I hate being wrong, but there's no point running away when you do screw things up. In politics and the analysis thereof, when you make mistakes you have to ask where you went wrong and, crucially, why. And so, the Conservatives winning the general election. That was a turn up for the books. No one expected it, and - embarrassing for me - I spent the last two-and-a-half years telling anyone who'd listen that the Tories increasing their vote, let alone getting a majority, was so improbable it wasn't worth thinking about. How could my argument have been so wrong?
When you're trying to make predictions about social phenomena, because they're so dynamic and fluid anything approaching a forecast has to be couched in probabilities. It is highly likely, for instance, that when I go to work tomorrow the train will pull up at the platform around 8.30am. The train driver has to work for a living, and so is very likely to clock on in the morning. It runs to a timetable that has been in force for 20 years, and the operator expects the driver to depart and arrive according to that. I can't be totally certain the train will turn up, but a reasonable expectation of punctuality can be made based on experience.
This is why the Conservative victory was a deeply unpleasant bolt from the blue. Despite Labour's problems, the Tories have been weakening over time. Since the first European elections in 1979, Conservative shares have been 51% (1979), 38.8% (1984), 35% (1989), 28% (1994), 36% (1999), 36% (2004), 27.7% (2009), and 23.1% (2014). The story is the same in general election contests. From a highpoint in 1955, in which Anthony Eden secured 49.7% of the vote, shares have slid ever since. In 2010 it was 36.1%, and rose to 36.9% last month. There's also this, courtesy of ConHome:
Just under a quarter of all eligible voters supported the blue party. Better than Labour in 2001 and 2005 to be sure, but their win is fully in line with their decline over time. Small wonder they're keen on gerrymandering constituency boundaries and allowing ex-pats to vote. In addition to that, membership has plummeted. Unlike Labour who counts only those who sign up and pay up as members, the Tories have a mixed system. The party counts those who pay a sub and those who are members of Conservative social clubs, of which there remain a surprising number knocking about. This helps explain why, until relatively recently, the Tories always had many more members than Labour. Now? The social club numbers could well be working to conceal the real figures. Therefore knowing the trend, and observing that it is extremely rare for an incumbent government to put on votes and seats, this was why right up to 10pm on election night I was adamant that not only would the Tories lose, I was sure they'd be hard-pressed ever to win again. Probabilities, eh?
When you look at why it this reasonable supposition, an understanding of the deep social processes that have worked against the social roots of political parties does, in their case, give them a number of advantages. The story of the last 30-odd years has been the dissolution of whole chunks of labour and capital that underpinned the post-war social order (see here and here for starters). The overall effect has been greater uncertainty and anxiety among wide layers of the general population. Whereas in the post-war order there was a certainty fixity - working class boys got working class jobs, middles class kids went to grammars, universities, and onto "good careers", women were much more marginal to the workforce, (non-white) immigrants did the menial jobs no one wanted, and significant numbers could look forward to a job-for-life; all that has gone. With their disappearance and, of course, a wobbly economy (not in the least bit helped by Dave's ridiculous EU referendum), uncertainty stalks the land. Your job, it could vanish tomorrow. Your savings, they might vanish in another crash. Your town centre, changed by a babble of foreign tongues. Your green spaces, building sites for new housing. Your health, it might be jeopardised by A&E waits. On and on it goes. As people (hardworking, of course) struggle to keep their heads above water they know the rug could be torn from under them at any time.
This pool of deeply anxious people is the well from which the Tories can draw electoral success. Their politics are all about upping the uncertainty ante. Anxiety fuels anomie and makes for a more pliant, accepting, manageable populace that are unlikely to threaten the party with scrutiny, let alone challenge the interests that stand behind them. But more than that social angst is the ideal fodder for Conservative messaging. Consider the messaging the Tories consistently used throughout the election campaign. 'Long-term economic plan', 'Northern powerhouse', 'securing a better future', 'competence vs chaos', 'strong leadership', it was all flim-flam but they successfully appealed to (atomised) voters' need to believe something better, something more tangible and stable was just around the corner. Yet as the Tories flattered the aspirations they stuck knitting needles deep into the insecurities. While the economic credibility card damaged Labour, which wasn't helped by its own inconsistencies, what really boosted the Tories was talking up the SNP as a "threat". Firstly, having established in the minds of large numbers of English voters - and not just those who lean to the Tories - that Scotland is carried about by hardworking families like you, they were able to successfully tie the prospect of economic armageddon, the scrapping of Trident, and the abolition of the union together in a fearful toxic mix. The perception of threat, which in actuality was utterly non-existent, struck a chord among millions of voters deeply anxious of the present and future. It was classic carrot and stick.
Whereas the constituencies of the main parties were more or less structured by and articulated through the institutions of the post-war period, their disaggregation has left a pool of voters who are disposed to vote Tory precisely because the party and its innumerable mouthpieces position it as an agency of certainty. Of course, a cursory glance at their record and their programme reveals an organisation that is anything but - another few ironic chuckles history is fond of. What that also means is another five years of continued anxiety lays the groundwork for another Conservative victory. It makes that more probable, more likely than previously thought.
New month, new blogs:
1. charlottesayshmmm (Unaligned/anti-cuts) (Twitter)
2. Communist Explorations (Unaligned) (Twitter)
3. Consented (Unaligned) (Twitter)
4. edstradling (Unaligned) (Twitter)
5. I'm a JSA Claimant (Unaligned) Twitter)
6. Indygal Inspired (SNP)
7. Mutterings from the Left (Unaligned) (Twitter)
8. News from Nullspace (Unaligned) (Twitter)
9. Politics, Journalism, Etc. (Unaligned) (Twitter)
10. Policy Sketchbook (Unaligned) (Twitter)
11. Red Left Scotland (Unaligned) Twitter)
12. Ruth Rosenau (Labour) (Twitter)
13. Talking Policy (Unaligned) (Twitter)
14. The Fifty Percent Project (Unaligned/feminist) (Twitter)
15. youngradicalfeminists (Unaligned/feminist) (Twitter)
As always, if you know of any new blogs that haven't featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email or Twitter. Please note I'm looking for blogs that have started within the last 12 months. The new blog round up usually appears on the first Sunday of every month. And if it doesn't, it will turn up eventually!
