Parliament is pretty much done. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition consciously uncouples, Members of Parliament relinquish their titles, special advisers and constituency bag carriers return to 'normal people' mode, and the parliamentary estate itself goes into snooze mode. As we stand on the brink of this longest of long election campaigns 'officially' launching there are two questions on politics watchers lips. One, who's going to win this blasted thing? And two, which 100 MPs end this Parliament with the largest Twitter followings? I can't help with the former, though I have my opinions. But the latter? Abso-freaking-lutely. Here then is the list you never wanted but cannot live without. A few observations first before a little bit of analysis at the end. To start off with, this list is not about quality. This is not a compilation of which MP is better at the Twitter than others. It is simple rank ordering by follower size. The more follows a MP has, the further up the list they are. Stating the obvious there, but unbelievably it's something I get asked every year when the commentators' and bloggers' lists appear. Secondly, these totals were true as of yesterday. Thirdly, where there are ties between MPs with the same number of followers, those who started their Twitter account most recently are ranked higher. The logic here is they've taken less time to accrue those followers. It used to be much easier when Twitter still published the proper totals. Fourth, MPs are now in the business of becoming ex-MPs. That title will be removed from Twitter feeds over the coming days as profiles are updated. So it might just be the case that some of the links below will quickly become broken - let me know and I will fix them. And lastly, our pluses and minuses here pertain to the previous list of Tweeting MPs from summer 2013. Just so there is no confusion. Without further ado: 1. (><) David Cameron - 942k (Con) 2. (><) Ed Miliband - 391k (Lab) 3. (><) William Hague - 265k (Con) 4. (><) George Galloway - 238k (Respect) 5. (+1) Nick Clegg - 216k (LibDem) 6. (-1) Tom Watson - 164k (Lab) 7. (><) Ed Balls - 163k (Lab) 8. (+1) Caroline Lucas - 117k (Green) 9. (+2) George Osborne - 110k (Con) 10. (><) Chuka Umunna - 95.5k (Lab) 11. (-3) Grant Shapps - 84.1k (Con) 12. (><) Diane Abbott - 77.5k(Lab) 13. (><) Harriet Harman - 74.6k (Lab) 14. (><) Andy Burnham - 65k (Lab) 15. (><) Jeremy Hunt - 64.5k (Con) 16. (><) Vince Cable - 60.8k (LibDem) 17. (><) Yvette Cooper - 55.6k (Lab) 18. (+2) Stella Creasy - 53.6k (Lab) 19. (+6) Sadiq Khan - 44.5k (Lab) 20. (+6) Rachel Reeves - 42.2k (Lab) 21. (><) Zac Goldsmith - 40.8k (Con) 22. (-4) Eric Pickles - 40.5k (Con) 23. (-1) Douglas Alexander - 38.8k (Lab) 24. (-5) Chris Bryant - 37.7k (Lab) 25. (-1) David Lammy - 36k (Lab) 26. (+1) Luciana Berger - 35.2k (Lab) 27. (+25) John Penrose - 34.7k (Con) 28. (+13) Jim Murphy - 34.4k (Lab) 29. (+6) Gordon Brown - 32.4k (Lab) 30. (-1) Caroline Flint - 31.2k (Lab) 31. (+22) Tristram Hunt - 30.9k (Lab) 32. (+4) Tessa Jowell - 29.6k (Lab) 33. (+9) Douglas Carswell - 29.2k (UKIP) 34. (+4) Gloria De Piero - 28.5k (Lab) 35. (-12) Nadine Dorries - 27.3k (Con) 36. (+117) Nicky Morgan - 26.4k (Con) 37. (-9) Ben Bradshaw - 26.2k (Lab) 38. (-6) Ed Vaizey - 25.7k (Con) 39. (-2) Jeremy Corbyn - 25.1k (Lab) 40. (-6) Tim Farron - 24.9k (LibDem) 41. (-2) Danny Alexander - 24.8k (LibDem) 42. (-11) Stephen Twigg - 22.9k (Lab) 43. (-13) Kerry McCarthy - 22.7k (Lab) 44. (+1) Liz Kendall - 22.4k (Lab) 45. (+50) Justine Greening - 21.8k (Con) 46. (+1) Rory Stewart - 21k (Con) 47. (-7) Liam Byrne - 20.2k (Lab) 48. (+15) Dan Jarvis - 19.9k (Lab) 49. (-5) Lynne Featherstone - 19.6k (LibDem) 50. (-1) Greg Barker - 19.5k (Con) 51. (+13) Sarah Wollaston - 19.2k (Con) 52. (+7) Matthew Hancock - 19.1k (Con) 53. (+1) Michael Fabricant - 19k (Con) 54. (+11) Hilary Benn - 18.8k (Lab) 55. (+3) Margaret Hodge - 18.2k (Lab) 56. (-8) Jo Swinson - 18.2k (LibDem) 57. (-6) John McDonnell - 18.1k (Lab) 58. (-12) Charles Kennedy - 17.9k (LibDem) 59. (+1) Steve Reed - 17.6k (Lab) 60. (+19) Elizabeth Truss - 17.3k (Con) 61. (-5) Julian Huppert - 17.3k (LibDem) 62. (+15) Esther McVey - 17.1k (Con) 63. (+63) Mark Reckless - 16.5k (UKIP) 64. (+25) Norman Lamb - 16.2k (LibDem) 65. (+5) Michael Dugher - 16.1k (Lab) 66. (-11) Jamie Reed - 16k (Lab) 67. (+7) Emily Thornberry - 16k (Lab) 68. (+38) Angus Robertson - 15.9k (SNP) 69. (-19) Peter Hain - 15.6k (Lab) 70. (+10) Mary Creagh - 15.3k (Lab) 71. (+5) Lisa Nandy - 15.2k (Lab) 72. (+1) Kate Green - 14.9k (Lab) 73. (-16) Jesse Norman - 14.9k (Con) 74. (-6) Jonathan Reynolds - 14.9k (Lab) 75. (-8) Alison McGovern - 14.6k (Lab) 76. (+11) Maria Eagle - 14.5k (Lab) 77. (+4) Toby Perkins - 14.3k (Lab) 78. (-9) John Woodcock - 14.1k (Lab) 79. (-7) Tom Brake - 14k (LibDem) 80. (+6) Debbie Abrahams - 13.7k (Lab) 81. (+39) Brandon Lewis - 13.7k (Con) 82. (+9) Angela Eagle - 13.6k (Lab) 83. (-1) Robert Halfon - 13.6k (Con) 84. (><) Andy Slaughter - 13.5k (Lab) 85. (-7) Andrew Gwynne - 13.4k (Lab) 86. (+15) Lucy Powell - 13.4k (Lab) 87. (+155) Penny Mordaunt - 13.3k (Con) 88. (+14) Jonathan Ashworth - 13.1k (Lab) 89. (+115) Anas Sarwar - 12.9k (Lab) 90. (-15) Greg Mulholland - 12.9k (LibDem) 91. (+170) Simon Danczuk - 12.7k (Lab) 92. (-20) Kevin Brennan - 12.7k (Lab) 93. (+10) Karl Turner - 12.6k (Lab) 94. (+15) Emma Reynolds - 12.6k (Lab) 95. (+50) Margaret Curran - 12.5K (Lab) 96. (+2) Jon Cruddas - 12.3k (Lab) 97. (+74) Nick Hurd - 12.3k (Con) 98. (+2) Nadim Zahawi - 12.3k (Con) 99. (-14) Diana Johnson - 12.2k (Lab) 100. (+12) Grahame Morris - 12.2k (Lab)
