Cuts, Class, and LGBTQ Communities

Originally posted on the Labour Representation Committee website. This is from Thierry Schaffauser of Left Front Art and the LRC.

Part of the current homophobic discourse is to portray LGBT people as economically stronger than the “general population”. We’ve heard about the so called “pink pound” and the expression “double income, no kids” which present us in the mainstream media and advertisement industry as a new target market of the consumerist society.

These representations tend to feed the conspiracy theories that describe the “gay lobby” as imposing the “values of a minority” to the defenceless silent majority who continues to raise “hard working families”. Some people continue to think that homosexuality should not be the concern of the working class which has better priorities to defend like opposing the government cuts.

They don’t realise that we are actually as much if not more concerned by the cuts. If some gay men are indeed very powerful and influential, the majority of LGBTQ people are in fact less advantaged economically. It is true that white middle class gay men are often the leaders of the gay movement and indeed more visible because they have more power which allows them being visible. The “pink pound” in a capitalist society allows them buying better acceptance.

However, what about those who are not middle class? Do you think that homosexuality is stranger of the working class? Ask yourself why trade unions are still dominated by straight men. Why is it still so difficult for many to come out among their comrades? The reality is that we do exist but LGBTQ issues are still considered as less serious, less important, a secondary struggle which divert the focus from what really matters. This way of thinking is actually the best way to divide the working class when we should be all united.

It erases our existence and therefore our oppression and our struggles. Moreover, homophobia does not operate in the same way according to your class, gender, race, etc. Homophobia may be less a problem when you are a Minister and have a body guard, but it can be very violent when you are working on the streets as a sex worker and that people see you as an easy target that doesn’t deserve police protection. Lesbians as women don’t benefit the same economic power that gay men when Trans’ people are often excluded from the labour market. Also the HIV epidemic has had a tremendous impact for many gay men in terms of economic disempowerment.

Many people remain silent in their workplace about their identity because they know that in a difficult economic period they may be the first ones to be made redundant. They know that the cuts in their sector will target them more than others. They will have to continue playing the discreet ones, sometimes lying, and listening to all the family stories of their colleagues acquiescing in silent. They will give some money to help a widow colleague with the funerals of the loved husband she lost while nobody said a word when his husband and half his friends died of AIDS a few years earlier.

The cuts will affect the LGBTQ communities more because we are never a priority. The “real families” will always come first, even when we have children too. They will have to save the most important and we know that we’re not. Many LGBT charity organisations are already losing their funding like Galop an organisation helping victims of hate crimes; LGBT youth services which many have already closed, or Broken Rainbow that helps people suffering domestic violence within a same sex couple.

The cuts imposed on students and the rise of tuition fees will obviously have a greater impact on those students who are not supported economically by their family and among them many LGBTQ students are more likely to be in that situation.

Many HIV services and health organisations are also at risk, with a greater lack of means to support people living with HIV and with fewer consultations available for STD’s testing and less prevention campaigns in a critical period when young gay men are currently very vulnerable to HIV infections.

There will be even less funding to investigate hate crimes when they are already underfunded. Yet, the difficult economic period is conducive to higher level of homophobic and transphobic attacks because people are looking for scapegoats for their own problems. The lack of staff in public transports or the cuts in public lighting will also reduce the safety of those who need it the most.

Most schools don’t educate pupils about feminism or LGBT issues despite an obligation to mention them at least for LGBT history month in their programs. If schools have less funding, many teachers will consider that they must focus on the “fundamentals” without wasting time for less important items of the programme. Nonetheless, education is the best way to fight hate crimes committed often by very young people and to reduce the problems of school bullying or the high levels of LGBTQ teenagers’ suicide.

Many LGBTQ people are in need of protection such as asylum seekers. Most of them are denied their rights and deported back to countries where they face persecutions and death. LGBTQ asylum seekers who are only seen as an additional cost will struggle even more to be recognised by the Home office as deserving protection.

The list is long and I probably forget other issues but what is clear is that we will suffer a lot from the cuts. In that struggle, we will need more than ever the support of the Labour movement because the gay movement has for the moment nothing to say about the cuts. However, more and more LGBTQ activists refuse the commercialisation of their pride and sociability places and the de-politicisation of their identities. Some like me use the term “Queer” politically not only to reclaim the insult but to question the normalisation of the gay identity and in particular regarding the issues of class and race.

We are more and more who prefer to invest our energy in the Labour movement because the oppression we suffer is not only about homophobia and that the homophobia we suffer is different to those of white middle class men. New forms of activism such as UK Black Pride, Hackney Pride, Queer mutinies, or the work of LGBTQ trade unionists try to include and analyse the intersection of class, race, sexuality and gender in their struggles. Left Front Art is one of these organisations and we have affiliated to LRC because we want these issues to be part of the progressive Labour agenda.

