRC itself might encounter "difficulties" because its affiliate has buddied up with an electoral competitor.
Whatever happens, I confidently predict that the radicalised workers and youth of Scotland will somehow resist Socialist Appeal's beguiling charms and it will, deservedly, remain as irrelevant as it always has been.
In a little over two weeks' time, the Prime Minister is going to be plunged into the biggest party management crisis his leadership has seen when Mark Reckless wins Rochester and Strood. It will be the Tories Yellowstone moment. UKIP's by-election victory would be one tremor too many. The ground will erupt with hundreds of cubic kilometres of molten bile, showering the government with a fallout so catastrophic and deep that the Conservative Party cannot simply bounce back from. Good times. Yet while the abyss continues casting seductive glances Tories are finding difficult to resist, we find opposition benches beset with woe and grumbling. At least so says the BBC. The latest is two (naturally) unnamed disgruntled MPs putting about their discontent, calling for him to go, and claiming backbenchers are openly gossiping about Ed Miliband. Whoopie-doo. Show me a party leader backbenchers don't gossip about.
And that's British politics at the moment. One party heading for a meltdown and another with a smattering of MPs determined to cause one. Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.
But look. Ed Miliband's not about to lay down his office. The Labour leadership is not going to change this side of the general election. And here's why.
1. Labour's unity, despite the best efforts of lobby hacks and continuity Blairites, is real. Yeah there's griping and grousing. When union leaders make some criticisms, it's supposedly evidence of an insurmountable gulf between the labour movement's industrial and political wings. Yet all wings of the party realise that to lapse into infighting now would flush the election down the bog. Which is why our "unnamed MPs" prefer to skulk in the shadows. The costs to their less-than-illustrious careers and, perhaps, chances of reselection would be very expensive indeed.
2. Labour is not the Tory party. One cannot depose the leader in a palace coup and have a newbie in place before Christmas. If Ed goes, there's the protracted process of mustering support in the electoral college and then the rigmarole of PLP, membership, and affiliate ballots. Remember, the Collins report doesn't come into force until after the general election. Who possibly gains from a Labour party turned inwards during the crucial months of the long campaign? I wonder.
3. Want to change the leader? Beware the law of unintended consequences. Imagine what the unlikely event of a PLP rebellion forcing Ed from office would say to the membership and our affiliates. Yes, we'll take your cash. We'll have your evenings and Saturday mornings. But we don't want your democratic decision-making, thanks. Whatever one thinks of the electoral college, Ed won the vote fair and square. Do the moaners and the whingers think members who quite like the very modest steps Labour have made to the left will simply swallow their leader's defenestration? Do they suppose the affiliated trade union leaders, the bulk of whom endorsed Ed are going to sit idly by?
Are there problems with Labour's leadership? Yes, of course. But sorting it out cannot be short-circuited by throwing Ed under the nearest Routemaster. It requires a change of political tack and an understanding of what the Labour party is for. That way the road to victory lies.
At the start of the summer, prospective parliamentary candidates enjoyed a breakfast audience with His Royal Blairness. There was none of the "proper" post-prime ministerial coyness that our Tony normally pretends to. He was frank and open. Sort of. He was asked what he thought of Labour's chances going into the next general election, to which he replied "it's the economy, stupid". Observing that GDP figures are up and relatively strong after years of stagnation, Blair implied that the Tories stewardship of the economy will see them (unjustly) reap the benefits. Just as smilin' old Bill did all those years ago.
Let's just park that up the third way cul-de-sac for a few paragraphs.
A little over a month ago, I was bold/daft enough to suggest that the difficulties besetting the Tories meant that the general election was Labour's to lose. And whaddya know, it turns out the walls of so-called Fortress Scotland are crumbling away, and there are too few troops to man the parapets. Not the kind of situation Labour wants to be in when an insurgent SNP and its leftist baggage hauliers are settling in for a protracted siege. And not ideal for anyone who wants to see the Tories out next year, lest Labour-led coalition jiggery-pokery with the SNP and others can keep the blues and the purple people bleaters from returning to government.
