Tommy Sheridan Found Guilty

Tommy Sheridan has been found guilty on all six of the perjury charges. Blog to follow.

TUC Anti-Cuts Bulletin

15/12/10

ACTION POINTS
• Promote March 26 the demo
• Book transport for March 26 the demo
• Recruit stewards for TUC stewarding course
• Publicise False Economy website
• Encourage local groups --- particularly in target MP constituencies
• Encourage attendance at youth event and community conference
• Pass this bulletin on to campaigners. Give us more names for our email list to amthewson@tuc.org.uk

Mobilising for the March for the Alternative
As we hope everyone now knows, the TUC's national demonstration will be on Saturday March 26th next year. Our task now is to ensure that this is the biggest event in the TUC's recent history. Promotional material is now available. Leaflets and posters can be ordered from the TUC and an order form is appended to this bulletin. Alternatively pdfs can be downloaded from www.tuc.org.uk/alltogether or if you want to produce union specific versions you can contact Rob Sanders (rsanders@tuc.org.uk).

We will shortly have a web widget some code that can be easily inserted in a web site - asking people to pledge their attendance at the event. We will email round when this is available and queries about this should be directed to jwood@tuc.org.uk.

Transport
As we expect this demonstration to be huge we are asking people to assemble at 11am on the Embankment, so people organising transport from outside London may well need an early start. We are already hearing reports of people booking trains, and there will be countless coaches. TUC regional offices stand ready to help co-ordinate and publicise transport, and we will also advertise coaches or transport with spare seats on the website.

Stewarding
A demonstration of this size will need a large number of good confident stewards.

Our plan is to have three types of steward:
• 200-300 senior stewards: we would expect these to attend one of two training events in advance. We are asking TUC unions at a national level to nominate these, and will shortly be writing to unions about this.
• 500+ stewards: we would expect these to attend a regional briefing event. We will be recruiting these through TUC regional offices.
• Transport stewards we will ask each coach or group of people travelling to London to nominate a steward in advance, via the TUC website. We will provide written briefing in advance and ask them to provide a mobile number so we can keep them in touch by text with any developments.

Keith Faulkner RIP
Many people in the trade union movement will have known Keith Faulkner, the TUC's senior events officer and the lead official organising the march. Sadly, Keith died suddenly earlier in December. Keith is a great loss to the TUC, and the wider movement. We are picking up the organisation of the march as best we can in the meantime, the interim lead contact for the event is Nigel Stanley. (nstanley@tuc.org.uk).

The Cuts are not the Cure
In response to requests for a publication that sets out the economic case against the cuts and explains the alternative we have produced a 12 page pamphlet called Cuts are not the Cure. We are producing hard copies of this for sale (at cost price). It can be ordered using the order form for the march mobilisation materials.

You can also download a pdf at http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/CUTS_ARE_NOT_TH
E_CURE.pdf or http://bit.ly/cutsnotcure.

False Economy website
The False Economy website at www.falseeconomy.org.uk is an important part of the TUC's campaign strategy. It will receive a formal launch in the New Year, but has now been live for a few weeks.

The site is not a TUC or union site exclusively, but is a resource hub for the wider anti-cuts movement that has been built by a coalition of unions, on-line campaigners and some people active in local anti-cuts groups.

It has four purposes:
• Making the case for the alternative with a set of pages on the economics of the cuts and the alternatives, but more importantly a fabulous video fronted by actor Samuel West.
• Gathering information about cuts with an "add a cut" feature that allows people to report cuts whether small and local, or big and national. Already we have a great deal of information.
• Gathering testimonials about the effects of the cuts by allowing people to tell their stories about the impact of the cuts on their lives or communities.
• Building campaigns by gathering information about local, sectoral and national anti-cuts groups and allowing them to publicise events.

Where appropriate, cuts, events and testimonials can be linked to postcodes with the information available via an interactive map. This is designed to be a useful tool for cuts campaigners and a way of drawing people into the arguments for the alternative and activity.

Keeping Up Local Pressure
An important part of the campaign is keeping up pressure on coalition MPs, particularly those with small majorities or who stood on a platform of opposing early cuts. We have identified 152 target MPs. A majority were lobbied at, or near to, the TUC rally in October on the eve of the Government's Spending Review.

The list of target MPs is available at www.bitly.com/targetMPs, but you need to be a member of the TUC's Google group email list to have access to this. We have limited its availability to those who get this bulletin as we are now adding slightly more sensitive info.

If you do not have one, you will need to set up a Google log-in using the email address that we use to send this bulletin to you. That's easy to do. If you already have a Google log-in with another email address it's easy to link the email address the TUC is using to this from first the settings link on the top right of a Google screen and then the account details.

We are also happy to add any bona-fide union campaigners to the Google group, so if you have been forwarding emails on to colleagues, feel free to send their email addresses to Alen Mathewson at the TUC amathewson@tuc.org.uk

Netroots UK
Netroots Nation is a major US conference that periodically brings together progressive campaigners, bloggers, unions and others to share and build experience about on-line activism.

The TUC is delighted to be able to host the first Netroots UK event on Saturday January 8th. While this is not formally part of the All Together campaign, the campaign against the cuts is clearly a dominant issue, and is bound to heavily feature.

This is also an important way to build the alliances and coalitions that we have identified as an important part of the campaign. A big range of campaign groups are backing the event.

More details at http://www.netrootsuk.org/

Women and the cuts
A new TUC briefing explains the impact of the cuts on women. Here is a link to the press release and report:

• Cuts will reduce women's income and widen the gender pay gap, says TUC

Public sector job losses will be felt particularly hard by women working part-time as the average pay for part-time jobs in the private sector is just £6.78 an hour (compared to £9.34 in the public sector).

