Observant readers may have noticed a small change round these parts. If you're not among them, let your eyes float the the top of this page. There, nestling along with Home and About are seven new buttons; Sociology, Economics & Politics, Far Left, Gender, Sex, Books, and Games. Now, we know how unwieldy search and archiving functions are on blogs. If you're trying to find a half-remembered blog post either the search buggers up, or you have to wade through dozens and dozens of posts via the archive or label cloud. Not ideal. So I've grouped together a sort of 'greatest hits' by theme. It's not entirely comprehensive. There's a poor showing from before October 2012, but this has more to do with lack of time going back and mending broken photo links than anything else. The buttons are more or less straight forward, but a few words are necessary. Sociology covers loads of stuff. Here you can find posts on the character of capitalism, celebrity, class, Marxism, social theory, and sociology (i.e. case studies, methods, sociologically-informed commentary, etc. Economics & Politics is the writing on the issues of the day. What you might call economic commentary is in there, alongside class and labour movement politics; and party politics proper. Tories, Labour, LibDems, UKIP, Greens, they all have their bits. And for the few Stokies who care about such things, there's a little section on local politics too. Sadly, I have written enough for the Far Left to have its own section. Here you will find comment and polemic on the far left as a whole, as well as meditations on Left Unity, Respect, the SP, SWP, etc. etc. Gender is self-explanatory, really. Sections here take in feminism, masculinity, intersectionality, and ... science fiction. Sex isn't just about the old 'how's your father', it covers sexuality too - hence there's a lot of toe-treading/tank-parking with gender. Ranging from the chin-strokey to the tabloid, this is where you'll find the stuff other politics bloggers dare not write about. Books are book reviews and comments about books. Novels and heavy duty social theory, it's all there. Last but not least there's Video Games. Readers yet to come to terms with Space Invaders might be sorry to hear that I'll be peddling more video game writing in the near future. A diet of Tory skulduggery can only nourish me for so long. Them's the buttons. Get pressing.
The 1970s. A time of social dislocation, strife, dodgy fashions, and brilliant music. As it is August bank holiday, for your consideration here are the greatest dance songs of the 1970s. So you rock dinosaurs out there that means no Bowie, Sweet, Eagles or Bay City Rollers. In is soul, disco, and electronica. And perhaps the odd bit of bubblegum too. As is usually the case, there's bound to be a glaring oversight on my part somewhere. If there is, do let me know. If you want more (of course you do), here are my top 100 dance tunes of the 1980s, the 1990s, the 00s, and the 2010s. Play them loud. Very loud.
Before sitting down to watch the new Doctor Who with Peter Capaldi, there are two things reasons to be optimistically cheerful about. Mr Malcolm Tucker has said no to flirtatious banter with his co-stars. Second, Jenna Coleman might exit at Christmas. This is no reflection on Coleman, she's only playing a part after all. Unfortunately, Clara is a highly problematic: an object that exists solely as a story line, from the get-go she was a wise-cracking, ass-kicking, bum-pinching get-up-and-go-girl; a walking, talking female sonic screw-driver whose sole reason for being was to get the Doctor out of a pickle or two. How can you develop a character after that? Take a deep breath (see what I did there?), the opener of reboot series eight was something of a minor triumph. Not Steven Moffat's greatest work, but probably the best introduction to a new Doctor we've seen. Your Ecclestons, your Tenants, your Smiths, they set a consistent tone that's ran like an annoying thread through seven series and sundry specials: a tendency to overact. Did CapaldiDoc succumb to the same temptation? Having a Scottish Doctor cutting a serious, troubled, and (seemingly) more ruthless jib demands can only work if a clean break is made with Smith's hipster Doctor. The new Doctor lapses into a temporary breakdown and runs around London at night, lamenting over a dinosaur barbecue and scrabbling in bins for clothes. Sanity seemingly returns when he meets back up with Clara to do battle with the automatons slicing 'n' dicing their way through Victorian London for their own dark purposes. As the Doctor struggles to rebalance himself, Clara is conflicted about the transformation. You'd be a mite perturbed if your closest friend had a full person transplant too. In conversation with Madame Vastra she lets rip about how she's not a distraction for the Doctor, that she's a proper person and not a pretty face that turned his head. Could this be anything other than Moffat answering his critics via Clara? There was also a curious meditation on relationships throughout the episode. Whovians know Vastra and Jenny are married. Fair enough, viewers new to the show won't necessarily know that. Yet this was repeatedly emphasised with monotonous regularity. Why? Is Moffat fishing for plaudits for putting a lesbian relationship front and centre in the BBC's flagship kids' show? To portray their marriage well, he might want to be more subtle than every five minutes having a big great megaphone screaming YES THEY ARE LESBIANS DEAL WITH IT. Less is more, Steven. Then there is the Doctor and Clara. Again, as per the break with the previous are-they/aren't-they boyf/girlf flirty tedium of Smith/Coleman, a necessary line had to be drawn under it. And, actually, I think this was handled fairly well. Surprisingly given the tone of the pervious series, it turns out Clara wasn't the one