Sue Jones is a Labour Party member from Durham by way of Bolton, and has been regularly blogging since October 2012 under the (semi-) nom de plume Kitty S Jones. Like any self-respecting Labour blogger, she tweets @suejone02063672
Have you made your made up about the Labour leadership?
Not yet, I am keeping an open mind, disregarding the distorted media commentaries and paying careful attention to what each candidate actually says. Not inspired so far, though.
Just heard that Jeremy Corbyn is a late candidate, for whom I have long-standing respect. I read that he probably has 30 of the required 35 nominations already. He would certainly get my vote.
You've been blogging for almost three years now, why did you decide to give it a go?
I felt that the mainstream media has become increasingly unreliable over the past five years, reflecting a triumph for the dominant narrative of ultra social conservatism and neoliberalism. We certainly need to challenge this and re-frame the presented debates, too. The media tend to set the agenda and establish priorities, which often divert us from much more pressing social issues. Independent bloggers have a role as witnesses; recording events and experiences, gathering evidence, insights and truths that are accessible to as many people and organisations as possible. We have an undemocratic media and a government that reflect the interests of a minority – the wealthy and powerful 1%. We must constantly challenge that.
Have there been any blogging highlights/lowlights?
A highlight for me is when people tell me that they recognise an insight or truth but have struggled to define and express it. It helps when we can construct cognitive and linguistic frameworks to use to define issues, shape debate and raise awareness. Also it’s a positive when organisations and select committees such as the Work and Pensions Committee and the UN use my research work to add to evidence of their own ongoing inquiries and work.
The only lowlight is that I have been targeted for personalised smear and hate campaigns by groups on the far-right and some of the militants of the far-left. I had to involve the police because I’ve had a few death threats.
And how do you think you've stuck to it for so long?
I think in an age of increasing media censorship and dominant right–wing narratives, independent blogging is very much needed. People tell me that they use the researched information for their own campaigning, and that what I write sometimes helps people to understand or clarify issues. The blog is read all over the world. I feel it is important that the disenfranchised, disempowered and increasingly stigmatised and marginalised people in an increasingly undemocratic Britain have a collective voice and witnesses – not just through my own blog, but through collaborative and collective work with others, too. I’m not claiming to “speak” for people, but I do reflect something of the times in which we are living, and hope to raise awareness that way.
Any advice for those starting out?
I guess it depends what your aim is. I tell the truth as I see it as best I can, and will always qualify my propositions. I’m not a writer that aims for being popular or one that seeks agreement from an audience. But I do hope that my work finds resonance with people reading it. I’ve been labelled “controversial” on more than one occasion, and a “scaremonger.” But regardless of agreement, if any of my work inspires critical thinking, and invites reasoned debate, well, that’s good enough for me.
Apart from All That Is Solid (of course), are there any blogs or other politics/comment websites you regularly follow?
I do read many, even ConservativeHome and other Tory sites, because it’s important to understand ideology and the key ideas that underpin current policies. I follow LSE Sociology, Global Research, Oxford Sociology, Psychologists Against Austerity, Pride’s Purge, Touchstone, JRF, Mainly Macro, David Blanchflower, Same Difference, Michael Meacher, Jayne Linney, Vox Political, Beastrabban, ilegal, Benefits and Work, Tax Research UK, Labour Press Team, The Labour Party, LabourList, Labour Uncut, Left Foot Forward, ECHR and several human rights blogs, and many more.
Do you also find social media useful for activist-y things?
Yes, it’s great for sharing ideas, information about events and protests, organising campaigns and collaborative work.
Do you think Labour/Labour activists made good use of social media during the election?
I think so, particularly successfully on Twitter, maybe that’s partly down to the demographics as the average Twitter user is younger and young people are probably more likely to vote Labour. I felt that many activists on Facebook also made outstanding efforts, using groups and communities for information sharing and debate. The factionalisation of the left was very apparent on Facebook, and often served to distract activists from delivering successful challenges to the right-wing. Aggressive attacks from some of the Green and SNP supporters were frustrating, and sometimes, highly unpleasant diversions.
I’m not sure that social media is useful in encouraging people who are politically disengaged to vote, the jury remains out on effectiveness in that regard. And rallying social media interactions, such as trending hashtags, as well as opinion polls, do not necessarily transform into real votes, as we learned. I think that the MSM has maintained its pivotal influence on voting behaviour, unfortunately. But that may change.
And - in a nutshell - how do you think Labour lost?
More like in a bombshell ... the well-established Tory lies about economic competency stuck and challenges to this were drowned out, especially in the media. I think that nationalism was also a significant factor, English anti-Scottish sentiment was very skilfully whipped up, framed and narrated by the Conservatives, to their advantage. Alex Massie said: “Nationalism is our new secular religion,” and the politics of identity suddenly defeats all comers.” Well, all but 3. And English nationalism was expressed in votes for the populist, anti-globalist UKIP party as well as the Tories. The Conservatives have a long history of designing and manipulating the social divisions and parochialism that they tend to thrive on. The persistent Tory and media barrage of invective against Miliband worked, as did the SNP’s loud public misrepresentation of Labour’s policies, coupled with Glittering Generalities regarding their own so-called progressiveness. Sadly, sound bites work, integrity and coherence is not enough. Labour need to be more canny.
Labour, with their internationalist values and genuinely progressive policies were drowned out, and need to develop a better understanding of (I hate to say it) PR approaches, and to formulate a bolder, clear, simple, captivating, glittering narrative that also conveys their core values, integrity and honesty. A purely rational approach doesn’t translate into votes.
Are you reading anything at the moment?
The Children Act by Ian McEwan
Do you have a favourite novel?
I’d struggle choosing just one from the many that I have loved! I guess I’ve never been good at that kind of hierarchical ranking and organisation ;-)
Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major influence on how you think about the world?
Knots by R.D Laing
Who are your biggest intellectual influences?
Paulo Freire, Annie Besant, Erving Goffman, R.D Laing, Hannah Arendt, C.G Jung, Theodor Adorno, Antonio Gramsci, Peter Kropotkin, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Michael Polanyi, Alfred Schutz, Irving Velody, Eric Carlton, Guy Debord, Marshall McLuhan, amongst others.
What was the last film you saw?
Inland Empire (David Lynch)
How many political organisations have you been a member of?