Lone parents, 90 per cent of whom are female, will be hit hardest by the spending cuts, losing 18.5 per cent of their net household income, or £3,121). Single female pensioners are next hardest hit, losing 11.7 per cent of their net income, or £1,326.

The TUC report also cites the gender audit of the emergency budget in June carried out by the House of Commons library, which found that 72 per cent of the changes in taxes, benefits and tax credits will hit women.

Voluntary sector conference
Community and voluntary sector groups will be joining the TUC at a special event on 8th February to look at ‘the future for civil society’. The event will bring unions and community and voluntary organisations together to assess the impacts of the government’s package of spending cuts, public service and welfare reform, providing a key opportunity to promote the All Together campaign to a broad range of civil society organisations.

A future that works
A national TUC rally for young people will be held in Manchester on Saturday January 29th 2011. The aim of the rally is to highlight the impact of the recession and the coalition cuts on young workers and young people in general.

Regional events
A series of regional TUC All Together Campaign briefings is being run throughout January and February. These practical sessions will provide an opportunity for reps, activists, officers and organisers to:

• Get an update on the campaign both nationally and regionally
• Get some practical advice on how to build the campaign in the workplace and beyond
• Prepare to mobilise for the March for the Alternative in London on March 26th

Each half-day session will be delivered by regional and national TUC staff and will feature sessions on improving campaign communication, building community based alliances against the cuts and using the campaign to build stronger unions.

The dates of the briefings are in the ‘diary dates’ section below. If you would like to attend one of the sessions please contact your regional TUC office.

There is also a whole host of other activity planned for the coming weeks, with a series of major regional events in the lead-up to the March for the Alternative including rallies, conferences and local campaigning. See below for some key dates and contact your regional TUC for more information.

Diary Dates
7 Jan --- Campaign briefing, Cardiff
8 Jan --- Netroots UK, London
8 Jan --- South West TUC Regional Council with anti-cuts theme
10 Jan--- Campaign briefing, Wrexham
11 Jan--- Campaign briefing, Wigan
12 Jan--- Campaign briefing, Birmingham
15 Jan --- SERTUC local campaigns day
22 Jan --- Northern TUC rally, Carlisle
29 Jan--- A Future that Works: TUC national rally for young people, Manchester
3 Feb --- Campaign briefing, Weston-Super-Mare
5 Feb --- Northern TUC public services conference, Newcastle
8 Feb --- Campaign briefing, Kendal
8 Feb --- Voluntary sector conference, London
19 Feb --- Midlands TUC supported march & rally, Nottingham
5/6 March --- Yorkshire & Humber TUC AGM with focus on the campaign
8 March --- International Women’s Day, activity in various regions including South West TUC ‘Women against the cuts’ event.

TUC regional contacts
To find out which is your TUC region and its contact details visit: http://www.tuc.org.uk/tuc/regions_main.cfm.

Pornblocking: Why It Would Have Killed Me

Guest post from Charlie of All Very Unaverage.

The Conservative MP Claire Perry, representing the good constituency of Devizes, Wiltshire, has suggested the introduction of a Great Porn Filter. This stalwart piece of software would patrol the borders of our great nation, letting in only the most virtuous, the most pure, the most clean of web traffic. With the filter in place Britain might rid itself of the terrible addicition to pornography that has brought it to its knees (so to speak) and which has led to all the problems that we now face: student debt, benefit cuts and snow over our noble runways. Without internet porn Britain would once again be a place that Mary Whitehouse could smile down upon from her heavenly doilie-enhanced throne. It would become, once again, a green and pleasant land.

Ahem.

I'm not going to go into why the "research" supporting Claire Paerry's little crusade is rubbish. Foxsoup did a far better job than I could. But I am going to tell you what the result would be.

The filter is an attempt to censor pornographic imagery from young sexual adults. These dirty, naughty images would enter the country at will, but it would be the task of your ISP to clamp their electronic fists around your home phone line and prevent your household from accessing them. If you did want access to Asian Hot Ass or Mighty Cocks of the Midwest then you would have to phone up your ISP and ask them to remove it.

You would have to beg for porn.

"Hello there, this is Denise, how can I help you?"

"Erm, hello. I'd, er.. like some [mumble] please."

"Some what, sir?"

"Some [mumble] ass."

"Could you say that just a bit louder, sir?" [puts call on speakerphone for entire call centre to hear]

"I JUST WANT SOME HOT ASIAN ASS, ALRIGHT? IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? I JUST WANT SOME PORN! IT'S BEEN 16 HOURS SINCE MY LAST WANK!"

"Just adding that to your account, sir"

Honestly, I feel sorry for Claire Perry's husband. How much porn must he get through in a day that she has thought about bringing in a national ban on porn as the only way to stop him?

But there's a very deadly side to this, as there is to all right-wing authoritarian plans. Because, who defines porn? There is no National Porn Agency. There is no Inspectorate for Sexual Materials. As far as I can tell, the nearest authority we have for defining porn is The Daily Mail. That self-righteous rag is the only place drawing the line in the sand and saying "this is filth", often alongside a full-page reproduction of said filth.

For those of us who do not have the taste to read the right-wing press we have to rely on personal discretion. For me, porn is heavily literal. I get off on stories and poems - yes, that is pretentious - I need to imagine an erotic situation to get off on it. From what I can tell of fixing the computers of my friends their erotic tastes cover a range quite different to mine: from comics to pictures to films to, in one case, 'Allo 'Allo slash fiction.

There are even, y'know, some people who, ha ha ha, get off on pictures of the same sex. Heh heh...

