Total Politics and No Platform

There's been a storm brewing in leftyblogland this week, a storm the comrades at Though Cowards Flinch are responsible for seeding. In a series of posts Dave and Paul take Iain Dale to task over his intention to run an interview with BNP fuhrer Nick Griffin in Total Politics magazine. They argue this will contribute toward "mainstreaming" and normalising the BNP as part of Britain's political life, and announce that if the interview appears TCF will boycott this year's Top 100 political blogs contest. They have been soliciting report from other bloggers, and HarpyMarx, Bad Conscience, Stephen Newton and The Provisional BBC have pledged to back the boycott. I imagine quite a few others will be signing up too.

However, I won't be one of them.

The only context I support a blanket no platform is inside the labour movement. Trade unions and student organisations are absolutely right to deny fascists openings for their politics within their structures, up to and including the outright expulsion of far right activists. The BNP is the modern day antithesis to everything our movement values and, in the unlikely event of a fascist government here in Britain, it will be us who gets carted off to the camps first.

But outside of the labour movement, no platform is a tactical question. The need to oppose and confront the BNP must be weighed against giving them the oxygen of publicity, while avoiding the twin pitfalls of portraying the left as running scared of the BNP's arguments and making the fascists look like free speech martyrs.

Unfortunately the BNP do have a platform afforded them by voters in 56 local council elections, the London Assembly elections and last year's European elections. Anti-fascism needs to be informed by containing this level of representation and throwing it into reverse, and that requires we tackle the BNP at the level of ideas, exposing the crap they spout and holding up to the cold light of day their less than stellar records as elected representatives.

Returning to Total Politics, I doubt Iain Dale will put Griffin through the wringer - but who knows? I imagine he won't want to be seen giving fat Hitler an easy ride either. Whatever the case, I don't see an interview in the seldom-read TP adding much to the BNP's mainstream profile - constant appearances on BBC and C4 News have done little to make the BNP any more acceptable as far as the overwhelming majority of people are concerned.

One more minor point about the boycott. By advocating action against TP, the TCF comrades have ensured Iain's interview will receive wider circulation than would otherwise be the case. Inadvertently, calling for no platform in this case means Griffin gets a broader platform.

NB On a slightly related note, Hanley YMCA organised a 200-strong youth hustings in Stoke Central on Thursday night. The panel included all three mainstream parties (MP for Stoke South Rob Flello stood in for Mark Fisher), Matt Wright of TUSC and Stoke SP, and Staffs Uni politics prof Mick Temple. Simon Darby of the BNP was also invited and had apparently confirmed but never turned up! Turning his nose up at a platform like this is far more damaging to the standing of the BNP in Stoke than being prevented from taking the stage. They had a chance to debate their opponents and they bottled it. Interested folk will find a report here.

Mark Fisher to Step Down

I've just heard that Stoke Central MP, Mark Fisher (pictured) will be standing down at the general election. Mark has been ill for some time and feels someone in better health is needed to see the BNP off in the constituency.

Of course, this couldn't have come at a worse time for my CLP. The faction fight that has blighted the party since the Labour mayor of Stoke, Mark Meredith, was deposed by Democracy4Stoke (a cross party organisation led by several long-standing Labour party members), is damaging the campaign to make sure Mark's seat stays Labour. Scarcely a day goes by without local blog Pits n Pots carrying news on the latest shenanigans. And then last Saturday our campaign was hardly boosted by The Sentinel's front page story on how the party is to be sued by long-standing members Mick Williams, Gary Elsby and Barry Stockley. To add a selection battle to the mix is a situation pregnant with toxic possibilities.

I'd like to send Mark my best wishes and hope he enjoys life after Parliament. But for the rest of us in Stoke Labour, to say we're on the threshold of interesting times is an understatement.

12 Months of Tweeting

I find it hard to believe I've been knocking about/wasting time on Twitter for a year. To mark the occasion here are a collection of posts written over the last year to try and make sense of it:

1) Twitter as a symptom of "Broken Britain"
2) Twitter and Politics
3) Daniel Hannan, the NHS and Twitter
4) Social Media and Business
5) Twitter Vs Trafigura
6) Stephen Gately, Twitter and the media bubble
7) Rage Against the Machine and Internet Radicalism
8) Top 100 Tweeting Bloggers

There are a couple of other things I'd like to touch on.