CND, Anti-Nazi League (also involved in the Rock Against Racism movement) Community and Youth Workers Union (CYWU), Unite, and ... I joined the Labour Party In April 2015
Is there anything you particularly enjoy about political activity?
I see it as essential. I like the spirit of cooperation amongst people with mutual aims, the creativity and camaraderie that often arises, and the sense of community, when people work collectively for progressive and positive change.
Can you name an idea or an issue on which you've changed your mind?
Class and identity politics. It’s crucial to challenge cultural imperialism and oppression. However, identity politics tends to encourage individualism, isolation and self-reflection rather than a sense of solidarity with others. Many critics of identity politics resort to drawing on a competing politics of identity, too. It’s ultimately divisive. It promotes sectionalism over universalism. Class-based politics can also be reductive. UKIP, for example, claim to be a party for “ordinary” people, but don’t include migrants in that category. The white working-class is portrayed as an oppressed ethnic group. UKIP tend to stoke working-class prejudices about the middle-class, also, there’s a strong current of anti-intellectualism. But middle-class antagonism includes a tendency to regard the working-class as a static, caricaturing them as individuals with no potential in pre-determined roles.
The only perceived escape from that is to become a non-labouring, thinking member of the patronising middle-class. There is a view that working-class culture is pathological, generating middle-class moral outrage, political scapegoating, reflecting a heightened political authoritarianism. It’s an irony that the middle-class claim to liberal multicultural citizenship turns the working-class into “the other”, whilst at the same time condemning the working-class for othering migrants. There’s a crucial bridge to be built there, rather than seeing a perpetuation of the divisions.
Class identity is a tricky thing, too. I’m from a working-class background. My father was a self-educated trade unionist and a shop steward. I went to university and became a public sector “caring” professional on a middle-class income. But many like me are now queuing at food banks after losing their jobs through the austerity cuts, we never seem to consider the alienating realities of downward social mobility. I don’t feel I belong to any class. I think who we are is more important than what we are.
What set of ideas do you think it most important to disseminate?
We need a strong, coherent left-wing alternative narrative to challenge Francis Fukuyama’s end of history thesis, and the neoliberal legacy, which has become political common sense. It’s important to continue to promote core ideas such as collectivism, democracy, equality, human rights, unity, internationalism, progressivism , cooperation, egalitarianism, reciprocal altruism, human/social potential and development, solidarity, Keynesianism, redistribution, liberty, fraternity, social justice, tolerance, diversity and so on.
What set of ideas do you think it most important to combat?
Social Conservatism, and its tacit underpinning social Darwinism - an intrinsic part of the meritocracy script and justification narratives for crass inequalities and the status quo. Neoliberalism, with its competitive individualism, undemocratic shrunken state responsibilities and duties towards citizens, emphasis on exploitation and social injustice and its burgeoning elements of corruption, crony capitalism, vulture capitalism; its justification of privatisation, fiscal austerity (which is an intrinsic feature of neoliberalism and has nothing to do with economic necessity), deregulation, reductions of government spending.
I also think that there’s a growing global tendency towards authoritarianism and nationalism, that is closely linked with neoliberalism, which needs to be challenged.
Do you have any political heroes?
I tend not to idealise politicians, and mostly base my esteem on interaction and their responses, as well as their achievements, ideas and character. However, there are a few I respect and admire. My own MP, Kevan Jones; Ed Miliband; Michael Meacher; Jeremy Corbyn; Gordon Brown; Dame Anne Begg; Sheila Gilmore; John McDonnell; Debbie Abrahams; Tony Benn; Glenda Jackson, Baron Of Brighton - John Steven Bassam (opposition chief whip, HoL), Baroness Tonge (Liberal Democrat), amongst others
How about political villains?
I believe authoritarians, fascists and totalitarians are generally villains. I’ve never yet heard of a good form of tyranny.
Probably predictably, I nominate Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron and the Conservative Party in its entirety as perpetrators of political villainy. It doesn’t matter who leads the Tory party as they all share the same despotic tendency. Conservatism is the enclave for those with socially destructive dark triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy). Tories share the same regressive social Darwinist ideology, so they will always formulate the same schema of policies that divide society into steep hierarchies of wealth and privilege, resulting in massive inequalities, suffering and poverty, lies, corruption and indifference to the majority of the publics’ needs.
What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day?
Addressing inequality, poverty, and social injustice
If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be?
Welfare. It’s such a fundamental civilised and civilising part of a first-world liberal democracy based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth – people pay taxes and national insurance towards their own provision, after all – and it is about shared public responsibility for people in a time of need. The state has a democratic duty to protect and promote the basic economic and social well-being of citizens, at the very least.
What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world?
Research indicates that America is most often cited as the greatest threat to world peace, even by Americans. Whilst many claim that multiculturalism poses the biggest threat to world peace, I strongly disagree, I see that claim as simply a reflection of the white supremacist fascist mysticism, and an ideological attack on the culture of the left. It’s easy to mistake anomie with a fear of losing a cultural identity, too.
I think the Regan-Thatcher transatlantic political and economic legacy is the greatest threat to world peace. State-bashing neoliberalism and social conservatism are a disaster that leads to increasingly chaotic global circumstances – such as the 2nd great economic depression following the collapse of the Lehman Brothers. The US Senate's Levin–Coburn Report concluded that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street." All features and failings of neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is a form of economic imperialism that prompts government secrecy, rejects humanitarianism, encourages media propaganda, authoritarian surveillance of populations, exploitation, increasing impoverishment of the masses and exclusion of the majority of the global population, increasing erosion on civic liberties, genocide, and doesn’t even have the pretence of consensus. Neoliberalism is the ultimate “iron cage without spirit” It isn’t ethnic “others” that are corroding cultural and humane values or social and national cohesion: it’s neoliberalism.
What would be your most important piece of advice about life?
Our lives are our message: learn to express yourself responsibly, kindly clearly, fully and authentically.
What is your favourite song?
It depends on my frame of mind and mood, I love music that spans many genres and time frames from Ralph Vaughan Williams to Tangerine Dream; Duke Ellington; the Beta Band; Julian Cope; Peter Warlock; the Velvet Underground and would be hard-pressed to choose just one favourite from such a range of so many.
Do you have a favourite video game?
Um ... Super Mario Bros. It’s the only one I ever played and really got the hang of. I also liked Civilization and LittleBigPlanet, but experience these things only through my children. Honest!