The impact the Scottish meltdown has had on the polls has seen Labour's lead whittled down to somewhere between a point and even-stevens. And so there are mutterings about the leadership, again. While this is nothing new; after all the griping of "shadow cabinet sources" flowed unabated when Labour was bringing home eight per cent leads on 40%+ poll shares. On this occasion, there are reasons to moan. Politics may well have changed, but even then a party looking to return from the opposition benches needs to be doing better. The polls are slipping, Ed Miliband's ratings are truly subterranean, and the party hugely trails the Tories on the economy.
Millions of words have been expended on diagnosing the problems. For the Blairites our policies are too left wing and we got the wrong Miliband. For the left the opposite is true: policy owes too much to the Tories. The truth of the matter is dumping Ed won't work. Neither will promising to slash the deficit and reform (privatise) public services, nor nationalising the top 100 monopolies and squeezing the rich until the pips squeak. And so attention turns to that most nebulous of wonky terms, 'narrative'.
Helpfully, this is the topic of George Eaton's latest in the New Statesman. He asks if Labour can scarcely inspire its own MPs and activists, then how can it be expected to fire up the country? Part of the problem is the incoherence of Labour's message. The cost of living crisis, One Nation, Blue Labour, and the repeated usage of 'Together' in the leader's conference speech have hardly been cohered together in a compelling story on which policies can be hung. Indeed, there is incoherence. We're told that Tory austerity has caused a pain and suffering, and yet our solution is to carry on with the public sector pay freeze. Labour champions investments, not cuts. And undermines its message by promising cuts and pledging to keep the purse strings on a tight leash. You can't have it both ways.
One of the key historical problems for Labour has always been the tension between power and principle, or to be more exact between forming and following public opinion. It sees a British public now up in arms against immigration and social security, but also keen to see the rich getting a kick, the NHS protected, and key utilities renationalised. They want excellent public services and low taxes. How does a party in the business of catching votes square contradictory policy preferences. Labour historically has gone down the empiricist route: this is what the people want, so this is what the people will get. This reached its unedifying apogee in the New Labour years in its tightening of social security sanctions (hello work capability assessment!) and introduction of very strict immigration rules for non-EU nationals. It tried to get round the contradiction of snazzy public services with low taxation by making the Tory-invented private finance initiatives its very own. Each time, New Labour approached the voting public as refracted by the press and adapted its programme to these perceptions. What you might recognise as "traditional" social democratic policies were slipped in now and then provided no horses took fright. The alternative to adaptation is striking out and boldly seeking to lead public opinion. If you provide a coherent enough leftwing programme that champions the interests of working people and the most vulnerable, Labour can cut through the crap and excite opinion with a flourish of decisiveness. The problem is that in the narrow pragmatism of managing a party of government, would the investment of political capital be repaid? Unfortunately, and with the phantom of 1983 ever ready to rattle its chains, there is no way the present leadership, socialised as it was under Kinnock and Blair, are going to strike out in that way when the "facts" of public opinion are so evident.
There is another way beyond empiricism and voluntarism. You can make Labour's narrative as coherent as you like, but it's got to touch real people; not the wonks, not the hacks. This does involve a bit of thinking. Rather than worshipping the attitude surveys and the polling as hard social facts the party has to live and die by, we need to take a scalpel to them. We have to think sociologically. There's plenty of this going on. Ask any switched-on Labour person where UKIP and anti-politics comes from and the answer, regardless of the wing of the party they live in, will likely be the same. Collapse of old industry, social dislocation, mass immigration, housing crisis, service sector dominance, and so on. A few might even mention masculinity as well. If you spend some time going through Labour blogs and publications, all this is there. And yet rather than the beginning of political wisdom, Labour tends to address the symptoms, hence the lack of consistency and - yes - mostly managerial approach to them.