Any surprises? Not really. The PM and Leader of the Opposition are up top, and the more senior the figure the more likely they are to inhabit the upper echelons. The stand out exceptions being George Galloway and Caroline Lucas who, for a variety of reasons, command attention greater than their 'official' standing. It's also gratifying, speaking as a Labour drone, to see Twitter resolve some notable grudge matches in our party's favour. Notably Burnham/Hunt, and Balls/Osborne. Twitter, it is oft noted, is a medium that favours the left. It calling last night's Paxo/Burley interviews for Ed Miliband while the ICM/Graun snap poll plumped for Dave is a case in point. Does this list bare the supposition out? 59 MPs here are from the Labour Party. Add in the Greens, SNP, and Respect that's 62% for the left of centre. So, yes. Only 25 hail from the Conservatives. Plus UKIP's twosome the right finish Parliament with just 27 of the top 100 spaces. As for the poor old Liberal Democrats, they have just 11 MPs to brag about. Obviously, there's a great deal of overlapping following going on, but a simple totting up by party yields these numbers: Conservative 1.895m, Labour 2.168m, and LibDem 417,800. Much closer when set out like that, but considering Dave's Twitter count alone counts for 49.7% of the Tory total (whereas Ed's is 18% of Labour's), followers are much more evenly spread among its MPs. To make a naff point, what do you expect from the only mainstream political party pledged to do something about inequality? What else does the list tell us? 33 MPs in the top 100 are women, which is well above the composition of Parliament as a whole. Between them they account for a simple total of 938,800, or 19.5% of the pool of followers. Overrepresented on one measure, underrepresented on another. How about BME MPs? I make just seven MPs. A small number, yes, but sightly above the proportions in the House of Commons as a whole. Obviously, a lot of the MPs on this list are about to become permanent ex-MPs, so next time I do this, which will be the end of the 2015-16 Parliament in summer next year, expect there to be a great many new entries. It will also be interesting to see if movement on the chart corresponds to media profile and responsibilities. This list at first glance suggests it might. It will also be interesting to see that if indeed the government does change whether more Tories shall appear as they settle into opposition mode. I suspect not, but we shall see.
Petrolheads everywhere, sob into your empty oil cans. For Top Gear is, as was, no more. The verdict couldn't have been anything else. Whatever you might think about Jeremy Clarkson, which in my case is not a lot, it was impossible even for him to cling on to his job after a 20 minute tirade, followed by a 30 second assault - all because a steak dinner wasn't available. At a stroke, Clarkson became a demi-god to babymen everywhere but cost him a prestige job and an international audience numbering in the tens of millions. We know why Clarkson is feted by so many, but what I'm more interested in are the displays of solidarity from his establishment friends. Expense-fiddling Maria Miller blames the BBC for not dealing with "its larger than life characters" properly, as if somehow it is responsible for Clarkson's punching out a member of staff. "How stupid can BBC be in firing Jeremy Clarkson? Funny man with great expertise and huge following" tweeted Rupert Murdoch; "The BBC is like a distant planet. Alien and out of touch” scrawled Katie Hopkins in her Sun column last week, and Dave: "I hope this can be sorted out because it [Top Gear] is a great programme and he is a great talent." By far the most egregious example comes from our good friend Louise Mensch, professional ex-MP, gobshite, and cheerleader for all that is rancid. Here's a petard. Go hoist yourself with it, Lou:
@LouiseMensch Serious? You think it's okay to hit someone, at work or anywhere else? Wimps if we say violence is unacceptable? Peace & love
— Laura Marcus (@MissLauraMarcus) March 25, 2015
@LouiseMensch Blimey... so if you and I ever meet and your inane remarks piss me off so much that I lamp you one, that's okay is it?