Oh. Shit.

I remember being a 15 year old boy (we'll come to that later). I remember how confusing sexuality was. I remember how fucking difficult it was in those pre-web days to get access to porn. We don't appreciate it now, but once it was hard to get porn. It wasn't just a case of sitting down with a laptop and opening your browser bookmarks. Oh no. In those days you had to go into a newsagent. And browse the top shelf. And pick up a magazine. And walk up to the counter. And turn bright red. And experience the leer of the owner as he put it in a discreet paper bag. And walk out, shamed.

Now imagine that if you're a gay teenager.

It isn't easy being gay in a straight world. As much as we like to think that we're all groovy with gays, that we've got some gay friends, it's still not easy to be an out non-straight adult. It's positively dangerous to be a queer teenager. Can you imagine how utterly terrifying it must be to access gay porn in meatspace when you're discovering that you're not normal, that what you are can get you beaten to death? If you're non-straight, you know how that feels. If you're straight then have a good fucking ponder about it.

But the availability of the internet in the late 90s changed this. Suddenly the world of same-sex genital tittilation was available from the comfort of your own teenage bedroom. You don't have to risk being mocked, or a beating. Or death. Now you could explore your sexuality, discover your tastes, all from the comfort of your masturbation throne.

Claire Perry doesn't want that. In her world, young people don't have a sexuality, or erotic tastes. They're good girls and boys, appropriately attracted to the opposite sex, waiting to marry before they can get any of that nasty, sticky behaviour over with. And certainly not one of those dirty fucking queers. I feel sorry for her children.

And it gets worse. Because, it's the start of the slippery slope. If we start blocking erotic materials "for the children" then what else gets caught up in that censoring dragnet? A lot of things, for certain - sexual health advice. Images of healthy bodies that a worried teen might need to look at ("is my penis meant to look like that?", "Are my breasts meant to be different sizes?"). Sexual health sites fall under the auspices of "porn" for a lot of current parental control software. This is because netnanny software is fundamentally stupid. It doesn't know WHY you or your child are trying to access a site, only that the Scunthorpe council homepage is pornographic (based on SUPER ADVANCE KEYWORD SEARCHING).

Oh, what about abortion advice? Why would nice children ever want to access that information? Better block it! It's not like teenagers are going to get pregnant!

And then there is another group. I give this one special mention, despite its rarity, because I belonged to that group. A group of kids who hated themselves, who were positively terrified of their own bodies, who are desperate to find out why their own flesh has betrayed them. Transgender teens.

Yes, they exist. I hated what I was for nearly all my teenage years., wanting to rip the skin from my body, sobbing myself to sleep at night because I couldn't understand what I was. But then came along the internet. Oh, the internet. It fucking saved me. It gave 18 year old me a view of the world that made me realise that I wasn't alone, that I could do something about the pain that made me want to die.

Claire Perry, and her evil piece of legislation, would take that lifeline away. Oh, maybe not conciously. I doubt she even knows that trans people exist, let alone that there are trans teenagers out there who rely on the internet for vital support. She wouldn't notice as the sites they use to gain crucial advice from are blocked, due to having never-quite-defined "adult materials", as support channels are closed down for "endangering youth". She wouldn't notice as sites all over the net are blocked for containing mention of sex, genitals, puberty and sexuality, when what they are doing is educating a badly unrepresented and unsupported section of society.

She wouldn't notice as another young person slits their wrists in utter desperation.

So fuck you, Claire Perry. Fuck you and your plan to block life-saving "pornography". Fuck you and your plan to block REAL pornography.

Just fucking fuck you.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted

I've got form commenting on Twitter-related issues (see here, here, here, here, and here), so there's a couple of things I'd like to say about Laurie Penny's latest piece, 'How Twitter Changed the Face of Dissent'.

Firstly, there is the pedantic point. The use of Twitter and Facebook does not represent something entirely new. Their scope and reach as protest tools are significant and qualitatively overshadow what has gone before, but organising decentralised networks of activists via the internet had a life prior to Web 2.0 and social networking. The way we organise online today stands on the shoulders of the anti-capitalist/global justice movement that saw its height between 1999 and 2005.

From the moment the internet emerged a significant feature of social life from the early-mid 90s (and before) diffuse groups of activists were making use of it to organise activities. Perhaps the most famous example of this in Britain was the J18 Carnival Against Capitalism. This drew from Reclaim the Streets and other activist groups associated with the anti-road building movement, but also depended on networks of hitherto keyboard-based dissenters and ne'er-do-wells clustered on dozens of email lists, news groups and bulletin boards. The use of the internet to counter the mainstream media's monopoly on news broadcasting was pioneered in the wake of these protests. The launch of Indymedia after the celebrated 'Battle of Seattle' was made possible by the London experience, and went some way toward consolidating the anti-capitalist/global justice movement online. From then on the internet complimented and amplified existing activist networks in organising people for future mobilisations, such as Prague in 2000, Genoa 2001, the European and World Social Forums, and Gleneagles in 2005. The internet is overlooked in the part it played in getting two million down to London on the February 15th, 2003 demonstration against the looming war in Iraq too.

I would suggest the main difference now is social media is capable of engaging broader audiences than the boards and mailing lists of old. While so-called intentional communities of activists still exist thanks to interlocking relationships of mutual support between bloggers and tweeters, there is more of an "overspill". Every political conversation on Facebook, every tweeted challenge to the media's narrative will, from time to time, catch the attention of an activist's non-political friend and follower who might read, act, and share with it others in their networks. Information traditionally crowded out by broadcasters and newspapers is cascading and diffusing among wider and wider layers at different levels of remove from the traditional core of radical politics.