It really is simple. Blair was wrong. It's not the economy, it's a sense of security, stupid. The roots of anti-politics tangle together in a knotty mass of insecurity. Growing economies transform into approving votes only if they coincide with growing affluence, certainty and self-security among the electorate in general. If that's decoupled, the only 'stupid' are those who brandish it like supreme wisdom irrespective of circumstance. And what we have in Britain is an uncoupling of economic performance and living standards. What then might be most appropriate to the circumstances? Why, that old warhorse the cost of living crisis might be helpful here. But rather than hang wonky nonsense about One Nation onto it, Labour needs to build a story about the insecurity blighting people's lives and, crucially, adopt policies that address it. For example, if hire and fire culture was done away with, if the minimum wage was made up to the living wage, if firms were forced to make good the pensions contribution holidays they've been on, if young people could go to university knowing tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt won't wait afterwards, pledging to strip out these roots anxiety and insecurity (among others) could make a massive difference to Labour's fortunes. This then is the story Labour can tell, the future it can sell. Some of its already existing policies would reduce insecurity, but again, the continued, ruinous commitment to austerity runs counter to it.
The path to victory requires leadership and a certain boldness, and also an ability to understand how anxiety works itself out as all kinds of fears and cynicisms. To intersect with that requires a creative pragmatism utterly different to simple empiricism, bound up with a story of how we got into this mess and what Labour's going to do to bring certainty back.
I agree with Julie Bindel. There's a phrase that won't win many friends. In feminist and socialist circles, pornography can polarise opinion in ways few issues can. And as par the course for strict dividing lines, either side are soon painted into absolutist corners. In this case, those against banning porn self-identify as sex-positive as opposed to the sex-negative killjoys on the other side. For the feminists and socialists who take the opposite view, they are the ones who are consistent opponents of sexual violence while the opposition are "malestream" feminists or left friends of the porn industry. Not the ideal starting points for a productive discussion approaching consensus, which helps explain why the debate has been an interminable affair since the 1970s.
Yet if Bindel's article is anything to go by, the chasm might not be as yawning as one supposes. Reading the piece as opposed to rolling one's eyes and filing it away in a drawer marked 'dirge' reveals two positions almost everyone can accept. That porn distorts human sexuality and, generally speaking, normalises objectifying, problematic gender relations. And second, it should not be banned. Yes, that's right, Bindel is opposed to the state banning porn. Finally some common ground, perhaps.
I've argued before that porn can be considered an ideology. That is in the sense Louis Althusser sometimes used it, as a set of ideas and discourses that mediate relations between ourselves and the social world. A UKIP supporter might frame their relationships with East European co-workers through anti-immigrant anxiety. A young Trotskyist could try selling papers to angry pickets in the belief it will progress the class struggle. And a young man, in his first sexual encounter, may pressure his partner into doing things he's watched in porn. There is no semi-coherent "theory" of porn, but an aesthetic that can frame experience of sexual activity.
You might say "big deal". Some people do. After all, what pornography is just people doing sex things on camera, right? No. Mainstream straight pornography* produced by the Californian-based porn industry has a pretty standard set of tropes that repeat themselves. In the majority of cases, men are basically anonymous dicks with bodies appended to them. And women are always insatiable, they just want to be used and, in some cases, abused. Consider the dynamics of the typical scene - the woman is positioned as the object for the viewer, and in turn her object is the co-starring penis. All her ministrations; oral, anal, vaginal, are for audience gratification. The anonymity of the male performer allows them to read themselves into the scene. The performance aims to stoke heterosexual male desire and, typically, it ends with the money shot either in the woman's face, breasts or some other part of her body. The economy of gender portrayed here is simple. The woman is subordinate and submissive, even if she is 'active' as opposed to passive. She willingly, mostly without on screen prompting, goes through the motions. She is not asked if she would like to do something, and would normally be the case in a real sexual encounter, the action grinds on to the film's (male) climax. And when the man has finished, the viewer has finished with that performance too.