who harboured The-Doctor-is-my-boyfriend fantasies, it was the other way round. The impossible girl was the object of an impossible crush. The other key relationship was that we have with ourselves. The Doctor is confused and is trying to get his bearings as a new person in relation to his predecessors. It's something we as the audience will be doing for a long time to come too. But the monster of the week was a smart choice in this regard too. As the Doctor builds on multiple personalities, the android from the 51st century was approaching personhood by supplementing circuitry and mechanics with bits of people. As they float above London under an inflatable bag of skin, the Doctor lectures the automaton on how his consumption of human parts has transformed him into something beyond the parameters of his programming. The cycles of replacement have so changed him that the essential android, the original before he made like a Kwik-Fit fitter with body parts, no longer exists. This is to the point he cannot tell what was original and what has since been learned and incorporated into his personality. Allegory much. Then there is the closing scene. After getting impaled atop Westminster's Clock Tower (did he jump? Did the Doctor push him?), the android wakes up in a garden. After spending the episode prattling on about the 'promised land', a woman informs him he's made it to heaven. With a sinister overtone she introduces herself as the Doctor's "girlfriend". So we have moved from a companion/Doctor relationship in which we'd been led to believe was suffused with unrequited love on Clara's part to having that upended to a new woman whose love for the Doctor is not so much unrequited as downright stalkery and co-dependent. Just as the new Doctor promised an improvement in the portrayal of women, for inspiration Moffat's new villain channels Fatal Attraction. We'll have to see how this plays out, but going on past form I fear the new season will be scarred by sexism. Again.
Marshajane Thompson is, in her own words, a "Unison activist and general lefty type". She lives in London with her family and used to blog at Union Futures many moons ago. Inbetween work and her union responsibilities, Marshajane tweets here. - You used to blog at Union Futures. Why did you stop? Life, work and twitter got in the way! - What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? That choosing your blog theme will take longer than you think :) But also to update it often and not be afraid to engage when you're called out or disagreed with. - Is blogging different now from when you first started yours? Not really , though there are a lot more blogs now than when I started (wow now I feel old) - Do you find social media useful for activist-y-type things? Yes very, I do quite a lot of activisty type stuff online and organising real life stuff. You'd be surprised at how many members contact me and prefer to talk about their issue over Facebook than email. - Who are your intellectual heroes? Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes, Tony Benn (I know, I'm such a reformist) - What are you reading at the moment? I'm re-reading Tom Paine: A Political Life by John Keane - What was the last film you saw? Frozen (yes I know Disney was a fascist, but hey I love it and my kids are obsessed with it) - Do you have a favourite novel? The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell. - Can you name an idea or an issue on which you've changed your mind? Faith schools (I am now opposed thanks to the political education of some comrades ...) - How many political organisations have you been a member of? UNISON and the broad left in UNISON, Respect (very briefly), Labour Party and Labour Representation Committee. - What set of ideas do you think it most important to disseminate? Equality issues. We do seem to be going backwards in some areas. The myths around immigrants and myths around the welfare state and scroungers. Also, exposing all the tax avoiders and tackling low pay. - What set of ideas do you think it most important to combat? The idea that violence against women and everyday sexism is acceptable. - Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major influence on how you think about the world? Recently, The Failed Experiment – and how to build an economy that works by Andrew Fisher fits that bill. - Who are your political heroes? Tony Benn (again) and Peppa Pig. She is apparently a "feminist, communist, gay rights-loving pig spouting dangerous left wing propaganda. - How about political villains? Thatcher (obviously), but also Cameron and Blair - What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day? Defeating the neoliberal consensus - If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be? Getting rid of all the changes in the awful welfare reform and universal benefit crap and having a decent social security support level. - What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? At the moment the situation in Gaza is awful and we should be doing all we can to assist Palestine and free Gaza. - What would be your most important piece of advice about life? To have broad shoulders, there will always be someone (or many ones) ready to have a go and knock you down. Have confidence to keep going but also admit when you are wrong (not that I have learnt any of that yet :p) - What is your favourite song? Better Man by Pearl Jam - Do you have a favourite video game? Still love Mario, but also Rayman - What do you consider the most important personal quality? Confidence - What, if anything, do you worry about? Literally everything, I can worry about the smallest things (like that I still haven't packed yet for my weekend away because I'm a week late with this :) ) to things that really matter like my kids. - And any pet peeves? Being ignored. - What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self? To relax more - What do you like doing in your spare time? Spare time??? Mostly any spare time I have is at the caravan with my family :) - What is your most treasured possession? My phone obviously! - Do you have any guilty pleasures? Not what you can put on your blog! - What talent would you most like to have? Some willpower - If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for? An unlimited amount of shoes. - How, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money? It wouldn't, I often have hypothetical arguments with my family because they correctly moan that if I did come into any money I would give it away or waste it on politics :) - If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? Kurt Cobain, Angelina Jolie, Karl Marx - Socialism. Will you live to see it? No