Condemning Violent Political Discourse

Excellent comment from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on yesterday's shootings in Arizona:

The Stephen King Books Meme

To write a novel is a desire common among pretentious pseudo-intellectual 30-somethings. And I'm no different. I have an idea, a vague notion of a plot, and a yearning to get trashed by Natalie Haynes on the Review Show. But writing fiction's a different kettle of fish to this blogging lark and academic writing, innit? This in mind I've recently read Stephen King's On Writing (2000), a book that deftly combines memoir and writing tips into one seamless whole. King doesn't draw character profiles or sketch out plot road maps. He has a couple of ideas and throws some characters into the situation. I have a similarish approach to blogging and found his advice very useful and suited to my way of doing things (especially on the evil that is passive voice, a monster I didn't eradicate entirely from the old PhD thesis). In short, I was very impressed so On Writing comes with a great huge AVPS recommendation.

At the back of the book, King provides a bibliography of best books he read during the composition of On Writing, From a Buick Eight, Hearts in Atlantis and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. This sounds like ideal meme fodder to me.

Of his list of 93 books how many have you read? Those in bold are books I've read. Those in italics are books I own. And if they're bold and italicised, well. I think you can work it out.

A Perfect Crime by Peter Abrahams
Lights Out by Peter Abrahams
Pressure Drop by Peter Abrahams
Revolution #9 by Peter Abrahams
A Death in the Family by James Agee
Lives of the Monster Dogs by Kirsten Bakis
Regeneration by Pat Barker
The Eye in the Door by Pat Barker
The Ghost Road by Pat Barker
In the Night Season by Richard Bausch
The Intruder by Peter Blauner
The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles
The Tortilla Curtain by TC Boyle
A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson
Thank You for Smoking by Christopher Buckley
Where I'm Calling From by Raymond Carver
Werewolves in Their Youth by Michael Chabon
Latitude Zero by Windsor Chorlton
The Poet by Michael Connelly
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Family Values by KC Constatine
Underworld by Don DeLillo
Cathedral by Nelson DeMille
The Gold Coast by Nelson Demille
Oliver Twist by Charles Dicken
Common Carnage by Stephen Dobyns
The Church of Dead Girls by Stephen Dobyns
The Woman Who Walked into Doors by Roddy Doyle
The Dick Gibson Show by Stanley Elkin
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
The Beach by Alex Garland
Deception on His Mind by Elizabeth George
Gravity by Tess Gerritsen
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
A Gun for Sale by Graham Greene
Our Man in Havana by Graham Greene
The Fifties by David Halberstam
Why Sinatra Matters by Pete Hamill
Hannibal by Thomas Harris
Plainsong by Kent Haruf
Smilla's Sense of Snow by Peter Hoeg
Dirty White Boys by Stephen Hunter
A Firing Offence by David Ignatius
A Widow for One Year by John Irving
The Tooth Fairy by Graham Joyce
The Devil's Own Work by Alan Judd
Good Enough to Dream by Roger Kahn
The Liars' Club by Mary Karr
Survivor by Tabitha King
The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
Into Thin Air by Jon Kraukauer
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Our Guys by Bernard Lefkowitz
The Ignored by Bentley Little
A River Runs Through It and Other Stories by Norman Maclean
The Moon and Sixpence by W. Somerset Maugham
Cities of the Plain by Cormac McCarthy
The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy
Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt
Charming Billy by Alice McDermott
Ancient Shores by Jack McDevitt
Enduring Love by Ian McEwan
The Cement Garden by Ian McEwan
Dead Man's Walk by Larry McMurtry
Zeke and Ned by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana
A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M Miller
Zombie by Joyce Carol Oates
In the Lake of the Woods by Tim O'Brien
The Speed Queen by Stewart O'Nan
The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje
No Safe Place by Richard North Patterson
Freedomland by Richard Price
Close Range: Wyoming Stories by Annie Proulx
The Shipping News by Annie Proulx
One True Thing by Anna Quindlen
A Sight for Sore Eyes by Ruth Rendall
Waiting by Frank M Robinson
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by JK Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by JK Rowling
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by JK Rowling
Mohawk by Richard Russo
Reservation Road by John Burnham Schwartz
A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth
The Young Lions by Irwin Shaw
The Crater by Richard Slotkin
The Illusionist by Dinitia Smith
Men in Black by Scott Spencer
Joe Hill by Wallace Stegner
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
A Patchwork Planet by Anne Tyler
Hocus Pocus by Kurt Vonnegut
Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh
The Ax by Donald E Westlake

I say, only 13 books read and 16 owned is a jolly poor show, what? And I consider myself to be quite well-read! What's your tally?

Can you put my acquaintance with literature to shame? Seeing as it's a Sunday and perhaps some comrades will be looking for blog filler I hereby tag HarpyMarx, Jim Jepps, Splinty, Dolphin Maria, Carl Raincoat, James Bloodworth, Madam Miaow, Alex, and The Third Estate.