— Laura Marcus (@MissLauraMarcus) March 25, 2015
What a risible spectacle. Is there a better demonstration of how deeply the view that laws and everyday common decency doesn't apply to them runs among the entitled, hypocritical, and monied imbeciles clustering like coprophilic flies around Clarkson's person? Why though? Is it because the conservative establishment, whose raison d'etre is continued political dominance, are simply falling over themselves to help out a mate? Yes. And no. Clarkson's establishment creds are very well-established, and nothing extra needs adding to that. There is something else that has left them deeply anxious, and it's this: they're losing. Conservatism as it stands now is time-limited and on its way out. Even if by an awful miracle they pull off a general election win, the decline will continue unabated. Dave's calling time on his premiership presumptuously, the EU referendum, UKIP, and jockeying for life after Dave will ensure that a moderate, centre right makeover some are pleading for is not happening any time soon. As their movement is in slow-mo collapse, so their cultural bastions are crumbling. Sure, in many ways the neoliberal charge Thatcher led in the 1980s is deeply embedded in the social fabric. Her attempt, shamefully aided and abetted in the Blair years, to encourage a cost/benefit homo economicus as everyone's default mental apparatus, is still with us. It took a generation to bed down, and will probably take just as long to root out. Their moment of triumph is also the occasion of their historical defeat. It has become dislocated from the Conservative project. In successfully encouraging Britain's wage and salary slaves to look to anything but collective organisation based on class for salvation, increasingly large numbers merely treat work as a means to an end, an inconvenience to be got over with as quickly as possible so one can live. As the crisis posed capital by an unruly labour movement is resolved, so another starts to open around the legitimation of work itself. Hence why 1970's-style radical workplace economism has comparatively little purchase, but likewise why the Tories and so-called Tory values have a hard time cutting through - particularly with younger cohorts. Traditional family values, no. The mapping of Britishness onto whiteness, no. Overt stupidity and bigotry, no. Mean-spiritedness, increasingly not. The union itself, increasingly shaky. If we wish to flatter it, it's telling that conservative intellectual firepower is all concentrated in the declining Tory press whose readership tends to be middle-aged-to-elderly. Apart from occasional stabs at tabloid telly, usually to rile up antipathy toward a powerless minority or those in receipt of benefits, our heavily mediatised cultural landscape is almost a no-go zone for conservative figures. Clarkson stands out because he is part of a dying breed. There are few, if any, that command the genuinely wide following he does, and this is why the conservative establishment are squealing like a pig recently parted with its knackers. Their cultural standard bearers are dropping off the TV schedules and commanding zero following out there. When celebrities do come out as Tory supporters, like Gary Barlow did, they're pilloried. Alternatively, there's nothing at all wrong with burnishing one's lefty, social justice creds a laPaloma Faith. The cling to Clarkson because, increasingly, he's the only "non-political" figure they've got putting across their tedious, small-minded commonsense. They instinctively feel their Gramsci even if the left does not. I'm sure Clarkson will wash up with his hangers on elsewhere. He is bankable, after all. Nevertheless, to be edged out of what probably remains the most trusted and well-respected broadcasting institution in the world is a significant devaluation of whatever collective cultural capital the conservative side of things have left.
It's been a long, tedious road; but here we are. In regular slots since the 13th October, 2010 Dave and Ed have faced off in gladiatorial combat over the dispatch box. How did it go? It was pretty poor, from Labour's perspective. Especially when, for those who score such things, Ed Miliband had come out on top. As you might expect, Ed started with the question mark over the Tories' VAT plans. Referencing Dave's retirement plan and his desire to give "straight answers to Dave questions", he was asked whether he would rule out a VAT rise? As Osborne had previously said he had "no plans", it was hardly shocking that - for once - he gave an affirmative answer to the VAT rise. Unfortunately, Ed had expected the usual obfuscation and nonsense and was caught on the hop. Clearly surprised, his follow up - does the PM agree that cuts are due to be greater under the next Parliament than this? - he hit back with a question of his own: does Labour rule out a National Insurance rise? Ed looked very uncomfortable and never regained the initiative. It doesn't matter that answers given are the Prime Minister's prerogative, it made the Labour leader look weak and indecisive. And that was it, each subsequent question, on net migration, on NHS reorganisation, on cuts to the top rate of income tax, all these were effortlessly side-stepped and countered with accusations of "Labour's jobs tax". For someone who's been doing this for four-and-a-half years and knowing what a slippery customer Dave is, Ed should have seen this coming a mile off and gone with something else instead. Remember, as Kevin Maguire notes, PMQs is solely a point scoring exercise - Labour would have been better off leaving the Tory VAT uncertainty to fester until they ruled it out themselves. The rest of the session was the usual Parliamentary theatre. Though it's worth noting that while he was happy to denounce the SNP and liken Ed to "Alex Salmond's poodle", he could barely hide his glee in a reply to a Scottish Labour MP that his seat is likely to be taken by the nationalists. A point to ponder on, that. Most Wednesdays, I am one of those very sad sacks who regularly tune in. I can't help myself. But like nearly everyone else, as a spectacle it is awful and sums up everything that is wrong with how we do politics in Britain. The principle of holding the Prime Minister to account is fine. The practice on the other hand is a farce. There is no accountability, no straight answers, just bellowing, strutting, and public school bullying. At least this is something Labour understands, and has pledged to look at the format as well as introduce regular people's question times where the PM is grilled directly by members of the public. This is much better. Otherwise PMQs will carry on much as it has done, an exemplar of all that is rotten and out-of-touch in what passes for this country's democracy.