The basic model of gender relations here is woman as sexual supplicant. It feeds off the sexual objectification of women long found in everyday Western cultures and imbues it with a pornographic sensibility, feeding into the further commodification and use of women's bodies as sex objects. I don't believe the nonsense of porn being the theory and rape being the practice, but straight, mainstream pornography concentrates in extremis the basic core of gender relations. Or, to be more precise, a set of so-called traditional gender relations whose hegemony has everywhere been challenged and are getting rolled back. Bindel is bang on, mainstream porn contributes to misogyny because it rewrites and restates a backward, reactionary and downright stunted view of women. As feminism - the struggle for women to be treated as human beings - pushes out to sea, porn is among the strongest backwashing currents pushing it back to shore or, worse, onto the rocks.
*More on different forms of porn another time.
Trudie McGuinness is Staffordshire born and bred. She is also Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for Staffordshire Moorlands, where she faces the largely-absent and hands-off Tory MP, Karen Bradley. You can follow Trudie on Twitter here.
Why did you decide to apply for a PPC position?
As a child my favourite TV programme was the news. I cared about what was going on in the world and wanted to have a say in it. Politics affects every aspect of our lives. For me, engaging in politics is about engaging with society itself and trying to build a better world.
It was clear as teenager that my values and beliefs aligned with those of the Labour Party so I joined up aged 18 and have been a member ever since. Even before that, though, I decided that I one day wanted to be an MP. And in particular, I wanted to represent the people of the Staffordshire Moorlands, which is where I was born and lived until I became the first member of my family to go to university. Quite simply, being the Labour MP for Staffordshire Moorlands is my dream job.
And how are you finding the campaign in Staffordshire Moorlands?
I love campaigning and I am really enjoying the work that I am doing both in and behalf of people in the Moorlands. Along with the Moorlands Labour team and our supporters, I am on the doorstep every week finding out what’s going on and taking up issues for people.
Tory-run Staffordshire County Council has been taking austerity measures to whole different level, so thanks to them and their ongoing attacks on our public services, I have had no shortage of campaigns to lead, including the fight to save our libraries and Biddulph Waste & Recycling Centre from closure. We scored a victory with the latter campaign, but are keeping a close watch on Tory plans as they have only granted the Centre (or ‘Bemersley Tip’ as it is known locally) a temporary stay of execution.
By far the most damaging Tory County Council cuts to date, though, are those to our Youth Services, which will be decimated by Christmas time. After 31st December, tens of thousands of young people in our county will no longer have a Youth Service to support them. The vital information, advice and guidance provided by youth workers alongside the positive social activities which they run will all be gone. Over 16,000 people signed the petition to save our youth services, yet the Tories completely ignored public opinion. Indeed, one Tory County Councillor demonstrated his acute ignorance by declaring that “young people go to youth centres to get pregnant”. Such arrogance and ignorance is a disgrace. And we wonder why young people struggle to have faith in politics. It makes me livid.
Are there any issues that keep coming up?
Yes. People feel are sometimes surprised that I am taking such an interest in the issues which affect them because they feel that the representation that they currently get is poor. This adds to the frustration that some people have that politics is divorced from their everyday life. Westminster politics is, of course, remote from the lives of most of us but politics pervades our lives every day and this is something that I am really keen to promote. What we think, what we say, what do really does matter and I want to encourage people to recognise the power that they can have in political decision-making. I want to see more power devolved to people at a local level so that they see more of a direct correlation between their beliefs and actions and how that can shape their community.
I grew up in household rife with political debate, but in which no one was a member of a political party or organisation. Politics is not the preserve of any one person or group. The decisions which shape our society are for us all to have a say in. Public opinion is now such that people will not for very much longer tolerate any less. And nor should they. The digital revolution of the past decade provides huge demand and potential for the spread of greater democracy.
It's 8th May 2015 and you've been elected. What will your constituency priorities be?
I want to be a great constituency MP. I want constituents to know that even if we don’t always agree politically that I will represent the constituency with passion, fairness and dedication. Unlike the current situation in the Moorlands, I want them to know who their MP is that she is fighting for them. So, my number one priority will be to get a highly effective constituency office set up pronto. With that foundation in place, I can fight for the things that really matter to people, which include a living wage, an effective NHS, affordable housing and utility costs, safer and prosperous communities and a more democratic country.