Readers with a penchant for bigger lists might want to take a gander at The Graun's 1,000 books you must read.

Sarah Palin's Targets

Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has been shot at a 'Congress on your Corner' event. Reports coming from the US suggest 19 people were shot, with five people dead. There was some confusion whether Giffords survived the attack. She is currently in intensive care.

Whatever the gunman's motivation, questions are bound to be asked after the liberal-voting Congresswoman was "targeted" by Sarah Palin's campaign for voting for Obama's health care bill. As Palin's site is down, I'll reproduce her list of targets:

Not only does Giffords' name appear under crosshairs, her election recent opponent ran events "targeting" Giffords prior to her election.

Strangely, Fox News are using this occasion not to speculate. Must be a first for them.

Kenneth Tong and the Fame Game

This is Kenneth Tong. Until my significant other began ranting about him this morning I hadn't heard of him. But he's famous. His celebrity is based on a six day stint in the 2009 series of Big Brother and ... um, that's it. Why then am I introducing this towering luminary to AVPS readers? Because young Kenneth is sitting at the heart of a Twitterstorm. Kenneth fancies himself as something of a self-help guru, except his idea of self-help is encouraging women to starve themselves down to a US size zero. His Twitter profile declares "Proudly endorsing managed anorexia. Nothing tastes as good as thin feels." Here are some of his pearls:

Curvy is another word for fat when used by you. Stop hiding behind such a broad word that does not apply to your context. You are just fat.

Should be approaching lunch hour in Britain, although you really shouldn't take notice of this if you're not a size zero, carry on working.

All you non size zero girls need to keep a food diary, noting everything you eat & drink - review it daily and see how imperfect you are.

Females who do not aim nor want to be a size zero are simply uneducated and ignorant. To be skinny is to be perfect. Personify self-control.

There is no excuse for a Girl not to be a Size Zero. It is perfection. Skinny is so sexy, show's [sic] self control and is the epitome of beauty.

When Kenneth is not regaling Twitter with his observations on size zero he's busy channelling Conservative Future. Look:

Truthfully, when you are as wealthy as I am, you can say, do and think anything without penalty, as you have no one to be accountable to.

Lifestyle is far better out here, as "rich" as London is, poor people are far too prevalent and venues too accessible for the latter.

I do not do charity unless it adds a tangible value into my life.

Used to spend my days chasing and bedding Glamour Models, now I look at my £200,000 watch, counting down my next protein fix.

You'd think someone comfortable with their privilege and free from inadequacy wouldn't need to lord it over his 17,000 Twitter followers.

As you'd expect, Twitter has gone apoplectic. That said, I'm not going to critique this man's idiocy, especially as it's already been done. But there are some interesting things Kenneth Tong says about Twitter's dynamics and how it can be used to play the fame game.

As far as I can tell, describing Kenneth as economically wealthy but socially useless fits him like a glove. Born into money he boasts about bedding models, holidaying here, there, and everywhere, and making cash on the currency markets. He is every inch the personification of Engels's 'coupon clippers'. But the one thing his wealth cannot buy him is recognition. Even in the world of the famous-for-being-famous, celebrity has to be rooted in something. Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian launched themselves as TV and paparazzi fodder off the back of sex tapes. Kerry Katona was a (minor) pop star-turned reality telly regular. Katie Price/Jordan was a glamour model. Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse sing. Anyone can do Big Brother, but only Jade Goody, Craig Phillips, Kate Lawler, Anna Nolan, and Brian Dowling went on to bigger things. Those without an identifiable talent or reason for being in the celebrity firmament find their star falls very quickly indeed. And Kenneth is of this category. Apart from a blink-and-you'll-miss-him stay in Big Brother and a couple of minor TV credits there is no rhyme nor reason why he should attain lasting celebrity. And this must be an affront to a man with an overblown ego. Why should he be eclipsed by others, especially "overweight" women from working class backgrounds?

Well, Kenneth has found a possible way into celebrity: the public display of obnoxiousness. The "fame" housemates acquire through BB is sufficient to land them gigs opening bars and clubs. And it's just enough to translate into a few thousand Twitter followers too, as hardcore fans of the show like to keep tabs on former contestants. Some celebrities count themselves among their number and will, like everyone else, correspond with (though not necessarily follow) ex-housemates and retweet them when they say something telling or funny. This reaches their own large non-BB audience driving further rounds of retweets and funnelling hundreds/thousands of followers toward them.

Kenneth's pig ignorant comments about anorexia were almost designed to take advantage of these dynamics. David Schneider said this. Professor Green has jumped in with this. Simon Cowell(!) has got in on the act. US actor Sophia Bush publicised Kenneth's Twitter feed by writing an 'open' tweet, and finally - and no doubt much to Kenneth's satisfaction - Rihanna brought his name to the attention of her 2.7 million followers. Well done, celebs! Aware he's a hot internet property for the moment he's asked if Justin Bieber, Katie Price, and Gordon Ramsay would back his size zero campaign. And to wind the celebs up further he gleefully retweets any criticism coming his way.