How do you deal with people who have committed horrific and violent acts and yet at the same time have not been held criminally responsible for them? This is the premise for the latest two-parter from Louis Theroux, who in recent years has graduated from his tabloid telly documentaries to more mature - and darker - subject matter. This series sees him peer into several Ohio State psychiatric hospitals to meet the inmates placed there by the courts after being found NGRI - not guilty by reason of insanity. In this first episode the accent is very much on rehabilitation. This facility is not a lock up and throw away the key-type institution. The ghoulish and the titillated would not find a Hannibal Lecter analogue here. But the question remains and, given the nature of the crimes committed, are rehabilitated patients ready for the outside world again? And is it willing and ready to accept them? As is usual Theroux practice, he tells the story through a number of character studies. The first we meet is Jonathan, a man who had spent two years in this particular hospital. Having had a history of mental illness that began with depression, he developed the delusion that his dad had abused him at a young age and was therefore responsible for his unhappiness. And so one morning, while his back was turned, Jonathan stabbed his father to death. In the seven years since, he has come to terms with actions. It took several months for him to realise that he had done something truly awful and now believes he wasn't abused as a child. Later on in the show, Jonathan goes to the assessment board who advance him up to movement level five. These levels correspond to how "well" the psychiatric staff deem a patient. The higher the level, the more responsibilities and freedoms they can have. In Jonathan's case, as he has been making good progress with his treatments and responding to them well, getting awarded the highest level will allow him to leave the hospital unsupervised. And he plans to use this to visit the local library, go to church on Sundays, and have dinner with his Mom. The only problem is, which he recognised, were the triggers that may spark off an outburst or threatening behaviour. In Jonathan's case, he knew that stress was the catalyst - the last time he had encountered it was when someone recognised him but for his part he was able to resolve the issue and was able to prevent his symptoms from exhibiting. We also meet Cory as he's about to undergo a periodic reassessment. As someone who is also on movement level five, he has concerns about his eventual release and being able to make it on his own, especially as he's not looking forward to living alone. Probed gently about why he's inside, he had also suffered a catalogue of mental health problems. It came to a head when his girlfriend slashed her wrists and thought that this was part of some conspiracy against him. This brought on the delusion that if he was to die, somehow his death would help Obama get elected to the White House. When the police turned up he attacked the lead officer with an iron bar, and despite getting shot three times he was able to seriously injure him. Talking frankly in front of the camera with a psychiatrist, he admits to hearing voices seeing shooting stars. Sometimes he does what the voices tell him, but won't listen if they suggest bad things. Besides, he says he knows they're not real. Judith's case was something of the stand out. She had been hospitalised for five years for stabbing a woman on the bus. Despite witnesses, she denies this took place. She also recognises that she's been diagnosed schizophrenic since the 70s but denies her mental illness. Judith believes that she is being held against her will because her release would mean some very powerful people will get embarrassed. While clearly exhibiting mental health problems during her screen time, I was reminded of Erving Goffman's famous book Asylums - no patient could progress through the system until they admit they are ill and submit voluntarily to the programme. In Judith's case, because she refuses to countenance her illness she's basically stuck and doomed to remain there indefinitely until she does. Louis did introduce us to a tentative success. After five years, William had been approved for conditional release. He had been committed for reckless driving, after getting the notion Wright Patterson Airforce Base were watching him from space. He also simultaneously believed himself to be the Muslim messiah and was in psychic contact with Benjamin Netanyahu. At the same time he suffered with bi-polar disorder, and we see him obsessively checking his medicine before bidding the hospital farewell. As far as he was concerned, these were what stood between him and insanity. We catch up with him later in the month since release, along with his mom Beverley. Here we are treated to a potted case history that seemed to begin when William was 15/16, shortly after he started experimenting with heavy doses of LSD. Beverley is adamant this is where his problems stem from because as she put it, "do you want me to ever admit that I gave birth to a nut?" How very supportive. Unfortunately, dealing with the final patient, Eric, we're reminded why the rehabilitation procedures and regimen of medicines discharged patients have to abide by are so stringent. In 1989 Eric was out on weekend release and for whatever reason, he did not take his meds. Eric ended up killing two people. Right now, he's stuck on movement level three seemingly unable to progress higher, apparently because of a 'verbal incident' tat has basically set him back 12 months - it won't be until next year before the assessment board meet again to determine his case. Nevertheless, he hasn't given up hope. As a serious exploration of mental illness, Louis Theroux certainly deserves some congratulation for turning in a piece of film-making that explores it sensitively in much the same way his previous pieces paedophiles and American jails had done. These are not cardboard cut outs. In most cases they are shown to be people trying to come to terms with what they've done and how going through the system is helping rehabilitate them. This seemed especially the case with Jonathan. Though probably an effect of getting used to the presence of cameras, as the show progressed even lay people could see how his behaviour improved. He appeared more thoughtful and reflective, and indeed went out his way to thank Louis for asking non-medical questions that caused him pause for thought. There is still a huge distance to travel before mental illness is accepted, as well as treated with the due seriousness it deserves. But as someone who is fortunate enough to have good mental health, there's a good chance Sunday night's show did its bit to helping the tendency toward acceptance along. However, there is one gripe with By Reason of Insanity I have an issue with. And that's informed consent. You get the impression there had to be some serious negotiations between the BBC and Ohio's mental health services. After all, this was the first time in 60 years that cameras had been let into any of their facilities. Yet where do the patients themselves stand with this? While all those interviewed appeared capable of making responsible decisions up to a point, were they informed that attracting extra publicity to their cases could have consequences for them on the outside? Even if the documentary is due for broadcast only in Britain, we live with the internet and it wouldn't be too difficult for something intended for audiences over here could circulate over there. Especially when none of the hospitals featured would be particularly difficult for Ohio residents to track down. So what were the patients told and what did their doctors advise? While doing a good job on mental illness overall, it is these troubling questions that are left unanswered.