What do you consider the most important personal quality in others?
Integrity, sincerity
What personal fault in others do you most dislike?
Superficiality, pretentiousness
What, if anything, do you worry about?
The future.
And any pet peeves?
Credulity, wilful, stubborn ignorance, a refusal to learn and grow, reactive stupidity used as a defence to maintain prejudices and block out facts and any contrary evidence. It’s irresponsible.
What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?
Be kinder to my parents and always tell them how much they are appreciated.
What do you like doing in your spare time?
Reading, listening to music, playing music (mostly keyboards and sax), painting (mostly abstract), growing things – gardening, spending time with friends and family, watching films, walking in the woods and countryside.
What is your most treasured possession?
My CD collection, some of which I inherited from my father, and my musical instruments – particularly my Selmer saxophone.
Do you have any guilty pleasures?
Chocolate, cult films, and occasionally I like dancing around the house to slightly naff music.
The rest are x-rated ;-)
What talent would you most like to have?
Polymathy
If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true - apart from getting loads of money - what would you wish for?
Better health. Better still, a cure for autoimmune illnesses. I have Lupus.
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’d spend a lot more time in France, probably. I rather like the idea of setting up a media empire that diametrically opposes Murdochs’, and provided a clear alternative to the predominantly consensus-manufacturing journalists working for national newspapers, television and radio, who (still) tend to be overwhelmingly male, white, public school educated and middle class. It would be good to prise wide-open the narrow, rigid conservative agenda that has resulted in cultural hegemony, reasserting ethics, honesty and standards over the profit incentive.
If you could go for a drink with three people, past or present, who would they be?
I’ve chosen people from the past, as I can still ask people from the present to go for a drink - Doris Lessing, Henry Heap (a very dear friend, animal rights activist and undercover photographer), and my father.
And lastly ... Why are you Labour?
Labour Party core values are the closest to my own. I don’t regard a Labour government as an end to the fight for progressive change: I see it as the only viable starting point. Labour gave us all that is civilised – our post-war settlement. The current government is now dismantling all that it entailed: welfare, the NHS and legal aid.
I was disillusioned with Blair, especially regarding the Iraq war, but I also know that 140 Labour MPs voted against that war. I didn’t like the Third Way economic dimension to Blairism, but there were some excellent social policies formulated by the Blair administration. Despite two policies that I hated – the Antisocial Behaviour Act, and the anti-terrorism legislation, policies such as the Equality act, the Human Rights act, Every Child Matters, the Good Friday agreement, the Gender Recognition act, the Climate Change act, Freedom of Information act, Anti-Bribery act, animal welfare policies and the fox-hunting ban, amongst many others were very worthwhile achievements. Again, the current government is intent on dismantling most of these policies, indicating clearly, regardless of people’s perception of Blair, his social policies at least were definitely not conservative, neoliberal Thatcherite legacies as is often claimed. This said, just to clarify, I am not a Blairite.
Miliband ditched the Third Way approach, and moved further left, his redistributive tax policies in particular appealed to me. His principled stance on Syria impressed me, and it drew a clear line under the Blair era for many supporters. Miliband has a decency and honesty that also appealed to me, but this was something I feel many people missed, sadly.
Labour have not used Glittering Generalities as a propaganda technique like other parties claiming the progressive banner. Labour tried for a rational appeal, founded on integrity, which I appreciated. But many missed the message. We need more effective methods of delivering that message, and not a fundamental change to policy and core values.
Guest post from my friend and fine comrade @ianpmclaughlan
I am just an ordinary Labour Party member with one vote. And I haven’t got a clue who I’ll give that vote to. Underwhelmed by the personalities and ideas on offer so far, this is the kind of speech that I would love to hear.
"The old order is gone. It is not coming back. The great danger for the Tories is that they think people want more of the same. They don’t. But they will always vote for competence over incompetence – perceived or real. The great danger for us in Labour is that we don’t find the ideas that capture that new order. Under my leadership, we will.
The politics of left and right is fading, so too tribal loyalty. But managerial politics will no longer do. Competence – judged by most as effective stewardship of the economy – in a political movement should be a given. The fact that people felt we lacked it tells us why, fundamentally, the Tories won.
Competence – economic competence – aside, people value their own personal good, the collective good, authenticity and identity when casting their vote. Probably because that’s what we all value in our personal lives; it’s no great secret. The SNP won a landslide because they amply met all those criteria. The Tories met some, not all and were given the benefit of the doubt. Arguably UKIP met more than us and so did well.
Labour’s task, led by me, is to find a set of convincing, coherent ideas that will appeal to the diverse and disparate people across these lands and persuade them to put their trust in us again.
That is a huge challenge, but one I am brimming with energy and enthusiasm for. But I must start by saying I do not have all the answers. No one person does. I have the ideas, the skills and the will but this parliament is a long five years and we need to spend more time reconnecting with people and testing our ideas to destruction with the people who matter: the voters.
Much of our election manifesto had popular appeal, but if people don’t believe you can implement it, it’s irrelevant. Firstly, we have to re-establish our economic reputation. Not by aping the Tories, but by rebutting the lie that Labour overspent and caused the financial crash. And lie it most certainly is. Not only did building schools and hospitals not cause the crash, Labour did more than any other Western government to prevent total collapse of the system and get the economy started again. The Tories wrecked it afterwards with austerity, that every other nation long ago ditched. The truth is there, we just have to be bold enough to repeat it until we – and the voters – are sick of hearing it.
We then have to make sure people believe we are on their side – reconnect with their identity and aspirations. If people can be successful by their own hand and deed, Labour must make it easy for them. The other side of that bargain is that individuals, businesses and organisations should pay their fair tax contribution towards the nation that nurtures them; for the roads to transport goods; the graduate that brings new skills to a business or the police that protect the factory or office. No person, no business is successful in a vacuum – we all depend on the fabric of the society around us.
We have to be open with voters that we cannot fund everything we would like to. To be authentic then, we have to spend money on our priorities. Surely, that has to be health and education – if that means less on defence or rationing some universal benefits, like the winter fuel allowance, then so be it. But we should never, ever apologise for giving our children the best education facilities nor our elderly the best medical and social care. That is what we aspire to; that is authentic Labour; that is our identity.