Does it matter? After all, Kenneth only has 17,000 followers (though rising fast, he's gained a few hundred in the couple of hours since I started writing this). It's not as if we're talking masses and masses here - a point noted by Loz on the reach of political blogging and tweeting. But it's a case of quality, not quantity. Because some serious A-Listers have taken offence to the moronic Mr Tong and he has successfully made himself a worldwide trending topic, I would be very surprised if the affair goes unmentioned in the Sunday papers or the mid-week glossies. I expect follow up interviews asking Kenneth to "clarify" his statements too, allowing him to enhance his notoriety. And who knows, more media appearances, more column inches, and perhaps further reality TV invitations off the back of the new man-you-love-to-hate await.

At the moment it looks like Kenneth is on the cusp of sustained fame. I wonder how long it will be before the penny drops and our celebrities realise that by condemning a monster, they've created one.

NB Gordon Ramsay fell for the trap.

Sally Hunt vs the SWP

I can't remember which comrade said it, but someone recently quipped the left has become relevant enough to witch-hunt again. And one place where the ducking stool has come out from the cupboard is in the University and College Union.

This morning's Times Higher reports the union is in the throes of a political crisis. On the one hand there is a strong UCU Left challenge to incumbent general secretary Sally Hunt. On the other union officers are threatening strike action after being criticised for their role in previous protests and moves to increase their accountability to lay members.

As with the NUS, the fees protests were bound to produce stresses and strains within the UCU. Like the students there are significant numbers of academic staff who've been lifted by the militant mood and would like their union to reflect that. The decision of a large number of NEC members to critically but unconditionally back the winter protests is not the action of an unrepresentative minority, but reflects wider sentiment among the union's members.

Facing a barrage of criticism and a possible challenge to her position, rather than defending herself politically Sally Hunt has reached for her weapon of choice: red baiting. In the THS piece, she is quoted as saying other HE-related unions are viewed as "appendages" in the UCU Left's grand strategy, and this itself "seems to be directed by bodies outside UCU rather than our own members".

Hmm. Haven't we been here before? In her 2006 election campaign she tried to stir up support by attacking the SWP. She then wrote “I believe that UCU should be a politically independent, industrially confident union and I am disappointed that political parties such as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and others are seeking to influence this election. I think they should leave the decision to you - the members”.

Her dark mutterings about outside influences is indicative of the bureaucratic mindset Hunt inhabits. It's beyond her ken that members might be unhappy with her four years of steady-as-she-goes leadership and her backing of the lacklustre NUS president Aaron Porter and chums. In this view of the world, opposition springs not from legitimate grievances but the machinations of a cabal of Trots intent on annexing the union to their nefarious schemes. It's a logic readers of the mainstream press are familiar with. Outside agitation is the explanation of choice politicians, bosses, media worthies, and bureaucrats sezie upon to write off incidences of sustained protest and unofficial strike action. It's a convenient trope, a simple (and simplistic) narrative that avoids the inconvenience of realising the state of affairs they preside over isn't all that, and shields their egos from detailed and devastating criticisms.

What about the substance of her accusation, that leftist UCU members are pursuing a strategy determined outside the union? I'd say that's bollocks. The SWP is strong in the UCU because it's active and its members have built up a base for the party through industrial and political struggle. Put simply, it has support because it's won support. I'm not the SWP's biggest fan by any means, but I know a thing or two about how revolutionary organisations are run. As a general rule union fractions of Leninist parties are operated and directed by the trade unionists who belong to that fraction. They know better than anyone else in their party the balance of forces, the mood of the workforce, and the operation of the union bureaucracy. In theory they're subject to the diktats of the industrial department/organiser, but in practice it just doesn't play out like that. A union fraction run directly by the central committee is a fraction that won't make much headway. What Hunt finds particularly objectionable is not "outside groups" per se but the fact SWP members are the backbone of an internal movement seeking to hold her to account.

The UCU doesn't wear fences, tank traps and pill boxes like a necklace. It is not North Korea. It's a trade union made up of members with their own opinions and politics. SWP members have as much right to promote their party and their alternative strategy inside the union as anyone else. Hunt might not like it, but that's life in the labour movement for you. Unfortunately for he, this time round the witch-hunting language won't wash. The next gensec election will be more about policy, vision, and strategic direction than the last. If all Hunt can say for herself is "oh noes, the SWPs are teh evilz", then she's up shit creek before the campaign has started.

Ed Miliband's Policy Holiday

Guest post from Brother G

There has been growing hysteria inside and outside the Labour Party about the performance of Ed Miliband. Criticised for being ‘weak’ and a ‘ditherer’, a number of commentators and activists have been quick to attack the perceived lack of leadership coming from the top. Exhibit A amongst the evidence cited is the lack of concrete policy proposals coming from the shadow front benches.