Firstly, it has changed the way how I experience the internet. My Twitter feed acts as a one stop shop for news, latest blog posts from others, short commentary on current affairs, gossip, critiques, and banter. It might be hyperbole to describe it as consciousness-changing stuff but via Twitter you can feel plugged into a collective thought process. Nothing else offers a better snap shot of what a particular population (in my case, socialists, activists and bloggers) are thinking.

Second, it's difficult to say how Twitter has impacted on the fortunes of this blog. At the moment my account, @averyps has 1,264 followers. In Twitter terms that is a lot. According to a (dated) report from social media firm Sysomos, almost 94% of users have 100 or fewer followers. But as you can see from the top 100 list of blogging tweeters above this number is chicken feed compared to some.

I tweet every new blog post, but generally they bring in less of an audience than incoming links from Socialist Unity and Dave Osler. But I did say generally. If you post something and tweet quickly on breaking news, that can drive traffic your way. For instance, my recent post on Michael Foot appeared a couple of hours after his death was reported. It attracted a higher than average number of visits from Twitter but had it appeared earlier I'm convinced more would have dropped by. Another example was my my defence of No2EU. This appeared and was promoted on Twitter at the time there was a real frenzy over the election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, and some were pointing the finger at No2EU for letting the fascists in.

So using Twitter for blog promotion is not unproblematic. It's never a case of tweet it and they will visit. If you want to maximise visitors, you have to take the time to get a feel for your followers.

Third, while Twitter followers do not automatically translate into viewing figures for your blog it can raise your profile and promote name recognition. I imagine most Twitter users take an interest in who's following them. Every time my followers increase I look to see who's given me a punt. If they're obviously a spammer or a self-proclaimed social media guru I don't bother investigating further. But if they're a political person with a link to their site I always click through. I might not end up following them but at least I have an idea of what they're up to. And I imagine the reverse happens every time I follow a new person.

So there are a few reflections on my one year on Twitter. I'd be interested to hear what readers think about their experiences - has it helped your blogging? Has it made networking between activists easier? Has it helped change your political views in some way? Or do you find it all bewildering and/or pointless?

On the PCS Picket Line

How would you like it if your boss unilaterally tore up your employment contract and tried implementing a new one without your consent? Would you roll over or take action? Facing a similar choice, the sections of the civil service represented by the Public Commercial Services union have opted to fight. The dispute's background can be found here.

Brothers S, AH, SF and I did a tour of the picket lines in Hanley this morning to bring solidarity greetings from our UCU branch and the body of proletarian struggle that is North Staffs Trades Council. At the first picket line, PCS activist Brother A told us he was very pleased with the turnout for the strike. Of his workplace of approximately 250 those that had gone in numbered in single figures. Despite many low paid staff working there they were absolutely solid - it was workers on higher grades who did the crossing. This was interesting considering his workplace had been bombarded with anti-strike propaganda from the powers that be.

Matters were slightly different at the next workplace we visited. Though more were out picketing, more workers had gone in. Sister C told me that part of the problem is her department employs more casual workers than the other - it's hard to motivate these workers to strike over changes to terms and conditions when their contracts run out in a couple of months time. Still, there was no excusing some. One non-union worker obviously felt a touch guilty as he crossed the picket line - he tossed a bag of mints to one of the pickets as a means of assuaging his guilt.

I also asked the comrade if younger workers were more likely to go in. After all, trade union traditions have had some difficulty transferring to the generation that grew up under Thatcher and Blair. But thankfully, C thought there was no noticeable difference at all. While the young workers were less likely to be on the picket line, they were no more prone to scabbing than anyone else.

By this time Brother J had brought along the TUC banner which we unfurled and attracted bewildered looks from passersby. After milling around for a little while longer, we nipped up to the next workplace ... only to find the picket line winding down - the last picket was about to leave. She told us out of 150 workers only a handful plus management (who are also PCS and affected by the same contractual changes) had gone in. The place was open as normal but there would have been very little in the way of a service available.