How short are political memories? Being someone with stints in Leninist organisations behindme, one lesson I talk from those times was how the party styled itself as the collective memory of the class. Hence why the repetitious lead offs on the Russian Revolution and rinse and repeat articles on the old beards. However, it turns out those comrades were right. In the Labour Party, as a rule, there is little sense of shared histories. Policies that were tried and failed before make comebacks from time to time. There is little systematic education and therefore the lessons learned by previous generations of activists are haphazardly handed down informally to newer members. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are a qualitatively different story. More so than Labour. they appear to live from moment to moment, chasing polls and obsessing over headlines in papers whose circulation and influence shrinks by the day. History is not something to be learned about, for the drawing of necessary lessons, but rather serves as a convenient stick to batter the opposition. That brings us to this evening's announcement that Dave is stepping down at the end of any second term he may be elected to serve. Leaving aside the fact that's not likely to happen, it is something of a hostage to fortune. Westminster villagers have long known his plan was always to say au revoir after successfully getting Britain through the EU referendum two years hence, so nothing really new there. Yet, it comes back to politics goldfish-like memory. Only 10 years have passed since Blair entered his final election having made a similar pledge. How did that work out for him? Two years of dogged questions about his resignation date, press speculation about little else, and a derailing of whatever political agenda Blair had as it was swallowed by gossip and nonsense. What then is Dave thinking? Does he want endless questioning at every PMQs and press conference to be about the date of his departure? Does he think his awful backbenchers are going to behave themselves like good little boys (and they are overwhelmingly boys) while he serves out his term? Of course not. Officially he's made the nice noises of letting someone new take the reins, name-checking Osborne, May, and Johnson. But it's politics we're talking about here. There are good reasons. And there are real reasons. One might be tempted to see this as an attempt to drive terriblepress out of public consciousness, and thereby improve Tory electoral hopes. Though, as Alastair Campbell points out, there's fat chance of that happening for other reasons. No, my smart money is going on the UKIP factor. We all know the Tories are having a tough time as the purple people bleaters menace the party from the right. While there is a little bit of polling evidence that the challenger parties are getting a squeeze, come May it's ludicrous to assume the Green and UKIP vote respectively will collapse down to levels seen at the last general election. There is a section of the formerly core Tory vote that are playing footsie with UKIP. They don't like Dave and his "lefty" ways, but also know that casting their lot in with Nigel Farage might imperil Conservative election chances. They're torn and in a tight contest, which way they break can make a difference in a score or more marginal seats. This then is a sop to this brigade. Dave is declaring to these people that if you vote for the Tories, you won't have to put up with the PM's gay-marrying, husky-hugging, air-brushing nonsense for much longer. Vote Tory but don't get Dave. Except you will get Dave for the full five years. As gambits go, it has Crosby's fingerprints all over it. But will it work? It's unlikely. Dave's one talent is that he looks the prime ministerial part. He's the weak man of British politics, but also the teflon man as well. The awfulness of his party, his regressive policy agenda does not stick to his person. So be declaring that the Conservative Party's main general election asset has only a limited shelf life smacks of politics that aren't particularly smart.
As Tory scandals go, it's a bit of a corker. Forget Grant Shapps and his name-changing hijinks, the furore that has erupted over Afzal Amin's attempted dealings with the EDL is the real deal.If you don't know what I'm talking about and asking "Afzal who?", then where have you been? Here is an incriminating extract from one recording made between Amin, the Tory PPC for Dudley North (where they're trailing Labour and UKIP in the polls), and representatives of the EDL:
This is my fantasy. My idea is this – I’ve discussed it with Tommy and lots of other people – if I could demonstrate to the people in Dudley that I can be a positive voice for community cohesion, for campaigning against the evils and the terrorism and the child grooming and all the rest of it, then that would help me a lot in the forthcoming Election. One way of doing that is, if you were to announce a second march about the mosque, and then we have two meetings with the chief of police, members of the Muslim community, we all play our roles. You say, ‘Yeah, we’re going to do a march, we’re campaigning and so on.’ We have a second meeting where things are a bit calmer. Then at the third one, we have a press conference where you say ‘We were going to do a march… the chief police asked Afzal Amin, members of the Muslim community, we’ve sat together and... we’re going to work closely together.’ That will ... bring the English Defence League out of the shadows into the mainstream political debate. ... And if I win my election in Parliament, you’ve got a very strong, unshakeable ally who is going to work hard to get you involved in all the institutions of the State and get you the exposure you need and the people in Parliament need to us... Like I said from the very beginning, 95 per cent of what you want to campaign against, we’re with you.