But, and this is the second point, one should be careful not to overestimate the challenge this poses the state. In one sense the ruling class has, as Laurie argues, lost its monopoly over the means of communication. Once a message is out it cannot be reigned in again, as the US government are currently - and embarrassingly - finding out. And the rapidly growing practice of Twitter #solidarity is dissolving barriers between different groups of activists more effectively than a quarry full of poststructuralist philosophy. However you cannot get away from the awkward reality that this burgeoning radicalisation-by-internet is very much tolerated by the powers that be. Twitter is as capitalist as McDonalds. Facebook is fundamentally the same beast as Microsoft. Your internet connection is owned by a private company. The political economy of the social media world is indistinguishable in kind from any other marketplace, and as such each firm has material and political interests over and above the continued flow of users that pour through their services.

Readers may recall how swiftly mobile phone networks were shutdown in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. In the event (or promise) of a serious crisis of legitimacy, as a "friendly country" to the US it would take nothing for the government to block social media sites and institute an online black out. Private ownership of the means of social media allows the ruling class to assert their monopoly over communication if needs be.

Gil Scott-Heron once sang The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. 40 years on we can suppose it won't be appearing in a tweet either.

Ed in 'Not So Red' Shocker

Unite General Secretary-elect Len McCluskey writes a thoughtful article on trade union strategy in the face of the government's plans to dismember the public sector. For his pains he's earned condemnation from a clueless Graun editorial, and, according to Next Left, a slapping down from Ed Miliband. This has been attributed to 'Not-So-Red' Ed:

Ed warned about using overblown rhetoric about strikes in his conference speech and this is a case in point. The language and tone of Len McCluskey’s comments are wrong and unhelpful and Ed Miliband will be making that clear when he meets him in the near future.

It makes you wonder whether Ed Miliband, or the mini-me who does his press, bothered reading the article in question. I'd wager they looked at a Graun *commentary* on McCluskey's position and slipped into their default distancing setting.

Of course, some on the far left will take this as proof Labour needs displacing by a new workers' party, yadda, yadda. But as Socialist Unity's polemical thread against the Socialist Party's regrettable sectarian turn demonstrates, this is nothing new. Labour party leaders have been falling short of radical expectations since 1900. Well before the New Labour era leaders and leadership figures were attacking striking workers, condemning demonstrations, betraying working class interests, supporting wars overseas, pandering to racism, sexism and homophobia, kowtowing to capital, and shafting trade unions. And guess what? A section of the membership inconsistently and with varying degrees of enthusiasm have always gone along with this.

Once again, and apologies to readers for labouring the point, short of massive dislocations and insurgent militancy (and probably not even then) a mainstream Labour figure like Ed Miliband is not going to adopt any of the 57 varieties of transitional programmes for socialist revolution. It's therefore nonsensical to criticise him for failing to adopt the key reference points of the far left's frame. Nor will our dear leader be making soothing noises about strike action and trade union militancy any time soon. He and his team inhabits a political universe structured and policed by a cosy consensus of politicians, the media, and other professional opinion-formers. Pressure here is exerted by the unfavourable editorial, the negative opinion poll, the inconvenient think tank report, the disloyal backbench whispering. Within its own terms, trade unions and 'the people' are unwelcome and illegitimate interlopers in the political parlour game. Its one thing to address the wider population as an atomised electorate, quite another to see them as potential political actors endowed with their own interests.

Crucially, since the crisis, the hesitating steps toward Keynes-lite, and the party settling down to life on the opposition benches, the nature of political space has changed. As the Coalition's policies start to bite and the anti-cuts movement takes on more flesh by the day, Labour is increasingly becoming a repository of hopes and aspirations - in spite of its 'official' position in favour of "slow and shallow" cuts. The tens of thousands who've joined Labour since May are the tip of a very giant ice berg that is slowly turning in the party's direction. As a means of putting left wing arguments to a wider public Labour is, once again, an increasingly indispensable avenue for socialist politics to travel. Despite the utterances of its leadership.

Top 100 Dance Songs of the 80s

We've done the 00s. We've done the 90s. Therefore it would be remiss of me not to inflict my taste of all things musical and 1980s-related on the AVPS-reading public. Well, that's a bit of a fib. Below is a list of the top 100 *dance* songs of that decade. No poodle rock. No goths. No Smiths. This is one hundred percent synthy bleepy beaty electronica in all its manifestations. So kick off your slippers and take a nostalgic trip down musical memory lane, all the while moaning how "they don't make 'em like that any more".


Edit: Four years later I got round to doing a top 100 of the 1970s too!

2nd edit: And here is the Top 100 of the 2010s!