It will come as a relief to those people then to see Ed Miliband finally make a decisive policy announcement, though not the kind his critics might have been hoping for. Because the policy is ... there is no policy. As Miliband reached his 100th day in office, he announced he will be waiting two years before establishing a complete set of policies for Labour.

This hasn’t gone down too well. Among my circle of comrades, several are frothing at the mouth and clawing at the walls in their frenzy to condemn this ill-judged descent into contemplation and self-reflection. Such an attitude is hardly surprising. For many comrades of a certain age, being a party member meant being a paid-up spokesperson for New Labour. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown policy was something which was dictated down to members from on high, not developed through a process of democratic negotiation.

For many who've only experienced activism under the shadow of an incumbent Labour Government, the sharp shock of being cast adrift without the safety blanket of Downing Street diktats must be a strange and unsettling experience. For 13 years discussion of, and opposition to, party policy has not only been ignored but sometimes discouraged. The result has, in too many cases, been disillusionment among more idealistic comrades and a worrying anti-intellectual streak of the many time-servers who still clutter up CLP executives up and down the country. It could well be this attitude to policy that allowed Gordon Brown to stumble through the government's twilight years with nary a hint of the radicalism which defined our movement, or that man’s own youth. They do say, after all, that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

However, those of us who've been looking for opportunities within the labour movement to encourage a return to left-wing ideas, this change of pace should be viewed as an opportunity. As someone who voted for Ed Miliband in the leadership election I can say I've got what I voted for: a chance to redefine the way policy and debate is handled within the Labour Party. Some may see this as a lack of leadership on Miliband’s part, but I ask you: in the media saturated 21st century, what could be a better example of decisive leadership than refusing to participate in the tit-for-tat policy soundbites that have pervaded our political landscape in recent years?

It is incorrect to suggest a lack of official policy proposals will hinder Labour in local elections. Such elections can only be won by reconnecting with voters, and this cannot be achieved by pulling populist policies out of a hat. It must be done by rebuilding ourselves as part of a serious mass movement, by defending the hard won victories of working people not just in words but in deeds, and by mobilising the grass roots of our party to share their time, their energy and, most importantly, their ideas.

On Quitting Socialist Blogging

Can you remember when right wing blogs "dominated" the blogging scene? They bestrode the internet like a colossus, telling anyone who'd listen that blogging naturally leant itself to conservative politics. The left was too thick and too wedded to tribalism to appeal to non-partisan audiences. Not ever being noted for modifying their opinions on the basis of evidence, the right have consistently underestimated the spread and reach of left wing blogging. Just a year ago Guido and Iain Dale were looking forward to an interesting 12 months, but I don't think either of them seriously thought their hegemony was under threat. And now as we enter 2011 Guido has slipped down the Wikio rankings (determined by the number and "weight" of incoming links), and Iain has abandoned the field altogether. Liberal Conspiracy and Left Foot Forward rule the Wikio roost, and Labour List and Labour Uncut are not far behind.

Some might say that Wikio doesn't really matter, and that's right. Audience figures do. If you take Alexa's word for it, Guido's site is currently ranked 1,698 in Britain. For Liberal Conspiracy and Left Foot Forward it's 4,157th and 10,115th (yours truly is currently 37,784th - well above most of Britain's Trotskyist outfits). So Paul Staines and his sidekick, Harry Cole/Tory Bear still rule the blogging roost. Or do they?

As I have argued before right wing dominance, such as it was, rested on shaky foundations. Apart from Conservative Home, which doubles up as an online resource for Tory activists, the Guido/Iain model was all about Westminster gossip. Beyond that the next tier of Conservative and "libertarian" bloggers, such as Dizzy Thinks and Archbishop Cramner busy themselves with ephemera, opinion and polemic. Others, like John Redwood 'do' economics, but as a whole tthe right's collective blogging output is within the bounds of conventional politics and opinion. The left, defined here as the most mainstream Labourite to the angriest class struggle anarchist, has a much wider purview. Left bloggers do all of the things right wingers do, and more. The left, collectively, is as much at home deconstructing sexism and racism in the media, and advertising and reporting on protests as it is commenting and critiquing the comings and goings of establishment politics. With the explosion of student protest and occupations a few months ago, the collective network of left blogs not only helped the actions organised by UK Uncut go viral but provided a ready made space for the existing left and newcomers to think and debate the way forward.

Simply put, the left has more to offer internet-travelling audiences. I've said it before: right wing bloggers offer politics. Left wing bloggers offer politics plus.