Crikey. To have a Muslim court an anti-Muslim organisation to engineer a faux protest against Muslims is real deal cynicism. The Tories have rightly suspended Amin, pending an investigation and as such he is entitled to presumptions of innocence, etc. Yet when our Afzal is not so much handed a spade by the EDL, but gleefully starts digging his political grave with it. But I've got to hand it to Amin. Taking his cue from his masters, he's trying to brazen it out by denying the allegations. "They're part of an ongoing dialogue" seems to be the message. Be that as it may, then why offer "get you involved in the institutions of the state"? Sounds something straight out of Golden Dawn's attempts to colonise the Greek state apparatus. This spotlight on Amin has drawn attention to his role as a jobbing lecturer on the taxpayer's tab at £2,400 per talk. Clearly I'm in the wrong game. How many other friends of the political establishment pocket huge monies? What else can be said about this sorry affair? As many people have pointed out, because the Tories are trailing third in Dudley North by some margin it's quite clear Amin was looking for a short cut that could get him back into the race. I pity the fool for mistaking an election campaign for a cross country run. As he offered cash to "a couple of white working class lads" who would go canvassing for him, perhaps Amin and other Tories might wish to reflect why their party has a hard time attracting working class people of any sort, especially when a stubborn section of it has traditionally turned out and lent them their votes at election time. When a movement decays, it becomes capable of idiotic and counter-productive things. Such is the lot of British Conservatism. As it slips away, it cannot but help inflict wounds upon itself. And that will forever remain the case until it does what needs to be done to reinvent itself as a moderate centre right party. There may well be one, two, many Afzal Amins rrady to trip up and hasten Tory decline. Of course, there is no evidence of collusion between the EDL and party higher ups, but it can only serve to toxify them further. Forget vote Conservative, get UKIP, it's now vote Tory, get EDL.
If you weren't a certain age in the late 1980s, it's difficult to describe how massive Michael Jackson was. Almost six years dead, he's a bit of a joke. The man with the plastic face and an alleged unhealthy interest in children. Yet at the peak of his powers in the late 80s Jackson was part of the elite of megastardom, a space he occupied with few figures - Madonna, perhaps Prince, assorted bankable Hollywood folk. He carried about him a venerable aura. The press, of course, had a field day with Jackson before those allegations came to light but then, rumours of oxygen tanks, purchases of the Elephant Man's remains, Bubbles, and the fairground attraction on his ranch made him all the more beguiling. Especially to kids. The back-to-back success of Thriller and Bad was followed in short order by Moonwalker. As a film, I remember thinking it an unholy mess, an opinion that hasn't been assuaged with the passage of time. It's a series of extended videos threaded together without any narrative fidelity, except for the figure of Jacko getting into scrapes and capers. Most will remember Moonwalker for its bizarre main segment, a wee adventure that sees Jackson defeat an evil plot. A Mr Big (not that Mr Big) wants to conquer the world, and plans to do it by getting children addicted to drugs. Queue some dancing and bad guy killing that sees Jacko transform into a death-dealing robot. As per most action-oriented films from the late 80s on, the license went out to tender and it was promptly snapped up by Sega. They churned out a creditable arcade game, and the topic of this very blog post. Moonwalker landed on the MegaDrive not long after its North American launch. As Nintendo had all the big stateside publishers locked down with a dodgy and subsequently illegal set of agreements that prevented them producing the same game for rival formats, Sega attempted to command attention by getting top celebs (mainly, nay almost exclusively major sports stars) to put their name to their games. Who then bigger than the King of Pop?
If anything, Moonwalker the game works much better than it ever did as a film. Based loosely around the Shinobi engine that was getting an outing in the contemporaneous E-SWAT, Dick Tracy, and, unsurprisingly, The Revenge of Shinobi, Sega's interpretation of Jacko's hubristic masterwerk is actually a jolly, competent and (whisper it) good action platformer. You take on the role of Jackson in his Smooth Criminal get up over five levels, offing goons, dogs, spiders, and zombies. You have to explore every nook and cranny, because you won't be allowed to progress unless you collect all the, um, children. Each level borrows a theme from the flick, with the exception of the third, which is inspired by the grave yard featured in Thriller. As per gaming conventions Jacko has to face a not-terribly taxing boss before progressing to the next stage. Four or five swipes with your magic powers normally does the trick. And then, with level five done and dusted Jacko morphs into a spaceship(!) and you do battle with Mr Big in a first person dog fight. All the while, the MegaDrive does an admirable job of rendering his big hits chip tune-stylee. This wasn't the first game to be based around a celebrity or pop star. That accolade probably belongs to Frankie Goes to Hollywood, but what Moonwalker managed was the capture of an artist's image. In contrast to other film adaptations, this was a slickly programmed affair full of fantastic - and even then unintentionally hilarious - little touches. Contemporary reviews waxed lyrical about Sega's rendering of the smart bomb mechanic, which by then was a staple of gaming. Keep your finger down on the magic bottom and boom! Jackson leads the assembled bad dudes in a synchronised dance performance, after which they all drop dead. Brilliant. Even dogs and spiders merrily join in too.
It couldn't be any other way, really. Jackson was reportedly consulted on the development of Sega's titles so, if you like, the progammers had to work towards his ego. When you've collected the children, Bubbles appears and guides you to the end-of-stage face off. Attacking in the air sees Jacko striking a trademark supercool pose. Hold down the magic button without setting the dance bomb and your hat turns into a deadly projectile that can slice through several enemies. And there are a few moves that serve no game mechanic at all. You can grab your crotch, stand yourself on your tippy toes and, yes, moonwalk. In fact, there is an argument for regarding the Jackson sprite as the most studied avatar up to that time capable of multiple animations. Regardless of what he's doing he always looks effortlessly cool, a lesson Sega took and applied later to Sonic the Hedgehog. The second point is the in-game scenery. Being able to manipulate your environment is standard in modern games, but back then, not so much. Sure, Mario was able to bump along breaking open boxes with his bonce. Players were familiar with traversing obstacles and the like, but interacting directly with it was less common. Not so in Moonwalker. It sees you opening doors and windows, breaking into car boots, and smashing down walls of rock all in the background scenery. What is better though are small, unnecessary, but delightful touches. Walk on the baby grand on the first level, and you get the plinky-plonk of random piano notes. Stand on a fire hydrant and spin, using the water to kill off your enemies. And why not smash up Mr Big's computers just for the hell of it? Okay, such interaction with the backdrop is strictly limited, but it was virtually unseen in 1990. If environmental manipulation had an originating point, this was it. Moonwalker these days is one of the more sought after titles for the MegaDrive and Master System, possibly because of the notoriety attaching to Jackson's name as it isn't particularly rare. Au contraire, it sold well in all of Sega's key markets. For my money, Moonwalker is an important game, though not recognised as such by the keepers of the video game canon.