100) Requiem by London Boys (1989)
99) Angel Eyes by Lime (1983)
98) Sign o' the Times by Prince (1987)
97) The Jack That House Built by Jack 'n' Chill (1987)
96) You're The One For Me by D-Train (1982)
95) Tears by Frankie Knuckles presents Satoshi Tomiie (1989)
94) p:Machinery by Propaganda (1985)
93) Heart by Pet Shop Boys (1988)
92) Moments In Love by Art of Noise (1985)
91) Forget Me Nots by Patrice Rushen (1982)
90) Waves by Blancmange (1983)
89) Criticize by Alexander O'Neal (1987)
88) Celebration by Kool & the Gang (1980)
87) Promised Land by Joe Smooth (1987)
86) Living on the Ceiling by Blancmange (1982)
85) Don't Go by Yazoo (1982)
84) Keep on Movin' by Soul II Soul (1989)
83) Ain't Nobody Better by Inner City (1989)
82) A Night To Remember by Shalamar (1982)
81) Big in Japan by Alphaville (1984)
80) House Arrest by Krush (1987)
79) People Hold On by Coldcut feat. Lisa Stansfield (1989)
78) Jack Your Body by Steve 'Silk' Hurley (1986)
77) Round & Round by New Order (1989)
76) Always On My Mind by Pet Shop Boys (1987)
75) Beat Dis by Bomb the Bass (1987)
74) Push It by Salt-n-Pepa (1987)
73) Pump Up the Volume by M/A/R/R/S (1987)
72) Get a Life by Soul II Soul (1989)
71) Rockit by Herbie Hancock (1983)
70) Menergy by Patrick Cowley (1981)
69) Doctorin' the House by Coldcut feat. Yazz (1988)
68) Here Comes the Rain Again by Eurythmics (1984)
67) Wishing (If I Had a Photograph of You) by A Flock of Seagulls (1982)
66) Voodoo Ray by A Guy Called Gerald (1989)
65) Suburbia by Pet Shop Boys (1986)
64) Your Love by Frankie Knuckles (1987)
63) We Call It Acieed by D Mob (1988)
62) Fresh by Kool & the Gang (1985)
61) Venus by Bananarama (1986)
60) 1963 by New Order (1987)
59) Love is a Stranger by Eurythmics (1982)
58) Voyage Voyage by Desireless (1987)
57) Love Can't Turn Around by Farley Jackmaster Funk feat. Daryl Pandy (1986)
56) Buffalo Stance by Neneh Cherry (1989)
55) What Time is Love? by The KLF (1988)
54) Nobody's Diary by Yazoo (1983)
53) Domino Dancing by Pet Shop Boys (1988)
52) Read My Lips (Enough is Enough) by Jimmy Somerville (1989)
51) Let's Groove by Earth, Wind & Fire (1981)
50) Big Fun by Inner City (1988)
49) Ship of Fools by Erasure (1988)
48) Mirror Man by The Human League (1982)
47) Forever Young by Alphaville (1984)
46) This Time I Know It's For Real by Donna Summer (1989)
45) Sometimes by Erasure (1987)
44) Play At Your Own Risk by Planet Patrol (1982)
43) Don't Make Me Wait by Bomb the Bass (1988)
42) Getting Away With It by Electronic (1989)
41) Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God) by Kate Bush (1985)
40) It's Raining Men by The Weather Girls (1984)
39) Don't Leave Me This Way by The Communards (1986)
38) (Keep Feeling) Fascination by The Human League (1983)
37) Opportunities (Let's Make Lots of Money) by Pet Shop Boys (1985)
36) The Theme from S-Express by S-Express (1988)
35) Good Life by Inner City (1988)
34) Manchild by Neneh Cherry (1989)
33) Souvenir by OMD (1981)
32) Tell It To My Heart by Taylor Dayne (1987)
31) Sin by Nine Inch Nails (1989)
30) Kylie Said to Jason by The KLF (1989)
29) It's My Life by Talk Talk (1984)
28) Together In Electric Dreams by Giorgio Moroder with Philip Oakey (1984)
27) There Must Be An Angel by Eurythmics (1985)
26) Ride on Time by Black Box (1989)
25) Yé ké yé ke (Afro Acid Mix) by Mory Kante (1988)
24) Tainted Love by Soft Cell (1982)
23) True Faith by New Order (1987)
22) Let the Music Play by Shannon (1983)
21) You Spin Me Round (Like A Record) by Dead or Alive (1984)
20) The Model by Kraftwerk (1981)
19) Temptation by Heaven 17 (1983)
18) The Only Way Is Up by Yazz and the Plastic Population (1988)
17) What Have I Done to Deserve This? by Pet Shop Boys feat. Dusty Springfield (1987)
16) Enola Gay by OMD (1980)
15) Move Your Body by Marshall Jefferson (1985)
14) A Little Respect by Erasure (1988)
13) Don't You Want Me by The Human League (1981)
12) Atomic by Blondie (1980)
11) Vienna by Ultravox (1981)
10) Never Can Say Goodbye by The Communards (1987)
9) Only You by Yazoo (1982)
8) 19 by Paul Hardcastle (1985)
7) Fade to Grey by Visage (1980)
6) Pacific State by 808 State (1989)
5) Blue Monday by New Order (1983)
4) Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) by Eurythmics (1983)
3) It's a Sin by Pet Shop Boys (1987)
2) Smalltown Boy - Bronski Beat (1984)

And, in my humble opinion, the finest slice of 80s electronica is ... this:

Just Say No ... to Drugs Hysteria

It seems like an age ago (well, Thursday) since former New Labour minister Bob Ainsworth came out fighting for a radical rethink on drugs policy. He writes:

... our political culture doesn’t allow for an honest and open discussion about drugs policy. As soon as a politician mentions the words decriminalisation or legalisation; the press scream blue murder, colleagues move to distance themselves from you and your political opponents sharpen the knife. The words had barely passed my lips before my party briefed against me and called me ‘irresponsible’.

So I am calling for an open and frank discussion on drugs policy. We should consider all options. For too long, we have dismissed the legalisation and decriminalisation because it will open the door to carnage on our streets without any evidence to support that.

This is a position so reasonable that even Tom Harris was moved to support it!

Surely as night follows day the press were all over him like young Tories on a cocaine snowman. The Daily Express said Ed Miliband "faced fresh embarrassment" over Ainsworth's call. In one of the feeblest attempts to stir the shit I've ever seen, Macer Hall wrote "the row intensified when Mr Ainsworth exploded with rage at attempts to rubbish his argument. Last night, the dispute was threatening to turn into a serious test of Mr Miliband’s authority as Labour leader as he struggled to silence Mr Ainsworth’s defiance to official party policy." What a load of hooey. For the ever-thoughtful Daily Star, "his proposals were instantly branded potty yesterday by both Labour and the Coalition Government." Potty? Geddit? He's mad, and pot's another name for Cannabis so ... never mind.