We were warmly received everywhere we went and we'll be doing it all again tomorrow, but this time we're visiting the last first so we can actually catch some workers. If readers (who aren't striking PCS workers) are able to it's well worth making the effort to support the PCS in this dispute. After all, if management here can unilaterally discard employment contracts without fear, what's stopping other bosses in other industries from following suit? That is what is at stake.

New Blog Round Up

I'm slightly changing the format of the monthly round up of the new left blogs that have come my way. Instead of long and boring descriptions attending each blog I've decided to do an Iain Dale and nick the way he does his daily plugs. If you want to know what a blog is about, go and have a look yourself!

Without further ado;

1) Air Strike (Socialist Party)
2) Roger Banister (Socialist Party)
3) Volume 3 (Unaligned) (Twitter)
4) Red Postie (Workers' Power)
5) Going Postal (Unaligned)
6) Tom Scholes-Fogg (Labour) (Twitter)
7) The Audacity of Pope (Labour) (Twitter)
8) Working for the Clampdown (Labour) (Twitter)
9) Tom Reynold's Longton North Labour Blog (Labour) (Twitter)
10) Plurality. (Unaligned) (Twitter)
11) Oxford Radical Forum (Unaligned)
12) Watching with George (Unaligned)
13) Stoke Socialist Party (Socialist Party)

If you know of any new(ish) left, Labour, feminist, Green, socialist etc. blogs let me know about them via the old email or comments box and they'll get a plug in the next round up in a month's time.

A Tale of Two Expulsions

Party like it's 1937! Two interesting expulsions from the fringes of political life almost flew under the radar this week. The first, and probably the more newsworthy is the expulsion of UKIP MEP, Nikki Sinclaire (pictured) from the party. This came after her resignation from the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament a couple of months back. For those who aren't acquainted with the EFD, this ragtag and bobtail grouping of hard right populists hold positions somewhat out of step with the positive political gains of the last 30 years. You know, stuff such as the important victories over racism and sexism.

It is their "maverick" opposition to "political correctness" that Ms Sinclaire fell foul of. She might like to dress it up as being offended by the "anti-Semitism, violence and the espousal of a single European policy on immigration" of UKIP's European friends, but the rumour doing the rounds is the open homophobia of the execrable Lega Nord of Italy was (obviously) deeply problematic for the openly gay Sinclaire. This didn't seem to be much of a problem for the rest of her UKIP colleagues and so she upped sticks. And who can blame her? By their friends shall ye know them.

No one will be surprised if Sinclaire isn't the last MEP to bail out from our europhobic friends. In the previous European Parliament UKIP lost three of its MEPs through fraud and petty bickering, and Sinclaire herself hasn't exactly had an easy time of it during her UKIP membership. The reason for this volatility as compared with the mainstream parties and the other minor parties is the strange niche it occupies in Britain's political ecology. UKIP are virtual no-hopers when it comes to local and general elections (one reason why Nigel Farrage's challenge to House Speaker John Bercow' will come to nought). The 2004 and 2009 European election results show them up as a vehicle for funneling the widespread antipathy toward the EU. Of the 2.5 million who voted UKIP last June, more than a few would have done so thinking they were giving the "Brussels Bureaucrats" the finger. But the problem for UKIP is this vote is completely amorphous, and therefore the constituency it represents is ... well, can it be said they have a constituency outside a European election?

Without the kind of stability of the core constituencies of Labour, the Tories, the far left, the BNP and even to some extent the LibDems and Greens, UKIP as a party will always be all over the place. They have shown an ability to reach beyond the traditional Conservative vote (for instance, they won the popular vote in Stoke) but have proven unable to do anything with it. Without an anchor, UKIP will continue to be riddled with fighting and fallings out.