Joy Garner is is a Labour councillor representing Burslem Park ward on Stoke-on-Trent City Council. She is the cabinet member for housing, neighbourhoods, and communities. Joy was also Labour's candidate in Staffordshire for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections back in 2012. In those rare moments she's not doing political work, Joy can be found tweeting here. Do you also find social media useful for activist-y things? Yes - to those who are already connected. Many people in Stoke-on-Trent still have no home computers. Have you been ever tempted to take up blogging? Yes - then looked at my available time, had a drink of coffee, and decided, no. They only work if you can put very regular posts on them. Apart from All That Is Solid (of course), are there any blogs you regularly follow? Yes, most of the well-known political blogs and some local ones. What are you reading at the moment/what's the last thing you read? Buster: The Dog Who Saved a Thousand Lives by Will Barrow, and Das Boot by Lothar-Gunther Buchheim. Both are about war. Buster is an army sniffer dog, very modern. Das Boot is a WW2 German submarine book/film/TV series. The futility of war. The day to day drudgery and threat to life of the common soldier/mariner. Do you have a favourite novel? The one book I do re-read is Pride and Prejudice. Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major influence on how you think about the world? I love factual books, and TV documentaries. However, there are two books of fiction based on the true life experiences at the time they were written, that have influenced me the most. Of Mice and Men by Jonn Steinbeck, and Black Beauty by Anna Sewell. The hard life of the working man in both, and the cruelty of man to working animals (horses in Victorian England), in Black Beauty. It's the book that really brought animal rights to the fore. Who are your biggest intellectual influences? I really struggle with this one. Who or what? I have lived the 60's, 70's and 80's and really believed that 'things could only get better' in 1997! So life and listening, learning and remembering are my influences. What was the last film you saw? Interstellar. Thought=provoking for a sci-fi film. How about TV shows? My all time favourite is Das Boot. These days I try not to miss NCIS, Eastenders, The Big Bang Theory and, of course, Thursday means Question Time and This Week. How many political organisations have you been a member of? Only ever been in the Labour Party. I am also a member of USDAW and Unity. There are numerous lobby groups I am a member of like Amnesty too. Can you name an idea or an issue on which you've changed your mind? There are some I wasn't very strong on, which I have now firmed up. What set of ideas do you think it most important to disseminate? Freedom, equality, democracy. What set of ideas do you think it most important to combat? All forms of extremism. Who are your political heroes? John Smith, Nelson Mandela, the Mahatma Ghandi, and the Dalai Lama. Sorry, all men! How about political villains? Margaret Thatcher. Besides the usual, she put women's rights back years. What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day? Internationally, there are two. Climate Change, and stopping extremism-driven wars. In the UK, keeping our public safe and prosperous. The how is a massive question. If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be? In the UK, the country's prosperity. The climate change agenda gives opportunities in manufacturing, jobs and a better, greener life. We should embrace it. Prosperity for all leads to a better, more equal society. What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? Us. What would be your most important piece of advice about life? Live it! Live it well. What is your favourite song? This is hard. My Heart Will Go On by Celine Dion, The Day Before You Came by Blancmange, Ghosts by Japan, and then there are lots of Bowie and Goth records. Do you have a favourite video game? Not played any for ages. I used to love the original Space Invaders and, of course, Super Mario Bros. What do you consider the most important personal quality in others? Integrity What personal fault in others do you most dislike? Lies What, if anything, do you worry about? Family members. And any pet peeves? Lies again! What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self? Not to take life too seriously What do you like doing in your spare time? Spare time?? Reading, crafts What is your most treasured possession? Wedding ring, of course - given by Martin... Do you have any guilty pleasures? Chocolate, good dark chocolate. What talent would you most like to have? To be able to play the piano. If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true - apart from getting loads of money - what would you wish for? For me on a personal level, to be able to go into space, to look back and see our world from space - wow! Then waving a wand and putting the world to rights.... 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? After the usual new house, bills and family, there are several local historic buildings I would look at taking over and bringing back into sustainable use. If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? Stephen Fry, Jasper Carrott and either Lenny Henry or Sue Perkins. All both funny and clever. You've been a councillor for a number of years now. Would you recommend it? Yes. A qualified yes. You get told its part time, you can fit it around your life easily ... No, if you get really into being a councillor, it can take a lot of time, evenings and weekends. You have to grow a thick skin, and get used to the public ringing your home at all hours. Their dilemmas don't fit into a neat 9-5 Mon-Fri week. If you are okay with that, then it's great. And finally ... will Labour win in May? Yes. But I do think it will be a minority government.