More serious engagement with Ainsworth's position comes from Hopi Sen who sets out the political reasons why, in Labour HQ's words, "these are not the views of Ed Miliband, the Labour party or the public". Indeed, if this 2009 survey of attitudes to drug use in Scotland are anything to go by, the mood among the population at large are hardening - no doubt helped by hysterical press reporting and much being made of the links between drugs and wider criminality. Because Labour plays the conventional political game, because its leadership and the minds of many activists are attuned to the sphere of non-punishment, the only way Labour would adopt a genuinely progressive and socialist policy on drugs is if there's a seismic shift in society itself. Short of that we're lumbered with an authoritarian, moralising consensus embraced by the media, the main parties, and other paragons of public virtue.

That doesn't mean socialists or anyone who would like to see the decriminalisation of all drugs should give up. The arguments for taking this step are obvious: the passing of drug cultivation and supply into the hands of a professional body, an agency, or an arm of the state allows for regulation of quality, price and availability. And this is before you start talking about tax revenues and more opportunities for programmes helping people off drugs. Sure, as with duty free fags and underground booze distilleries a black market will exist. But it will be much smaller and pose less of a crime/anti-social behavioral problem than is presently the case. Why would a junkie want to nick your stuff to feed a habit when safe and cheap alternatives are available from the local dispensary?

Then there is a question of framing. Whether you regularly inject heroin or smoke a joint in the dark while jiving to crap music, you are "a problem". But a problem to whom or what? Going back to his post, Hopi worries partial decriminalisation in Portugal hasn't provided any evidence for reduced drug use. So? The aim of a sensible drug policy would be to regulate and dampen the harms that currently accompany prohibition - if someone wants to fill their veins with junk, take a trip to Narnia, or spend all night giggling at folded beer mats, that's up to them. As a general rule people are pretty sensible and capable of making their own minds up - something mainstream politicos occasionally need reminding of.

The hostility toward drugs by political elites isn't, however, irrational (even if it often assumes that appearance). A foundation stone of our social superiors' culture is to assume they know what's best for everyone else. Without that conceit, how could they ever have the confidence to rule? However, this conceit is imbued with their interests. They want disciplined and fit bodies they can feed into the division of labour to reproduce their wealth and their class relations. While there are obviously health issues associated with substance dependency, employing a factory or office full of potheads doesn't make for the most efficient rate of exploitation; employees under the influence threaten profitability and organisational potency. It's for this reason drinking on the job is, in most cases, a sackable offence.

Sections of the state have a direct interest in maintaining drug prohibition too. If decriminalisation kicks away a key material prop that sustains contemporary criminality, there goes a large chunk of the legitimacy for maintaining a police force and bureaucracy of 200-odd thousand. Should an armistice be signed in the war on drugs, the anti-democratic force of what Engels called "armed bodies of men" would have their powers severely curbed and the state's ability to suppress democratic upwellings from below compromised. This is before you get to the shower of socially useless drug tsars, war-on-drugs consultants, and the like. And of course the kingpins of the underworld too, whose money can grease the wheels of capitalism as well as any from legit sources.

In short, behind contemporary drugs policy lies a whole complex of political economy which sustains it. Calls by Bob Ainsworth and Tom Harris for a proper debate are very welcome and well intentioned. But the case for decriminalisation is hobbled straight away if it doesn't simultaneously identify and challenge the interests arrayed against it.

So Long, Iain, and Thanks for all the Pish

The decision of Iain Dale to bid blogging adios came as no surprise to anyone who often dips into his site. The slowing frequency of posts, the preponderance of announcements over comment, and the declining quality of original material were all indicative of a blog inexorably approaching its end.

I broadly concur with Andy's assessment of Iain's contributions to blogging. He did engender a culture of self-referentiality - particularly among Tory bloggers - that was very well-suited to the same recursive universe medialand and the Westminster Village inhabit. One of his achievements, if you can call it that, was to have blogging (or rather a tiny fraction of gossip-focused sites) accepted as a minor component of this space. Iain's success can be measured by how his blog served as an entree into the lucrative world of media punditry. That said, while Iain has been accused of abusing his position to smear other bloggers, he has shone a spotlight on blogs from across the political spectrum. Practically every prominent blog of the hard left has been featured at some point, and I can't complain. An appearance on his Daley Dozen always guaranteed a nice boost to this blog's audience.

But what mystified me was the secret of Iain's appeal. Yes, his tenacious pursuit of self-publicity played no small part in capturing a large blog audience. And yes, there is (and will always be) a market for Westminster tittle-tattle, although of course he was always second to Paul Staines in the gossip-mongering department. And yet his political commentary and writing didn't really stand out from the Tory crowd. Iain's polemic, critique and comment never dripped in originality or cunning insight. His opinions were seldom out of step with Tory mainstream: he maintained critical distance from Dave but differed little over anti-trade unionism, Europe, economic policy, vote reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cuts, and much else. You name a burning issue of the last five years and you would find Iain's blog articulating what the centre right of the Tory party thought and felt. Perhaps it was this that secured his position at the apex of Tory blogging. After all, dull mediocrity never did Stalin any harm.