The other expulsion of interest is unlikely to pass muster on all but the few blogs that take an interest in the sectarian machinations of the British far left. And seeing as this is one of them ... As we all know (at least those of us sad enough to give a fig about 50-strong micro-groupings), the grandly over-titled International Marxist Tendency is in total meltdown (the Weekly Worker and the CWI have got the goods here and here). One episode in its disintegration has been the expulsion of one of its relatively well-known public faces, Heiko Khoo. While not a household name in sectarian circles, he has built a profile as the face of the IMT at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park (there's a bit more about him in Tony Allen's excellent oral history). In an organisation devoid of 'stars' this is a big deal.

What happened? It appears the comrade has been expelled on the flimsiest of pretexts. There's more over at Left Outside. His crime, according to one IMT neophyte, is putting the organisation in danger ... for espousing an analysis of China different to that of the leadership!

In my book that's an action more characteristic of a cult than a political organisation. But then the IMT have always been very, very strange. I used to run a forum in the late 90s with a comrade who fell in with them. To cut a long story short more and more IMT'ers were co-opted onto the moderating team, with the corresponding result that discussion was incrementally censored before the forum was shut down altogether (it was one of the reasons why I set up the UK Left Network list). But anyway, she ended up moving to Belgium to help the section there do up its HQ ... which the city branch was going to move into in some sort of bizarre group living arrangement. Very strange and unhealthy. If I'd had to wait for Peter Taaffe to come out of the bathroom in the morning, or get on Bill Mullins case for not washing the pots I doubt my SP membership would have lasted as long as it did.

I digress. The expulsion of comrade Khoo from the fast depleting ranks of the IMT is a doomed attempt by the leadership to inoculate its membership against ideas not anointed by the holy trinity of Rob Sewell, Alan Woods and (zombie) Ted Grant. Any group that cannot even acknowledge the existence of other socialist organisations, let alone properly engage with the analytical contributions of groups, individual activists and academics in the wider labour movement doesn't deserve to call itself Marxist.

Debating the Miners' Strike

Last night's Question Time-style event on the Miners' Strike (dubbed by organisers 'The Big A Debate') was always going to be a fiery affair. The panel was composed of Ken Loach, George Galloway, Graun journalist David Hencke, Edwina Currie and UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass - itself an incendiary combination, but throw in an audience composed mainly of ex-miners and lefties you have the recipe for a right old brew up. And you don't have to take my word for it, you can watch it here courtesy of Stoke blogging maestros, Pits n pots.

To set the scene we were shown two short films. The first was a wonderful piece of Pathe-style propaganda from 1952 on mining. In his best RP, the narrator informed us how coal was at the heart of Britain's future as a "great power". We were also shown the (then) state of the art mechanisation of coal mining and measures taken to combat coal dust. This was contrasted with footage from the violent confrontation at Orgreave Colliery.

Oliver Speight, a local businessman then came on to introduce himself as chair and welcomed the panelists. Then came the first question - which was addressed to Currie. She was asked "Has deindustrialisation been a success? Did she and other Tories perceive the heartache and problems pit closures would cause?" Currie replied that of course she was concerned, but pits were already closing and had been for a long time - her Derby South constituency was certainly undergoing that process after having been worked for over 200 years. She also argued that some of her constituents accepted that the pits were exhausted and that it was her job as MP to try and find them something else to do. Galloway replied to say the miners' defeat broke his heart and that everything since can be traced back to that moment. Despite being lambasted by Galloway as a "revisionist" for his recent book that used official documents to shed new light on the strike, Hencke agreed it was the most significant turning point in British political history since 1945. The unbridled capitalism we have now and the disastrous path it led us down is a consequence of what happened 25 years ago. Nattrass offered an extremely superficial analysis of the strike as being a clash between the personalities of Scargill and Thatcher, before arguing for the re-opening of the pits. Lastly, Loach argued the Tory attack on the miners was as much to do with uneconomic pits than the war in Iraq had to do with WMD. British capitalism was failing, and the way to fix it was smashing the unions. Despite this TUC and Labour leaders sat on the sidelines and didn't lift a finger to help - despite the TUC's resolution that it would offer full support.