There is so much more! Labour has to tackle the vested interests that are holding us back and creating inequality. But is has to be more carrot and less stick – we should reward businesses paying a living wage, for instance with tax breaks, and encourage employee representation on boards and responsible executive pay. We can’t do this without meaningful, open dialogue with those involved.
A Labour Government will have neither the will nor the funds to subsidise profitable corporations. But we must support and encourage best practice in partnership, demonstrating that such things are in everyone’s interests.
Everyone needs to believe that Labour will further both their personal and the collective good. And furthering the personal and collective good is Labour’s very reason for being. I embrace it.
We also need a simplified, transparent and fair tax system. Complexity only benefits those who can afford advice to escape paying it. No one wants to pay more tax when they think it disappears into a bureaucratic black hole. With a transparent and fair system it is possible to make the case for additional tax and spending where there is a need and the public support it – think of the national insurance rise in 2002 for the NHS. Labour needs to change the tune from “tax is bad” to “how and where would you like your money best spent”.
We must, both for noble and pragmatic reasons, form common cause with other parties and push for electoral reform. First Past the Post is the Tories’ greatest electoral weapon – look at the election results from the last century if you doubt me. It is the only way that they and the vested interests that line up behind them - the Tory press, the financial elite, the bankers and tax exiles - keep such a stranglehold on our country’s resources.
We need to breathe fresh life into venerable institutions that are in danger of crumbling. A government mandate should reflect the will of the people. If we cannot command more than 50% of votes – and I believe we can in any voting system – then it is only right that we work with others. We have no monopoly on good ideas. Even the broken Tory clock is right twice a day! Our current system is dangerously distorting regional differences in a nation that needs to come together and heal.
It is hardly surprising people are disenchanted with democracy when their votes don’t count and decisions are taken in distant places by unknown faces. It’s winner-takes-all here, so 75% of the electorate should just go home and let the government get on with it for five years.
No! No! No! We need constant, vibrant political debate. Labour, or whoever is in government, should never take parliament or the public for granted. The Tories will. It is their way: they are born to rule. It should never be ours – we believe in solidarity, and consensus wherever possible. That is authentic Labour.
I want to go on! Reform of schools or hospitals should be led by those who work in it and those who use those services. Government must enable, not dictate. But it should never be afraid of being active: to open up opportunities, tackle vested interests or ensure accountability. Some public services are too important, too personal to be outsourced or corporatized or operate without any democratic accountability. The NHS is the most obvious, though not only, example.
We have to win the arguments for immigration, Europe and an open international outlook. SNP Nationalism will tear our nation apart; while UKIP’s little England mentality will diminish us morally, strategically and economically. But we need authentic, evidence-based lines of attack. Labour needs to win people round. As Labour leader, I will lead that charge.
We must trust in the people, nations, regions, cities and parishes of our great United Kingdom to make their own decisions, innovate and forge their own futures, in partnership with – but not, absolutely not, under the control of, central government.
With your support and trust, I will take on all-comers as Labour leader. But I can only do it with arguments I – and we – believe in. Only then will others believe in it too.
There is so much for Labour to do. I am crushed that our power and influence will be limited for the next five years. I want to talk about every individual issue – housing, environment, our wider movement, but I don’t yet have all the answers.
The most important thing for Labour is to re-establish our competence and rediscover our authentic voice. You have heard mine. Elect me as your leader and my voice, Labour’s voice will ring true again and will win people over across our wonderful nation.”
By A Labour Leadership candidate
Jeremy Corbyn's (rather late) announcement that he will be standing for the Labour leadership is entirely welcome. To say the fare so far on offer is uninspiring conjures images of popes and woods. While all of the candidates seem keen to run away from the record and policies they loyally followed these last five years, and one in particular who has a mind blank where an awareness of the character of the party she aspires to lead should be, tens of thousands of members up and down the country have felt annoyed and effectively disenfranchised. As the candidates tilt to the right, ignore the popularity of Labour's "left-er" policies, stay in their immigrant and benefit-bashing comfort zone, and pay the causes of Labour's defeat no mind at all, the debate needs opening up.
This is why Corbyn's announcement is a good thing. He's not a perfect figure by any means, but you take your breaks as you find them.
First and foremost, he's an anti-austerity figure. The cuts past and the cuts to come have caused needless stress and suffering. They've destroyed infrastructure, thrown millions into precarious lives, delayed the economic recovery - you know the arguments. There has to be someone in the Labour leadership contest make those arguments and taking that fight to the Tories, because if Corbyn doesn't the mantle of opposition - especially after Osborne's "emergency" budget this summer - could well pass to the SNP, Greens, and even the LibDems for a time. After the SNP tore up Scottish Labour's lawn and used it to turf their back yard, do we really want them to that again to the party in the rest of the UK? Might I suggest the answer to that is no.
Second, and in answer to those who don't think Jeremy would win even if he makes the ballot threshold, the point of his candidacy is to do two things. One, to try and shift the terms of political debate. The welcome stress Ed Miliband placed on inequality needs preserving, and the case against austerity cannot be broadcast enough, especially when it has been accepted and passively supported by so many "ordinary" people. And second, it's about political education. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think public political debate is served by obsessions over Andy Burnham's panda eyes or Liz Kendall's preternaturally white teeth and whether this endears them to voters. A massive job has to be done about raising the level of discussion, because a poorly informed public and party memberships do not a healthy democracy make. It can lead to situations where, for argument's sake, a party can win elections by scaremongering about never-going-to-happen lash ups between its opponents.
A Corbyn candidacy could work a small but appreciable shift in our politics. If any of the three frontrunners ask their "surplus" MPs to lend their nominations to Jeremy, as David Miliband did to make sure Diane Abbott got on the ballot paper in 2010, it shows a willingness to confront ideas and arguments outside of, that phrase again, comfort zone; as well as confidence in their own approaches. Surely none of our three frontrunners want to be seen shutting down debate and fighting shy of a little bit of leftism?
It's been a while since this blog last acquainted itself Tommy Sheridan, but the acquittal of Andy Coulson at his perjury trial also means re-dredging his spurious allegations regarding one of the saddest periods in Scottish radical history. It might be worthwhile revisiting the road to today's events.