The change in government and the high profile of the student/anti-cuts movement is pregnant with opportunities for getting socialist ideas out to a wider audience. But, strangely, it's not just right wingers like Iain Dale, Tom Harris MP, and Mr Eugenides who have dropped out since the coalition's formation. The left has been affected too. Splintered Sunrise has gone (though may be back) and Susan Press's Grimmer Up North has closed, ostensibly because Twitter offers more opportunities for engagement. Of the dozen or so Socialist Party blogs I used to promote while I was a member, about half have fallen into disuse. Labour Twitter "celebrities", like John Prescott and Ellie Gellard have seemingly thrown in the towel too, and approximately a third of the blogs covered in new blog round ups over the last year have gone. Is this the normal churn of blogging life? Is something else going on?

Possibly.

As a Marxist it is a truism that social being conditions consciousness. I remember a conversation with a Coventry SP comrade a few years ago. We were talking about political activity and the problem of substitutionism, of, in some instances, far left organisations having to take up the initiation and prosecution of campaigns in the absence of wider public involvement. I can't remember the answer, but one of us asked what happens when things start to move? Would some activists habituated to being "in charge" of campaigns and the routine of stalls/interventions/paper sales find it hard to adapt to circumstances when large numbers of people are getting involved in protest activity, trade union struggle and community campaigning? And if so were they likely to drop out or retreat to specific forms of activity where they feel they're making a contribution?

The hard left are perennial oppositionists and, in practice, the passage from Labour to the Coalition has meant little beyond dusting down a few old anti-Tory slogan. It has, of course, effected mainstream Tory, LibDem and Labour bloggers in different ways, but I find it hard o believe any Trotskyist blogger hanging up their keyboard because the Tories and LibDems got in. Burgeoning anti-cuts activity, however, is a different kettle of fish. Whether the viral shop occupying stunts of UK Uncut or the student protest/occupation movement, both have more or less swamped the far left and bypassed them. For all of the previous hard work the authority the far left has in the wider movement is extremely low. Faced with the prospect of having to build up a party's profile in more activated circumstances, I can imagine some rank and file members of Trotskyist organisations are disoriented by the spontaneity and not having a handle on things, despite the constant emphases their leaderships have historically placed on the likelihood of explosive struggles.

And if it can happen to them, wrapped and coddled as they are by party discipline and perspectives documents, what about lefts outside those organisations? Many have got stuck in (and have abandoned blogging to do precisely this), but there are others who will be all sixes and sevens. What's the point of churning out socialist criticism to a small online audience when the placard and the sit-in gets those points across more effectively? Or, if you're a more mainstream Labour blogger, what could you possibly say to radicalising youngsters when your politics are wedded to 'slow and shallow cuts' and electoralism?

It is possible the shift in the real life 'political being' of activism is working its way through left wing political blogging and might help explain why apparently large numbers are upping sticks. Just as some are inspired and fired up by the movement, others are at a loss on how to relate to it. Therefore no one should be too surprised that at the moment left blogging stands on the edge of the political big time, the casualties from within its ranks continue to mount.

(Image Source)

Political Leadership and City Regeneration Part 2

In the previous post we examined Mike Tappin's critique of Stoke-on-Trent's political leadership and looked at some of his recommendations. Continuing this theme, albeit on a broader canvas, on 14th December I was invited to the Centre for Cities-organised Rebuilding Britain's Cities: Lessons from the UK and US event at Portcullis House in London to launch their latest report, Grand Designs? A new approach to the built environment in England's cities. By addressing the thorny issue of regeneration strategy it immediately brought to the fore the problems Mike tackled: direction, vision, and, most importantly, where the impulse for regeneration would come from. It was in this vein the discussion's chair, Stoke Central MP Tristram Hunt, opened with, noting that the government's spending cuts means there is only a tightly circumscribed role the public sector can play in regenerating cities for the foreseeable future.

The morning's first speaker was Alexandra Jones, chief executive of Centre for Cities. She explained that Grand Designs? set out to assess existing regeneration strategies and asked if they achieved the best possible outcomes for the people and built environment of declining cities. The research was also interested in how cities adapted to changing population trends, whether strategies were often political exercises in official optimism, and what lessons can medium-sized cities take on board from elsewhere.

Alexandra observed that populations tend to migrate to clusters of economic activity, which helps explains current population decline in the north of England. But the developmental model this implies, i.e. industrial growth followed by postindustrial depopulation, is not an iron law of economics or anything else. Large cities of the Midlands and the North have bucked this trend to an extent because they have adapted to the new climate.

Why have they been successful while others haven't? Alexandra suggested that much of the built environment of northern cities is not appropriate to the demands of the postindustrial economy, and neither were some of the regeneration programmes. Centre for Cities found that on the indicators used to measure the predicted positive impacts, nearly half (48%) of physical regeneration projects underperformed. Similarly of economic strategies aimed at revitalising particular areas, 40% failed to meet job creation targets. As a way of illustrating the disconnect between strategy and economic/demographic reality, one such scheme saw the building of 12,000 new properties in Liverpool ... while over the same period 5,000 people left the city.