Iain is only the latest in the list of high profile blogging casualties. Despite his protestations about wanting to spend more time with his media career, this is part of a trend afflicting right and left alike. There is something going on and, in my opinion, that something is deeper than just a change of government. The summer of cuts announcements after cuts announcements coupled with the upsurge of militant protest has placed us in a new political situation. Parties and the media are all at sixes and sevens about what it means for them, the government's programme, and how it will play out over the coming months. With the rules of the game changing its small wonder bloggers habituated to the pace of "politics as usual" are dropping like flies.

If only Harry's Place would also do the decent thing ...

Bakhtin and Cultural Theory

Whatever the government says, the 80% cut to universities' teaching budgets represents a massive ideological assault on higher education. By one stroke of the true blue Tory pen they're saying politics, sociology, philosophy, literature, geography, art and music, media, psychology, economics, languages, IR, film, business, history, law, American studies, cultural studies, and religious studies are worth less than the good old hard sciences. Never mind the vital economic and cultural contributions humanities subjects make. Never mind how the new fees structure will not make up the shortfall.

The imminent passing of the first of these miserable measures provided the context for Keele Professor David Shepherd's inaugural lecture, 'The Theory of Culture and the Culture of Theory'. He opened with a quote from Martha Nussbaum's latest book, Not for Profit (2010). While this polemic is a defence of the humanities against the science/technocratic fetishism of government elites. She paints a picture of a set of disciplines in retreat, as barely tolerated by policy makers and declining amongst the generations coming up through formal schooling and further education. But this, Shepherd believes, is a mistaken view. In a perverse way the government's removal of public subsidy for humanities subjects is a vote of confidence in them: they're deeply rooted and sufficiently robust to be able to thrive even after massive fee hikes. Which is just as well, as he argues the humanities "cultivate capacities for critical thinking and reflection, keeping democracies alive and wide awake".

What's all this to do with cultural theory? For Thomas Osborne in The Structure of Modern Cultural Theory (2008), theory is a vitally necessary humanistic project. It defends the humanities because it promotes/enhances society's critical faculties and ensures the Enlightenment project remains live and relevant. It is, if you like, the humanities becoming conscious of itself. But as any student of the social sciences will tell you, this rationalist "function" has sat uneasily with the postmodernist and poststructuralist trends that emerged during the latter third of the 20th century. It has been a productive, if complex and at times highly abstract tension that has generated considerable insights into how contemporary (Western) societies operate and "be", but its legacy has been the dawning of a "post-theoretical" age.

At least that's what Terry Eagleton argues in 2003's After Theory. Shepherd illustrates this with an observation of drawn from John Guillory's 1993 book, Cultural Capital. He notes a tendency for scholars and critics to use theory to give their works an appearance of rigour. If this insight is cut and pasted into Eagleton's view of cultural theory's direction (and taken in conjunction with his critique of postmodernism), this is a recipe for overtheorisation. Rather than pursuing criticism commensurate with Enlightenment values exegesis has become a banal application of fashionable theories to equally voguish cultural artifacts for self-recursive professional reasons. Why produce challenging work that critiques power relations and/or the movements of capital when one can advance career goals by watching Gardener's World through a Lacanian lens?

This 'culture of theory' that has held cultural theory in its hegemonic thrall is symptomatic of its failure. Drawing on the work of Robert Scholes, Shepherd suggested that despite the achievements cultural theory has won, it has failed to explain to the dominant class what the humanities are all about. Because it has not inculcated a humanist virtue in elite circles, cultural theory is at least part-culpable for being held in indifference and open to cutting from education budgets.

To get cultural theory back on track (and as a professional 'Bakhtinologist'), Shepherd argued there is a thing or two we can learn from Mikhail Bakhtin. Often thought of and treated as a literary critic, Bakhtin was in fact a philosopher. According to interviews before his death he was forced by the circumstance of working in Stalin's USSR to use literary criticism (of Dostoyevsky and Rabelais) as a foil for writing philosophy. The translation and reception of his works in Anglophone scholarship coincided with its poststructuralist moment and therefore Bakhtin was appreciated in those terms. It's not surprising as his best known contribution to cultural theory - his approach to the 'carnivalesque' - sat very easily with deconstructive and destabilising theoretical moves of the time. Bakhtin's discussion of the carnival in Rabelais stressed its erosion of boundaries, of the transgression of norms, inversion of hierarchies, the celebration of bodily functions and the evocation of fire as a force redolent of death, rebirth, and regeneration. And therefore, in spite of his own denunciations of 'theoreticism' in the 1920s, his incorporation into the PoMo canon contributed to the after/post-theory malaise by his positioning (by others) as the latest trendy theorist with an new and interesting way of looking at things. However Bakhtinian studies and scholarship are now passing into a second phase.

Returning to general cultural theory for a moment, Robert Scholes - like Eagleton - believes cultural theory has lost sight of how language and modes of representation work. Shepherd suggests it needs turn its critical gaze upon itself. Doing so reveals the theory of culture depends on a (more broadly understood) culture of theory. For example, in Eagleton's case, even the most radical social theory draws from existent cultural forms and established traditions.

Bakhtin is especially useful for re-establishing theory because he offers a means of reflection (which characterises the latest wave in Bakhtin studies). Bakhtin distinguishes between monologic and dialogic discourses. The former are conceited modes of thought (usually, but not exclusively, the hard sciences) that refuse to consider themselves as the outcome of definite historical-cultural processes. Monologic discourses fall into the trap of thinking they exist because they're true, and that's all there is to it. Dialogic discourses are, as the name implies, deliberative and reflective. They are characterised by understanding the constituted nature of themselves and any other mode of thought, and by applying a little bit of cultural theory-as-reflection to a situation, the value of the humanities can be brought out.