Continuing the leadership theme, the issue of TUC and Labour betrayal came up in the next question. Galloway argued that had the TUC led the 12 million-strong labour movement into battle behind the miners we - the organised working class - would have won. But as it stands, shutting down the mines destroyed not only a vast support industry but also the world leading expertise it had built up, which in turn set back the capacity to research the clean coal and carbon capture technologies we need today. Currie took a slightly different tack. Yes, there was a problem with leadership - but it was on the miners' side. Scargill was determined to prosecute a political struggle against the government regardless of members' wishes. She noted that on a 90% turn out, some 83% of miners in South Derbys voted to work. Nationally, she conceded that Scargill probably would have won a ballot of the entire union but he decided not to. Responding to this, Loach said that while there was no national ballot, area by area voted to come out (the problem of course with such an argument is local ballots could as much legitimate working through the strike as walking out).

Moving on slightly from mining, the panel was asked if the main political ideologies (i.e. socialism, conservatism, liberalism) were now dead dogs? Hencke argued a point echoed here and elsewhere many times - that there is a consensus among mainstream politics for prioritising public spending cuts. In other words, the cost of bailing out the banks will be some 290,000 jobs. He argued a radical re-think was necessary to avoid the kind of social devastation we saw left in the wake of the miners' strike. For Loach the main problem in politics today is that of political representation, and the current consensus is a direct result of the strike: "If your political system does not reflect real divisions in society then you can't have a democracy", he thought. For Nattrass, unsurprisingly for him the biggest problem in politics was that all the parties were in hock to Europe (yawn). Currie challenged Loach to get his "broad left" together and stand in elections to see how many votes they will get. She said she'd like to see an adoption of a national plan. She said France under Georges Pompidou adopted a farseeing plan that asked what the country would need 30 years hence, and therefore developed its rail infrastructure, Airbus, Ariane and nuclear power. Britain needs to do the same (of course, she failed to reflect that the actions of the government she was a member of were fundamentally at odds with such a perspective).

This marked something of a reflection on Britain's economic future. Nattrass acknowledged that the closures were a disaster and argued that UK coal was now the cheapest in Europe - it makes sense for the pits to be reopened, especially with the new green technologies we have now (as a climate change denialist, he dismissed the problem of carbon emissions out of hand). Galloway said he'd be more comfortable with nuclear being in Britain's energy mix if you didn't have to dress up like a spaceman every time you went to work. Countering some comments Currie made earlier about the undesirability of subsidised industry, he replied that it's not a choice between subsidy and no subsidy, it's one between supporting socially useful industry or paying out billions in unemployment benefits.

Moving on to policy priorities, Galloway said that in the event of a hung Parliament and Respect winning three seats, his conditions for supporting a minority government would be a national house building programme, state-directed investment in manufacturing by the banks currently in de facto public ownership, and the withdrawal of British troops from overseas. For Nattrass he would hang all politicians as traitors and continued his tired theme of 'oh noes, it's teh Europez'. Unsurprisingly Currie channelled "Dave" and argued for attacking the deficit and introducing flat taxes (this apparently would bring more cash into the treasury's coffers). Hencke was for cracking down on tax dodgers, and Loach was for taking back privatised industries but this time under *democratic* public ownership.

Overall the evening was a tremendous success, and highly entertaining too. Aside from Galloway's inappropriate references to Currie's affair with John Major (I wonder if he'd have repeatedly brought up an opponent's sexual history had it been a man defending the Tory case) there were two issues that failed to get an airing. The first is the problematic nature of coal from the standpoint of climate change. Carbon capture and storage technology is very much in its infancy. The way some of the panel was talking you would think this problem has been resolved - it really could have done with some informed input on this issue. Second was the free pass Labour got. As Currie noted, it's all very well talking about the legacy of the Tories but what have Labour done in the last 13 years to reverse it? The answer is of course that in many ways Blair and Brown have deepened the process of deindustrialisation by carrying on with a neoliberal programme and more or less ignoring the aspirations of the trade unions. As far as I'm concerned, they have done much to be ashamed of.

Michael Foot, 1913-2010

It was sad to hear Michael Foot died earlier today, aged 96. Of all the Labour politicians of the last 30 years, Foot was probably the Labour left's best-known figure (after Tony Benn).