For readers who weren't around or have long filed the Sheridan saga under 'do not re-open', here's a wee re-cap. On a winter's evening back in 2004, the executive of the Scottish Socialist Party met with Tommy Sheridan who, at that time, had been an MSP since 1999 (he was joined by five more in 2003) and was the party's convener/main speaker. He confirmed to the meeting that the story published in the News of the World about an anonymous married MSP having an affair was about him. Tommy also admitted to the committee that the story was substantially true - he'd visited swingers' clubs - but still intended to sue the paper for defamation, believing the NOTW had no hard evidence and that he'd easily win. Understandably, a number of the comrades were reticent to go along with this. Yes, it was the Murdoch press, then as now one of the bitterest foes of the labour movement. Yet Tommy was asking his comrades, some of whom had been his closest allies and friends for 20-odd years, to keep schtum while he took News International to the cleaners. Believing this wouldn't end well, the EC tried dissuading him, and when that didn't succeed they asked for his resignation as they would refuse to go along with the deception. Tommy duly did, publicly stating his step out of the spotlight was for "family reasons".
When 2006 rolled round, it all exploded. Tommy's defamation case against News International was heard. By this time, the story had come out and the SSP divided into pro- and anti-Sheridan factions. The latter had the majority of the membership and MSPs. The former were backed by the SWP and my erstwhile comrades in the CWI (both organisations maintained platforms in the SSP of officially recognised factions). The pro-Tommy faction argued that the trial was a straight fight between one of the most reactionary members of the ruling class, and 'Scotland's most iconic post-war socialist'. Stated like that, the truth was immaterial and subordinated to the needs to score one on Murdoch. Members of the SSP exec present at the November meeting were called to the witness stand under protest and related the events of that night. Tommy's argument was that a cabal of MSPs - 'coven of witches' was the chosen phrase, I believe - arrayed against him out of pure spite and jealousy, so much so they were prepared to conspire with NOTW to get him. By way of contrast, he was a squeaky clean family man who "misbehaved" when he was single but whose only vice now was ... Scrabble.
Tommy won. The Court of Sessions in Edinburgh awarded him £200,000. He trousered tens of thousands more by vowing he'd "destroy the scabs who tried to get me" in the pages of the Daily Record. All he managed was mutually assured destruction. The SSP split, with the pro-Tommy wing forming Solidarity and both were promptly wiped out in 2007. One group felt vindicated, and the comrades who'd had their reputations dragged through the gutter were understandably bitter. In the meantime, the stories about Tommy and his extra-marital adventures refused to die. Things came to a head when George McNeilage, an old friend and ally secretly recorded Tommy discussing the case. This tape, which Sheridanistas laughably tried to pooh pooh as a fake, was sold to News International who promptly put it on their Scottish edition of NOTW. Looking back, it was dynamite. Tommy admitted that he had visited the swingers' club and that the account given by witnesses of the SSP exec meeting was true. He also was exasperated that his erstwhile comrades had refused to back his legal action. This, combined with growing testimony from individuals not called to the defamation trial eventually saw Sheridan and several friends and family members, including his wife, charged with perjury.
After a 10 week trial in which this was aired in court again, after all the original witnesses reappeared and reaffirmed the story, the weight of testimony as well as the tape saw Tommy this time convicted and set down for three years. The charges against Gail Sheridan were dropped, and none of his comrades came to trial. Tommy for his part continues to protest his innocence and claims to be part of an almighty frame-up uniting Murdoch, Lothian and Borders Police, former friends and comrades, and a bent recording studio.
This is where Andy Coulson comes in. During the trial, in which Tommy represented himself, Coulson was called to the witness box. Readers will recall he was Dave's chief spin doctor and was an ex-editor of NOTW. On previous occasions, Tommy had told the media he was subject to low-level surveillance/harassment, claiming his phone had been hacked and producing a bug he'd found in his car. Summoning Coulson to court was more than just a piece of legal theatre. On the one hand, he wished to force a chief political ally of the Prime Minister and Murdoch stooge into perjuring himself, and dwell upon the dark methods by which News International journalists acquired their stories. By casting some light on this, Tommy hoped that his conspiracy theory might gain credence with the jurors. It did not, but when Coulson was eventually banged up on phone hacking charges this episode, as per Tommy's design, came back to haunt him.
The problem was, as today's verdict makes explicit, is that perjury under Scottish law has only been committed in a trial if the evidence given was material to the outcome. While readers can make their own minds up, going over the old reports on his testimony here, here, and here, on the technicalities of the law Lord Burns reached the right decision. Coulson lied when he took that stand, but those lies were irrelevant to the conviction the jury handed down during the 2010 trial, however much his supporters doth protest.
Finally then, perhaps after today the Sheridan myth can be laid to rest. Here was a man gifted with charisma and oratorical talents who was a powerful advocate for socialist politics. Unfortunately, as the movement lifted him up he thought he was bigger than it. So rather than deny and/or ignore the stories about his sexual peccadilloes, which would have ensured they'd gone away sooner, he expected his comrades to lie in court and place their own liberty in jeopardy just so he could touch Murdoch for some lousy money. That isn't comradeship, that's the behaviour of a would-be cult leader demanding his flock to follow his every whim. Tommy was found out, justice was finally done, and today's verdict has further rubbed his nose in it. The thing is, it could have all been very different. The SSP could still have been a going concern. It could have profited greatly from the post-referendum surge, but the courtroom dramas and egotistical behaviour of its best known representative destroyed all that.
Jog on, Tommy.
If the inhabitants of these fair islands get the politicians they deserve, can the same be said about the professional commentariat? I feel moved to ask because Brendan O'Neill, the faux ra-ra-revolutionary turned tedious troll has indecently exposed his idiocy, or his cynicism depending on how you see these things.
Let's step back away from things for a moment and consider the object of O'Neill's ire, the newly-named Caitlyn Jenner. Quite apart from her politics, which are iffy; and the privilege wealth has brought her, which is considerable; many millions who've tracked the press rumours and followed her from celebrity (ex-)husband and Kardashian hanger on to coming out as someone undergoing a transition from one gender to another will have been touched. Not a few are likely to have been educated and forced to confront their own misunderstandings and, in some cases, prejudices. Nor should the personal courage of Jenner be underestimated either. Imagine the mental strain of living your entire adult life - Jenner is 65 - feeling at odds with your body, and then risking your relationships with family and friends, as well as general shunning, to come out as someone who wishes to change their gender. It's a bloody terrifying prospect. In my view, anyone who takes that step deserves commendation and support through what can be, and often is, an unimaginably difficult time. And that includes someone like Caitlyn Jenner.