For example, Shepherd cited the inspiring rescue of the Chilean miners. This was trumpeted by the international media as a triumph of scientific ingenuity and tenacity. But with a little bit of reflection, this is as much a victory for the humanities too. The psychologist - whose opinions were regularly featured in reports - is a product of social scientific institutions. Ditto the army of councillors on standby. Ditto the artists drafted in to keep the miners' childrens' spirits up. Ditto the think tanks advising politicians prior to the disaster of the dangers of Chile's copper mining industry. And on it goes. The humanities made a vital, albeit unseen contribution to the eventual happy outcome.

For Shepherd cultural theory's way out of the doldrums is a case of 'a little more reflection, a little less action, please'. But I think he's making the sort of theoreticist argument that would have wound Bakhtin up 80-odd years ago. Aligning cultural theory more explicitly with Enlightenment values is a good thing. But reflection in the Bakhtinian sense described in Shepherd's lecture is actually quite weak and, dare I say it, old hat. While it has a place in ideology critique, it does not go deep enough to the root of cultural theory's problems. Reflection here is a purely theoretical-analytical move to highlight commonly invisible/suppressed complexes of social practices. It does not dig into the institutional habitat of cultural theory: of the very strict demarcation between cultural theory and the radical conclusions it poses, and the privileged but structurally separated out domain of the academy. It is a call to arms, of demanding the ruthless criticism of all that exists completely divorced from a simultaneous stress on the need for a practical politics.

This situation was particularly acute in the previous period with neoliberalism riding roughshod over anything smacking of socialism. The decline of socialist and radical politics saw some former activists opt for academia. But now, indisputably, radicalism is on the rise again. It won't be a commitment to reflective theoretical practice that will shape cultural theory over the next few years. It's the capacity to join with the new generation who've taken to the streets.

In Praise of the Far Left

This article on Liberal Conspiracy really annoyed me. Emily Davis talks about the need for the left to unite and be nice to each other - which of course is a good thing: a bit more comradeship and genuine discussion beats zero-sum point scoring over entrenched positions any day. But where the plea for unity fails utterly is when she turns her thoughts to the far left. Out goes the warm glow of conviviality and in comes bilious animosity. She writes:

Communism never was a ‘nice idea’ – it always involved an advocation of ‘dictatorship’ and violent suppression of dissent, and evidence shows that this brutal attitude has always borne itself out in practice.

They [the far left] obviously have the right to say what they think, and to protest where they choose, but social-democrats and democratic-socialists can and should tell them and others that we think their views are comparable to Fascism in their disregard of human rights.

At this current time of fightback against the new Coalition government, we need a centre- and moderate left- coalition of opposition. What we don’t need and shouldn’t want are allies on the far-left who aren’t progressive in the slightest – they remain stuck in the past. We need to think about what is best in the long-term for our future.

Hi Emily, that was Harry's Place on the phone. They'd like their smelling salts back.

I'm not going to get into a convoluted and long-winded argument about the Marxist theory of communism. To identify the regimes that used and abused Marx's theories to legitimate their actions and privileges with the stateless post-class society of associated producers, a society for which the seeds are present in really existing technological capacities and concrete relationships demonstrates a very superficial understanding of what Marxism's all about.

But what I will say is if it wasn't for the Trots, if it wasn't for current and former members of the likes of the Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, and the 57 varieties slogging their guts out in the trade unions, in the community campaigns, the social movement organisations, Emily's apologia for witch-hunting would be entirely academic.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the desire for effective action is in want of effective organisation. Currently many comparisons are being made with the scenes of 20 years ago when quarter of a million people took to London's streets in protest against the Poll Tax. That required organisation, which was provided by the Anti-Poll Tax Federation. Whatever criticisms one can make of Militant's role within it, they provided dedicated activists and a leadership that helped get it off the ground. They worked as organisers of bailiff busts, did the unglamorous donkey work, organised demos, lobbies and public meetings, and acted as McKenzie's Friends.

Another argument doing the rounds is the militancy and radicalism of the protest and occupation movement can be partially explained by the failure of the anti-war mobilisations in 2003. The largest demonstration in British political history was peaceful and law-abiding, but didn't stop Blair and Bush from carrying out their assault on Iraq. Again, whatever criticisms can be made of the SWP, if they had not taken the initiative of forming Stop the War Coalition after September 11th, not bothered with the invisible but necessary work around opposing the invasion of Afghanistan, the anti-war movement would have been much, much weaker.

This isn't a bad record for people who hold views "comparable to fascism in their disregard for human rights" and "aren't progressive in the slightest". One wonders where Emily's "centre- and moderate left-coalition of opposition" were during anti-fascist mobilisations, anti-deportation campaigns, campaigns against privatisation and closures, and industrial disputes of recent years. Would the Vestas Occupation have been a cause celebre if it wasn't for the advice and solidarity of Trotskyist organisations? Had it not been for the determined interventions of the Socialist Party, would the wildcat strike at Lindsey Oil Refinery been turned away from nationalist slogans and anti-foreigner sentiment?

Trade unions would definitely be all the poorer if it wasn't for the thankless work undertaken by thousands of Trotskyist shop stewards and lay activists over the last 20-30 years. I know our local trades council would be dead and buried if it wasn't for the persistence and patience of activists rooted in this tradition.

Luckily, because the far left are the ones who've done (and do) the necessary ground work for many contemporary social movements, Emily and other witch-hunters like Luke Akehurst and Harry's Place are unlikely ever to be in a position to exclude anyone. And it's just as well: the energy, organisation and radicalism of the far left are a feather in the anti-cuts movement cap.

If we didn't have them, it would be necessary to invent them.