I'm not an avid follower of Paul Kingsnorth's work, but I do remember his One No, Many Yeses. This was a contribution - some may say cash-in - to the burgeoning library on the internationalist, anti-capitalist, and fashionably networky movement of sundry NGOs, anarchists and occasional Trots of the early part of the last decade. As something of a radical travelogue, our Paul flitted from country to country giving us the low down on the Zapatistas (of course), the G8 summit in Genoa, hung out with gold miners in New Guinea, and all other kinds of things. It was an uncritical celebration of this most rooted of rootless movements, an advert for the New Way of Doing Things. The book stuck in my mind because it helped fill an adventure of my own - a bus trip from Stoke to Telford. Since then I've heard tell of brother Kingsnorth as something of an authority on Englishness. His Real England, a book I haven't read and therefore cannot comment on, was generally well received by polite left society. What caught my eye about latest piece for The Graun was the epithet our chums over at Bella Caledonia granted it: "a deeply sad Green Powellism ... full of resentment, nostalgia, and paranoia." Could this really be the same Paul Kingsnorth, previously cheerleader for the transnational global resistance? One and the same, unfortunately. It's a piece we've heard before (and readers will have seen previously here, here, and here. Of course, the idea that England has become a scary place for some is not new. That insecurity is stalking the land and causing some to lash out at immigrants, fearful that newcomers are out-competing the "natives" for jobs, for housing, for school places, for slots on the dentist's waiting list. This is all very fine. One can write about it sensitively and with understanding and still maintain that essential analytical and political distance from it. After all, when all is said and done most left writers on nationalism, and English nationalism particularly, identify its roots in order to understand it and ultimately, undermine it. Hence why, for instance, I sound like a one-trick pony banging on about self-security. That sceptical attitude is missing from Paul's account. It starts off okay, but then the telling asides start creeping in. We are baldly informed, for instance, that in "four English cities, including the capital, English people have become an ethnic minority." At the risk of sounding like an elite metropolitan from the, um, Potteries, I didn't know 'the English' were a discrete ethnicity. A nationality, certainly. Does Paul really want to get on the slippery slope of regarding second and third generation Afro-Caribbeans, Africans, Asians, and East-Asians as 'not-English'? Of course, I know what he really means, he's talking about white people, but stated in this way it's only a nudge from "ethnically English" to authentically English. Kerfuffles of this type could so easily have been avoided had he merely talked about white English people. I'd like to put it down to a slip of the pen, but then we have this nonsense about nationality being an innate need. As he puts it,
A nation is a story that a people chooses to tell about itself, and at its heart is a stumbling but deep-felt need for those people to be connected to the place where they live and to each other. Humans in all times and places have needed ancestors, history, a place to be and a sense of who they are as a collective, and modernity and rationalism have not abolished these needs
For someone who's written a book on national identity, this betrays a shocking ignorance of the mountains of scholarship on the topic. With nuances and some dispute over timing, the consensus is national identity and the nationalism appropriate to it is a thoroughly modern phenomenon, linked with patterns of state formation from the 16th century onwards. The sense of belonging Paul romantically writes of were unknown to the English peasant, the Frankish warrior, the Roman house slave. Affective ties were the property of the immediate household, family group, and comrades-in-arms. in all cases a "belonging" different in kind to nationality. Therefore it is a nonsense, even if only as a rhetorical device, to suggest - as Paul does - that the English were the first victims of the British Empire. The invasion of what would become England in 1066 by the Normans was not the occupation of one nation by the armed forces of another. It was the dispossession of one feudal elite by another. The Domesday Book was a census not for the management of a society, but an audit of the booty William the Bastard reigned over. What is also lacking is a sense of national self-awareness, which is surprising in a scholar of nationality. Paul berates the Left in England for not wrapping itself in the flag, unlike our French, Greek, and Spanish counterparts. This, supposedly, is a sign of our metroleftyism. Or, perhaps, it has something to do with history. Paul writes about England/Britain's three century rampage across the globe. He doesn't mention the revolutionary republican (and universalist) roots of French nationalism, despite the crimes of French imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Nor the leading role the left had in representing a rising nation against fascist dictatorships in Spain and Greece. Whatever problems these nationalisms have, insurrection and insurgency are part of their national narratives. No such content is present in English nationalism, so small wonder the left aren't keen to embrace it. Yet this is what we need to do, says Paul. What is needed is a radical parochialism to resist the predations of global capitalism, and Englishness is a ready made for the task. The problem is this. Such a project is hugely out of step with the trajectories of modern Western societies. Wherever global capitalism has put a plus, Paul paints in a big fat minus. There is a globalism of above, and a globalisation from below - a point understood by the movements Paul used to write about but one he has since forgotten. The multiple networks ever-growing numbers of people plug into voluntarily are knitting together millions of people with weak affective ties far more closely than the nationalism of old ever did. Sometimes, though one shouldn't overstate it, they collapse the communicative and social distances across borders. But within England, millions are arguing, sharing ideas and memes, liking this 'n' that, trolling, plugging selfies (some even promote blog posts - absurd!) and this is transforming what it means to be English. Why do you think the younger a cohort is, the fear of immigrants, the antipathy to the EU, the attachment to the parochialism Paul endorses gets progressively less? Because it, the media landscape, and day-to-day life are great social mixers. To their credit, the main political parties - and I exclude the smaller-than-the-Greens UKIP from this - have a concept of national identity, albeit a British one, that is officially inclusive. Instead of looking to the past, a new, open sense of Englishness is starting to emerge. A great sifting of the national identity is taking place. The left don't have to stand in vanguard fashion and articulate a correct Englishness that can be taken up - folk are doing it for themselves. Some might want to fly their England flags, those who are anxious can grumble away, feel resentful, and vote accordingly come election time, but theirs are a large, diminishing slice of England. Address their concerns, yes. Trying to tackle the insecurity driving their angst, absolutely. But to flatter and pander to it as if the fetishising of Morris dancing, hot dog vans, and real ale pubs is some radical alternative? No, no, no, no, no.
How did this not make my top 100 90s dance tunes? I'm at a loss to explain myself, so to remedy the omission five years after the event, here it is. Hey, it beats blogging about Danny Alexander's alternative budget.