O'Neill's 'Call Me Caitlyn, Or Else', which is supposedly aimed at a progressive audience, tries so hard to drape itself in the tradition of leftist cultural critique, but fails spectacularly. Ostensibly a criticism of the celebrity grown up around Jenner and, understandably, some of the sharp defences of her, what O'Neill betrays is a snobbish semi-Nietzschean disdain for the herd. Not for one moment does he consider that some people really do find her story genuinely life affirming for all kinds of reasons, nor that Jenner's coming out represents a blow struck for trans-acceptance when this is a community of people on the receiving end of bigotry and violence. I'm supposing the notion of solidarity went into the shredder along with his many unsold copies of Living Marxism. No, this is a spiteful piece that basically objects to a) the existence of trans people, and b) the very idea they should have a political voice. The things some former socialists will say for a couple of hundred quid.
Now, O'Neill can't be a congenitally stupid man. Getting a regular paid writing gig these days requires a bit of nous and some familiarity with the hot button issues of the day. And as someone who is plugged into the media for a living, I have to assume O'Neill isn't ignorant of some facts around trans issues. That, for instance, the incidence of mental illness is much higher among trans people than the general population. That hate crimes against trans people are on the rise. And that in the USA, seven trans women were murdered in the first month-and-a-half of this year, all of whom were not white.
O'Neill cannot but know this, and yet still turned in a piece of sophistry that punches downwards. There are many names for doing such a thing, but "progressive" isn't one of them.
Turning on BBC News this morning, I was thrown by the sad passing of Charles Kennedy.
Not being a LibDem and living hundreds of miles from his constituency (as was), I never had occasion to bump into him in real life. Like most other political people the Charlie Kennedy I knew was the kindly presence on Have I Got News For You, Question Time, and (whisper it) This Week.
Perhaps by virtue of the media work, he could lay claim to one of those rarest of commodities. In an age where politicians and politics are almost universally spurned, among those who paid attention he was almost unanimously liked. Can you remember a scurrilous press attack on him? As the LibDems trouped through the government lobbies to vote for some of the most regressive legislation this country has seen in modern times, the opprobrium that attached itself to the LibDems left him untouched. That, however, was not enough to secure him against the SNP blitzkrieg that drove all before it.
It was not hard to see why he was liked either. He took over the LibDems during the period of high Blairism, where New Labour was virtually untouchable and not even an unpopular war could dislodge it from office. Nevertheless, it was Kennedy's opposition to the Iraq War that gave millions their first glimpse at his party and, during his leadership, saw it put on members, influence, and MPs. His stance against the majority of Labour and Tory MPs combining to support the invasion of Iraq granted him a principled reputation, of someone who would say what he thinks but without polarising opinion in the manner of a George Galloway or Nigel Farage.
It must have been painful to see his political legacy fed into the mincing machine by his successor, yet he never really came out publicly against the LibDems' turn to the right. It might not have been his style, as Alastair Campbell suggests, but ultimately his reticence cut short his 30 year career in Parliament.
Charles Kennedy was an opponent and episodic friend to the labour movement and our politics. But regardless of that and despite the distance between that and his liberalism, he showed that you can have a principled career in mainstream politics and avoid getting tarred with the self-serving brush. It's a shame he went too early, and his family and friends have my sympathies.
Immigration and benefits. Immigration and benefits. Immigration and benefits. I can barely remember a time when these weren't commanding headlines or the imaginations of politicians. One might say that this is no surprise, seeing as they are both hot button issues for the public - though it might be said these issues are fabricated and amplified by those with vested interests to do so. Left critics of this kind of pernicious scaremongering rightly call it out for what it is: the politics of divide and rule. I've done it myself. That, however, is as far as it goes. Too often the deeper political economy, the economic pressures of which politics is but a concentrated impulse, either remain unexplored with regard to these matters or, when they are analysed, they tend toward crude conclusions and deeply problematic politics.
As it happens, the Marxist critique of political economy offers a sturdy foundation for understanding the deeper reasons for benefits bashing and anti-immigration rhetoric. In his 1972 books with Bob Sutcliffe, the late Andrew Glyn elaborated the notion of the politics of labour supply. It rests on a basic proposition. In order to carry on accumulating capital, business in general has to secure two things. They need ready supplies of raw materials out of which things can be made, and require people who can do the making. This latter input is employed by capital in return for a wage. For a set number of hours each day, an employee works under the direction of their boss to secure the money they need to reproduce themselves and their dependents as physical beings with a certain level of competency, education, and skill. Meanwhile, the difference between the value of the labour power the worker furnishes the boss and the value of the goods and/or services they produce yields surplus value, out of which a business ultimately realises its profits when those commodities have been sold.
For Marxism this is the antagonism on which capitalism depends and cannot escape, that the wealth of contemporary advanced industrial societies is socially, collectively produced; but is privately appropriated is the stuff of class struggle. Immediately, in the sphere of employee/employer relations, proletarians - those who have to sell their labour power for a living - have a clear interest in securing a greater share of what they produce. They generally desire higher wages, control over their work, control of their lives outside of work, and most importantly, have an interest in facing their employer as a united collective to best prosecute these and other interests. Employers have diametrically opposed sets of interests. They are compelled to keep as much of the surplus value generated as possible, as well as tightly monitoring and controlling their workers, to retain the power to set work time, institute speed-ups to intensify the labour process, have a range of flexible labour contracts commensurate with the needs of the business, and ensuring the latent collective power of workers only ever remains that.
Business in general has a very clear and keen interest in the lives of its employees in general. It has to make sure its labour supply is always available, is trained to the requisite level, and most importantly is not powerful vis a vis capital's own interests. Glyn's argument was at the moment the post-war consensus was starting to fray, of a set of institutional arrangements (or what some call regimes of (capital) accumulation) in which the rule of capital had been forced to make significant concessions to labour because of the latter's strength, business had an interest of using the crisis of the 1970s to recast Britain's class relationships. It would rather not have representatives of labour sit across the bargaining table backed up by the strike weapon. The labour movement was a collective threat to its workplace sovereignty and the irrepressible necessity to accumulate. After the high point of the 1972 miners' strike, what happened from 1979 onwards was a veritable counterrevolution. Using the media, the law, and the brute force of the state, the Conservatives inflicted a set of strategic defeats on the labour movement - most importantly the 1985-5 miners' strike. What Thatcher had succeeded in doing, regardless of her personal motivations, was to ensure the politics of labour supply could be more readily shaped around the needs of British capital. The "barriers" to accumulation represented by uppity workers, strong trade unions, and the threat of industrial action were worn smooth under the hobnail boots of paramilitary police units at Orgreave.