Do you find social media useful for campaigning?
Yes. I am a fan of technology when it is simple to use and allows us to lead richer lives. Both Facebook and Twitter, which I use most often, fit these criteria and I have now witnessed on many occasions the political opportunities that they can provide. For example, earlier this year, with the campaign to save Staffordshire Youth Services, I used social media to great effect to join forces with other campaigners, of all ages and from many different interest groups, to form Youth Against Staffordshire Cuts (YASC). As YASC, we used social media to promote our cause and organise the rally in Stafford, which got a great deal of media coverage all over the county. Tory County Councillors were left looking mystified as to how we had achieved so much during their deliberately short consultation period.
Who are your biggest intellectual influences?
The most powerful influences on my values, beliefs and ideas have come from people whom I’ve met and the experiences that I’ve had rather than from any book that I’ve read. People who have helped to bring intellectual ideas to life and give meaning to my world include teachers from Biddulph High School, where I studied until I went off to university. I smile every time I remember Mrs Elkin bringing the archaic language of Shakespeare to life for us in our English lessons and helping us to deconstruct the metaphysical poets. She introduced us to the heroes and heroines of literature and in so doing became one of mine.
What are you reading at the moment?
I’ve always got a few books on the go. At the moment I am switching between reading Professor Steve Peters’ The Chimp Paradox, Sophie Dahl’s Playing with the Grown Ups, Matthew Alper’s The ‘God’ Part of the Brain, Ruth Ozeki’s A Tale for the Time Being and Happier at Home by Gretchen Rubin.
What was the last film you saw?
At the start of the week, I took my son and two of his friends to the cinema to see Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. It was a joy to hear them all chuckling and giggling at it, which made an otherwise pleasant but largely forgettable film really good fun. As the credits rolled, the three of them gave an impromptu round of applause, which was the icing on the cake. I love watching films with my son. We aim to have a film night once a week.
Do you have a favourite novel?
Surely impossible to have just one favourite out of the whole canon of English literature! I have some favourite authors, though, who include Ian McEwan, Zadie Smith, Milan Kundera, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Sebastian Faulks, Philip Roth and Margaret Atwood. A couple of all-time favourite novels which readily spring to mind are Anna Karenina, Room, The Blind Assassin, Lolita, Saturday and A Week in December. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There will never be enough time to do justice to all the great books out there.
Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major influence on how you think about the world?
Life doesn’t tend to work like that. Our ideas are built from webs spun from thousands of different influences, experiences and words. But, as a Christian, The Bible shapes the core of my beliefs and many of my questions.
How many political organisations have you been a member of?
Let’s see. The Labour Party for 20 years and the Fabian Society and Progress in more recent years. If you count Amnesty International and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, then those too. Plus, I am a member of the GMB and ATL unions. I used to be a member of Greenpeace and North Staffordshire Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (NORSCRAF). So definitely six, but perhaps nine depending on definition.
Can you name an idea or an issue on which you've changed your mind?
I have changed my mind on nuclear power. Having grown up with Cold War rhetoric, I used to confuse nuclear power with the horror threat of nuclear war. I now strongly believe that having a safe, sustainable supply of nuclear power is the only sure way to keep the lights on. Coal and gas power stations are unsustainable and current alternative energy options cannot yet consistently supply us with the volume of electricity that we need. Alongside greater research and development into efficient and affordable greener energy options, we need to increase our dependency on nuclear power.
What set of ideas do you think it most important to disseminate?
All of politics comes back to the experience of the individual, and where individuals have been loved, cared for and have strong self-esteem they are pretty well equipped to deal with many things that life can throw at them. I want people to know that they are worthy, valued and powerful. From here, huge progress for good can come.
What set of ideas do you think it most important to combat?
Racism and snobbery. I am seeing the negative impact of racism born of some of the less well founded and articulated arguments on immigration and I want to counter that. I hugely dislike social snobbery and despise the demonisation of the poor and vulnerable, which has been characteristic of this Tory-Lib Dem government.
Who are your political heroes?