Foot had a long and fruitful career as a political journalist, author and politician. But there are certain defining moments of his life that will be endlessly recycled on today's news bulletins. Undoubtedly that visit to the cenotaph will be one of them (as Anton Vowl of Enemies of Reason tweeted earlier, "Let's play the Michael Foot drinking game. Every time that Cenotaph footage is on TV today, take a drink. We'll be dead by sundown").

Another of course will be the "longest suicide note in history", the 700 page Labour manifesto for the 1983 general election. Even the dogs in the street know this document, which was based on conference resolutions at Foot's insistence, is still ritualistically unearthed by the right to browbeat the left. It is blamed for the poorest showing for Labour in the post-war period and used to demonstrate the unpopularity of left wing ideas. Of course, all this forgets Thatcher coasted back into Number 10 off the back of Britain's victory in the war and the fact the Labour vote was split - its vote declined by approximately three million while the SDP took roughly the same number of voters over to the Alliance camp. Circumstances rather than the alleged centre right policy preferences of the British electorate better explain the increase in the Conservatives' majority.

Blairites and Brownites will hypocritically heap praise on a man whose unashamed social democratic ideas were a deep embarrassment to them. For socialists inside and outside the Labour party however, Foot's political career is a lesson in the limits of establishment radicalism. At best his socialism was firmly committed to the parliamentary road. At worst, he tailed establishment opinion by cheering on the Falklands War and attacked elements of the left in Labour. But for all that he was what is now that rarest of beasts - a conviction politician. If we had a few more Michael Foots today the Labour party would be a better place.

EDL to Return to North Staffs

As if it wasn't enough that the racist knuckleheads of the English Defence League have run amok in Hanley once this year, they are planning on making a comeback to the environs of North Staffordshire. According to our local paper, The Sentinel:

Members of the English Defence League (EDL) are believed to be organising a gathering in Newcastle town centre via social networking website Facebook.

The event will be held on April 24 and 25, the weekend after St George's Day.

It is understood the gathering would not be an official demonstration, like the rally held in Hanley on January 23, but a social event.

Police say they are aware of the plans and have been speaking to landlords about the event.

The full article can be read here.

The EDL might like to pretend this is an unofficial gathering, but everyone knows it will be the same thugs out causing trouble as last time. Clearly their previous outing in The Potteries has given them the confidence to launch another provocation more or less at the site of their last disgrace.

You can bet your bottom dollar it will be as heavily policed as last time, if not more so. But it is imperative we - the labour movement and anti-fascist movement - pull out all the stops to make sure the counter-demonstration is as big as possible.

Miners' Strike Question Time

March 3rd is the 25th anniversary of the ending of the Miners' Strike. The year long struggle was *the* defining moment of the last 30 years. Its defeat at the hands of the government ultimately allowed the Tories to carry through its neoliberal programme with all the devastating effects it has had on the labour movement, the manufacturing industry, rights at work and working class communities. Had the miners won Britain would be a very different place today, and perhaps neoliberalism not be as globally dominant as it has been in the years since the strike.

To commemorate the occasion The Forum Theatre in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent is hosting an evening of Question Time-style debate this Wednesday. The panel will feature Respect MP George Galloway, former Tory MP Edwina Currie, leftist filmmaker Ken Loach, a representative for local Labour MP Mark Fisher, and UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass. I suspect many former miners and the comrades from Women Against Pit Closures will be in attendance, as well as local Tories. The audience mix and the make up of the panel should mean the evening will be lively!

Because of the format the organisers ask questions be submitted in advance. They can be sent to info@theartbay.co.uk

There are some tickets left. They're £5 waged and £3 concessions and can be obtained from the Potteries Museum in Hanley, by phone at 01782 844222 or online here. Proceeds will be split between an adventure playground project in Newcastle-U-Lyme and Marie Curie.

The Miners' Strike Question Time will start at 7pm and finish by 9:30. So if you're in Stoke and interested in how the strike continues to shape the political landscape 25 years on, come along.