Hence the situation we have today. An official politics in which business necessity trumps all, one where inequality is rampant and growing, and the national scandals of food bank dependency and zero hour contracts remain peripheral to public discourse. Culturally speaking, we live in a work-obsessed times, and the tedious language of aspiration spilling from politicians' mouths reflects a horizon limited by compulsive consumerism.
Assuming the present equilibrium struck in the politics of labour supply wishes to be maintained by the powers that be, then why do the two mainstream parties who, between them, represent the interests of capital in general wish to crack down on immigration? Since 2004, Britain has experienced the largest wave of immigration in its history. Whole sectors of the economy have seen labour costs drop through the floor thanks to a ready supply of labour from Eastern Europe. This has plugged some of the skill gaps in the economy - remember the early 00s shortage of plumbers? - and helped the NHS soldier on in the face of insufficient recruitment. Surely then it suits capital's interest to maintain the huge inflow of people? It lowers labour costs, means British business is effectively subsidised by the education and training programmes of other states, generates (some) antipathy among the host population, and creates more competition between workers for scarce jobs - making those infrequent instances of collective challenges to capital even rarer. Indeed, some so-called anti-globalists argue the left should oppose immigration on these very grounds.
Why, if mass immigration suits the interests of capital are the main parties falling over themselves to appear tough on it? Is it yet another instance of ruling class decadence? Part of it is short term political pressure, certainly. Immigration certainly fuels anxiety of the 'foreigner in one's own country' type, itself ultimately rooted in the myriad impacts it has on a tough labour market, diminishing public services, and housing shortages. UKIP's showing these last five years is indicative potential political damage to the main parties at its hands if the flow goes unabated. The second, in the longer view, is that immigration may lose its efficacy as a disciplining mechanism on the politics of labour supply. As any pollster will tell you, when they're not getting voting intentions haplessly wrong, younger cohorts tend to be more positive about immigration, appear less prey to the fears and anxieties that attends to it, and accept free movement as a fact of social life. If antipathy is thinning, then divide-and-rule becomes much harder to sustain - a point picked argued in Hardt and Negri's Empire and Multitude, for whom each migrant, wherever they are, carry with them a speck of internationalism beyond borders.
In the short and medium range, managing the politics of labour supply requires a row back on mass immigration to what, by general consent, is regarded as necessary flows. Yet capital still needs a ready supply of bodies and brains. If immigration is to be limited, from whence will it come?
According to government statistics, of the 65 million people who live in the UK, somewhere in the region of 30 million of them are officially in work. Around 13 million residents are under 16, and around 11 million are aged over 65. That's 11 million people unaccounted for in the employment statistics. A good chunk of them might work in the informal/black economy, but the rest will mostly be women working as housewives, or the disabled who cannot work. Only a tiny sliver of these missing millions are the officially unemployed dependent on social security payments. Often, the Tory attack on the unemployed and disabled people is seen as pure malice driven by spite. Listen to the Conservatives themselves it's a moral crusade aimed at attacking dependency culture. Remember, in this topsy-turvy world, joblessness is caused by lifestyles of worklessness, not lack of jobs. Yet, regardless of the "noble" intentions of our evangelical DWP minister, what their policies are doing is draw more of the "invisible" millions into the labour pool. The existing unemployed, being around a sixth of the total, are small beer. The Work Capability Assessment, the New Labour policy none of the current leadership candidates are bothered to disassociate themselves from, has forcibly declared large numbers partially work fit and capable of some job roles. By shifting them onto Employment Support Allowance, the Tories have swelled the pool of labour that capital can draw from - it's one that will also increase as the retirement age creeps up. Simultaneously, these moves have opened a new front of divide and rule too. Scrounger rhetoric is particularly pernicious because it plays the negative politics of class - it hails its audience as workers, but sets them up against the pool of surplus labour by positioning them as unworthy layabouts paid for out of their taxes. And on this score, as polls often note, the young are particularly sceptical of social security and are generally supportive of draconian crackdowns.
Looking at the policy shifts on immigration and social security from a politics of labour supply point of view, we can see a certain continuity: a desire to keep labour passive and therefore British capital "competitive", and preserve Britain a desirable location for direct foreign investment; a way of managing the short and long-term challenges immigration poses labour supply from the standpoint of keeping it quiescent; and gradually moving from a reliance on incoming workers to maintain the labour surplus to unlocking the latent reserve army so far outside of the labour market, starting with those dependent on the welfare state for unemployment and disability support.
It doesn't have to be like this. Labour is not some substance that can be prodded and manipulated like so much clay on a potter's wheel. It has to analyse this movement to keep it at heel, search for openings, exploit them, and work against it being the plaything of an opposing power. That is much, much easier said than done. But a good starting point would be to resist, not go along with these moves.
The most popular posts last month were:
1. Far Left UK General Election 2015 Results
2. Dear Liz Kendall
3. Fear, Loathing, and the UK General Election
4. If David Miliband Had Won ...
5. The Worst Election Result Ever
I noted last month was the best ever since Google Analytics had started tracking page views for this site. No longer. April's crown was snatched by a measly few hundred votes, making May the all-time most popular thingy. So many thanks for tuning in.
Far left election results are always good for click bait, but running it close was my open letter to Liz Kendall, which went mini-viral. I like it when that happens. My election analysis, which flags up the exploitation of fear and anxiety by the Tories as one of its victory drivers cruised into third just ahead of the 'what if?' about a David Miliband-led Labour Party. And bringing up the rear is the funny, sorry, tragic tale of a TUSC candidate getting no votes.
What hidden gem(s) to pick for a retread? I'm going for two, as is my wont. First is Why the Right Fears State Power, which helps explain why they never get caught up in dilemmas about its use. Hint: it's more complex than their being capital's chosen help meet. Second is The Strange Return of the Political Party, or how parties are making a mini-comeback in the face of social trends that are simultaneously eroding them.