Tony Benn, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela and Betty Boothroyd.
How about political villains?
There are many national figures whose politics I dislike, but if we’re looking at the premier league of villains right now then President Assad of Syria, Robert Mugabe and ISIS are right up there.
What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day?
Nationally, we need to tackle growing inequality. We need to create an economy which benefits the many and not just the few. This includes pushing for a living wage for all, supporting small and medium sized businesses and ensuring that companies and individuals pay the tax that they should. Ultimately, the sustainability of our planet is the most pressing issue but the global financial crisis has helped to push this down the agenda, which has been convenient for many who don’t want to face this Leviathan problem.
If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be?
Based on my experience as a Child Protection Officer in education, I would make it a legal duty to report the abuse of a child. Too many people assume that someone else will deal with the concern or else completely bury their head in the sand. People have been shocked by the scale of child abuse in Rotherham, but the problem of child abuse is everywhere.
What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world?
Food and water security borne of climate change, war and a massively expanded global population.
What would be your most important piece of advice about life?
Have faith.
What is your favourite song?
My favourite song so far this year is Dumb Ways to Die. Not only is it irresistibly catchy, it's a great example of creative public message promotion. For details of other favourite tracks, you'll have to wait until I make it onto Desert Island Discs.
Do you have a favourite video game?
No. But I am advised by a 10 year old that FIFA 15 would be a good answer.
What do you consider the most important personal quality in others?
Just one on its own would be no good, so I’ll name a few. Integrity, generosity, kindness, compassion.
What personal fault in others do you most dislike?
Selfishness.
What, if anything, do you worry about?
In terms of problem-solving rather than worry, I think about the state of the nation, climate change, safeguarding children and how to nurture a happy life for my child.
And any pet peeves?
When you’ve typed something to email or post online and the internet connection fails.
What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?
Keep the faith.
What do you like doing in your spare time?
Planning what I’m going to do next.
What is your most treasured possession?
Treasured possessions include whichever is my current notebook, plus photos and memorabilia linked to loved ones.
Do you have any guilty pleasures?
Maybe.
What talent would you most like to have?
Dance choreography.
If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true - apart from getting loads of money - what would you wish for?
To lead an authentic life and do some good.
Speaking of cash, how, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money?
I would pay off the mortgages of loved ones as well as my own, fund the Labour Party General Election campaign and give more to charity.
If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be?
As it’s three, then my trio of very special friends from my time working at Staffordshire University. Katy, Claire and Sarah are three of the warmest, funniest and most caring people on the planet. Leading busy lives, it’s a minor miracle when the four of us manage to get together, but the wait is always worth it.
Being a PPC is tiring, time consuming and can cost quite a bit. Would you recommend it?
If it’s your dream to be an MP, then yes.
Most read this month were:
1. How to Eradicate UKIP
2. Russell Brand, Narcissist and Comrade?
3. Recomposing Labour
4. Goffman and the Sociology of Video Games
5. The Great High Speed White Elephant
What is this? A post about the SWP doesn't make the list? Nope, it just missed out vs HS2. Might it reveal that the new audience this blog has acquired since the Scottish referendum prefer proper politics to Trotty tittle-tattle? We can but hope.
Yes, speaking of audience this month's has grown again, giving the blog its fourth highest-ever page view total. Jolly jolly good good. Having plenty to blog about re: UKIP and Russell Brand's latest political adventures helped. Who knows what the next month might bring? I was also very pleased to see the Goffman post get a look in. Amazingly, as far as I know, there is absolutely no scholarly activity using interactionism in the way that quick set of musings indicated, so perhaps I'll work on that some more alongside the other projects I'm working on.
Right, who deserves a second chance this month? I'm going for three picks this time - How Labour Can See Off the Greens is self-explanatory. But the answer, in case any "mainstream" labour movement people are reading this, does not involve ultra-left bingeism. The second is Lamenting Lamont, looking at the meltdown of Scottish Labour. And lastly - how could I not? - it's time to channel our inner David Brents: Sociology and Management Speak.