One possible way of coping with city decline is to swim with the tide rather than stubbornly setting one's face against it. Instead of a 'build it and they will come' approach, Alexandra pointed to a number of examples from overseas. Youngstown, Ohio has received attention for its adoption of 'smart decline'. Rather than planning for growth (in 1950 there were 172,000 inhabitants, by 2000 only 82,000) it has allowed nature to reclaim run down neighbourhoods and is concentrating resources on core infrastructures (see here). Variations on this theme have been tried elsewhere. Flint, Michigan has aggressively moved to demolish vacant properties so public services don't have to stretch so far. Philadelphia has transformed its vacant lots into green spaces, which in turn has increased land values and seen people beginning to return to what has become a more desirable city.

Off the back of these examples and the lessons learned from UK regeneration, Alexandra suggested five guiding principles for regeneration strategies:

a) The built environment must adapt to economic and population change.
b) Strategies must be focused on the best outcomes for people: mega projects are of limited utility.
c) Regeneration needs to be sensitive to and tailored toward the needs of different neighbourhoods within cities.
d) Community engagement is essential and not an optional extra.
e) Circumstances should be kept under constant review: a regeneration process has to have some flexibility built in.

The next speaker was Bruce Katz from the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, a Washington DC-based think tank. His talk focused on the experience of South East Michigan and how it is meeting the 'new economy'. Here there are a number of things going on that lend themselves to regenerating UK cities. The first is the role of philanthropy. In the US there is almost a cultural expectation that business elites "give something back". In SE Michigan's case this has assumed the form of a $100m fund raised from the largesse of wealthy philanthropy. This fund is too small to address all the problems of such a vast territory, but what it has been doing is providing grants to new start ups as a means of kick starting the internal economy, of strengthening organic processes of recovery and, hopefully, producing a raft of new businesses with commitments to the region.

Secondly, in the wake of the recession local businesses have been forced to think strategically about the future. Before the 2008 crash, under the conditions of the housing-led consumption bubble the SE Michigan economy could not compete. Now that has collapsed there are a number of advantages it has over places like, say, Las Vegas, who did extremely well under the old model. Key to prospering in the global economy now are design and innovation, advanced manufactories, low carbon and green technologies. If recovery is to be export-led then Detroit, which didn't look healthy under the previous regime of accumulation, is now very well-placed: it is the 12th largest exporting economy in the United States. Hence regeneration policy now is about repositioning and retooling old industrial cities and making the most of what they've got.

Therefore Bruce's lessons were, firstly, the emphasis on economy. Land interventions - whether demolition, refurbishing housing stock, or building a mega project - must be tied into the economic context. If there is a disconnect then chances are they won't succeed. Secondly local government and regeneration planners have to think about different economic models. The assumptions underpinning renewal strategies of the boom years are outdated. If export growth is the way out of economic stagnation then appropriate policy responses at the local and regional level have to be developed and implemented.

The morning's final speaker was Newsnight economics editor (and occasional leftist) Paul Mason. He played a short piece taken from his film on Gary, Indiana. This once-booming industrial city has seen its population fall by half from its 1950s peak to just 100,000 today. On his blog Paul describes Gary as a city "suffering from one of the most advanced cases of urban blight in the developed world. Its city centre is near-deserted by day. The texture of the urban landscape is cracked stone, grass, crumbled brick and buddleia." Since its heyday deindustrialisation has literally pulled the guts out of the city, leaving it populated by hundreds of abandoned buildings, among which are colleges, schools, and other trappings essential to the infrastructure of any modern city.

For Paul, Gary is locked in a spiral of depopulation and decapitalisation. The collapse of industrial employment triggered the decline, but subsequent depopulation has meant the critical mass of organic social capital isn't there to help the city help itself. But this is a question of distribution rather than total sum. In most former industrial cities social capital (the cultural ties that bind communities together, make them cohesive, and enable them to do things - see here) have high levels of social capital thanks to the social solidarities that grew up in the previous era. It does tend to be highly localised and often obstructed by the atomisation of populations and, in Gary's case, high levels of crime and morbidity. Therefore recovery strategies have to think about mobilising and harnessing this capital.

Paul suggested the means of accumulating social capital lends itself to the new economy (at least the creative, innovation-driven side of it). He argued the semi-private spaces of coffee shops, shopping centres, library IT suites, cyber cafes accommodate the nomadic workspaces of those whose working life is, in large measure, portable and dependent on internet access. Whether at work or play these are becoming sites where new social relations are forged in conjunction with the new economy, from which all kinds of real world cultural and business spin offs can emerge. He suggested one way of fostering this sort of micro climate would be for local authorities to open up empty shop fronts for use as informal work spaces.

Tristram then opened the the discussion up to questions. One representative from a city that has been through a successful regeneration process asked how to make the connect between existing "low aspiration" residents and the new hi-tech, high-innovation economy his city has managed to grow? Where does the aspiration to be socially mobile come from? Rupa Huq raised the issue of the place suburbs occupy in regeneration strategies, and observed the official optimism that conditions all projects is an effect of politics, of the need to promise the electorate a pot of gold at the end of the regeneration rainbow. But often this flies in the face of realities local governments face. In my contribution, I picked up on Paul Mason's argument and said his concern with social capital is focused on the working and middle classes (from which his new intellectual workers are overwhelmingly drawn), but what about the level of elites? They network among themselves but how to get their accumulation of social capital to trickle down to contribute to the cultural renewal of declining cities? Is it possible?

On suburbs Alexandra Jones replied that, generally speaking, big employers tend to locate in or very near a city centre because of its amenities. She cited one example where, during the construction boom, one company threw up grade A office space in a suburban location and has since remained empty. Therefore building projects have to be tailored to people and economics, otherwise it's a waste of time. But she fully agreed with Rupa on optimism. There is a conflict between the realistic, pragmatic approach to regeneration and its politics. As difficult local authorities and politicians may find it, some honesty has to be injected into the expectations they project. On local elites, Bruce Katz recommended trying to pool what philanthropy exists and suggested universities play a good role in facilitating this. And on aspiration, Paul Mason reiterated his points on social capital, calling for more 'local capital markets' where this can grow.

There was an awful lot to digest from this session and a great many things that could inform regeneration policy in Stoke. Like other industrial cities its population has been in measured but long term decline. There have been clearances of old terraces but without the building of new commensurate homes. Instead there was, until recently, a move to provide the sorts of identikit urban flats as well as modern three and four bed room semis and detached housing. Before the housing pathfinder scheme was junked by government cuts there were more plans for more new builds of this type. Now this is not going to be built for the foreseeable future, the Stoke-on-Trent city scape is blighted with voids. Small wonder Matthew Rice, MD of local pottery firm Emma Bridgewater, recently compared the local built environment to Helmand province. And, at present, there is nothing coming from the City Council on what should be done with these sites. That is apart from planting down clovers to keep the ground uneven so kids don't play on them (for arcane legal reasons, of course).

There there are our own mega projects. A hypermodern campus for Stoke Sixth Form College has recently opened on Leek Road, and next door to it Staffs University are building a science and technology innovation centre. These do seem like the sort of things the city needs, especially as the latter will be part and parcel of the university's continued commitment to providing 'incubation units' for graduate start ups. But the other mega project due to arrive - a new bus station in Hanley (current one pictured) - appears to suffer the hubris that comes with building-led regeneration. Its replacement, which looks swish and modern, apparently promises to bring more investment into the city. As welcome as a replacement for the awful and shabby bus station is, I am worried there is more than a soupçon of official optimism swirling around. For starters which ever way you arrive at the bus station you have to first go through the aforementioned blighted lands and derelict properties. When your official gateway is prefaced by devastation will potential investors come away with a favourable impression? As for utility, it will certainly create the space to improve Stoke's public mass transit and, who knows, perhaps it might win a major architectural prize, but does it meet the city's current and likely future needs? I'm not entirely convinced.

This returns us to the question of political leadership. If Stoke (or any other city in a similar position) is to be renewed, questions have to be asked about what kind of regeneration it wants, what economic advantages it has that can be capitalised on in the new climate, what can be done to sponsor "homegrown" growth and, ultimately, what is the realistic assessment of its prospects. I think Stoke's transport links, pottery industry, social solidarities, and growing educational capacity are grounds for optimism. Even the space left by clearances could be turned to its advantage. But unless the city intelligently, creatively, carefully, and pragmatically addresses the challenges facing it, there's every danger the promise of a regenerated Stoke-on-Trent is one that goes unfulfilled.

Defend Socialist Unity from Murdoch

Incredible. In the wake of the Sheridan trial Euan McColm, political editor of the Scottish edition of News of the World has called for the police to take action against Socialist Unity. John Wight has the story here.

McColm takes umbrage at threats supposedly made against witnesses for the prosecution in SU's comments boxes. While the recent threads were some of the most unpleasant I've seen (you've got to ask what someone new to socialism made of them), this reflects real life feelings around an issue that has become a dividing line for large parts of the far left. What threats there are were the kind of silly bravado you expect to surface in any heated internet dispute. If one wants to be consistent, applying McColm's definition of 'threat' would see about 90% of Britain's political blogging scene come under police scrutiny.

This move has to be located in the context of Murdoch's campaign against the Sheridans and their supporters. Having seen Tommy lose the court case it is not enough NOTW appeal the original civil action that started this whole mess. Murdoch's minions have to demonise Tommy and anyone associated with the defence. If successful NOTW's appeal will bankrupt Tommy, but News International want to see him and, conveniently, the politics he represents destroyed.

I've made my feelings about the Sheridan case pretty clear. But now this has spilled over into an outright media witchhunt against a section of the left, the labour movement cannot stand aside. Murdoch and his goons should back off, and Socialist Unity be defended from any and all attempts to shut it down.