Our Nige is standing in South Thanet (at last!). The party's pledged to take minimum wage earners out of income tax (and, whisper it, cutting the top rate for the very richest too). Prominent kippers gaffe, gaffe, and gaffe again. Admiring Hitler's demagoguery? Calling a Thai supporter "ting-tong"? It's so much water off a racist duck's back. Yet whatever they try, this silly season just isn't that interested in the doings of UKIP. With a low profile, some might be tempted to rule them out of contention for next year completely. After all, it's a rule of electoral gravity that protest voters happy to lend their vote to populist rabbles inbetween general elections return to their homes when ballots really matter. Will that be the case with UKIP? They topped the European polls in May with 4.4m votes (27.5%) and record an average score in the range of 11-15.5% in local council by-elections. The polls tell the same story. When asked explicitly about general election voting intentions, 17, 18, 19 - even 21% are not unknown. How reasonable can we expect a vote collapse and an exodus that would disproportionately benefit the Tories? I would be surprised if UKIP's vote dips beneath 10% next May (assuming Scotland decides to stay - a yes vote might boost the party further). There are a couple of reasons for this. First off, British politics entered properly new territory after the 2012 Corby by-election, the last 'conventional' parliamentary by-election this parliament. Since then, regardless of who holds the seat, UKIP have come second. This underlines their character as an anti-politics protest party with the capacity to do well everywhere as fed up voters succumb to temptation and give Westminster the finger. The drivers of anti-politics are well established, and need not be repeated here. That said economics, culture, and gender all play their part. This anti-politics vote is pretty volatile. The LibDems used to benefit from its less virulent forms, as do the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens to greater and lesser extents. The BNP panicked official politics because it fished well from this pond for a short while. UKIP also have well before their current turn in the sun. Remember, Farage has been a professional politician since 1999. As is well known, this disproportionately affects the Tories but UKIP benefit from general discontent - they drink deep from the main parties' electoral run-off. Unfortunately, most political comment operates as if this "run-off" is all there is. UKIP attract more Tory supporters because they too are a right-wing party, albeit one unafraid of putting the boot into immigrants and Europe. For most of UKIP's history, this has been the case. But since the Coalition was formed, Farage and friends have benefited from an organic crisis in the Conservative Party. They have demographic trends against them, whole swathes of the country are electoral no-gos, the Tory grass roots have yellowed and withered, and they're so beholden to the city that as a party of business, they are outright dysfunctional for British capital-in-general. Dave's half-arsed "modernisation" - embracing equal marriage and equality for LGBT, women, and minority ethnicities, and faux toughness toward Europe - has exacerbated long-term decline and delivered activists by the blue-rinsed brigade load to UKIP. He hasn't really moved away from the Thatcherite Toryism his misanthropic membership hold dear, but it appears otherwise. Because UKIP's growth is underpinned by the crisis of British conservatism, a lot of these people will not be going back. They are fundamentally and irreconcilably alienated from the Conservatives' direction of travel. That's why anyone betting on a collapse in UKIP support, like a number of "professional" commentators I could mention, is very foolish indeed. Don't take it from me, though. Look at the evidence. Cast your mind back to the early 1980s. Labour was bingeing on internal strife as factions duked it out in a no holds barred battle for the party's direction. In March 1981, the so-called Gang of Four - David Owen, Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins and Bill Rodgers led a right-wing split from Labour. The new Social Democratic Party could eventually count on a parliamentary phalanx of 28 former Labour MPs (and one Tory). It would stand as the Alliance (with the Liberals) in 1983 and 1987 before merging and creating the modern Liberal Democrats in 1988. The SDP attracted all kinds to its banner but, as you might expect, it was most appealing to soft and moderate Labour supporters - just as UKIP does to hardened Tories. Furthermore, the SDP's support did not evaporate in the 1983 general election. Compared with 1979 (where the Liberals got just shy of 14%) the SDP arguably brought about 10% to the Alliance's vote tally. It was less the Falklands and "the longest suicide note in history" that did for Labour. It was the product of their own crisis: the SDP. Subsequently in 1987 the SDP vote held up, the Alliance slipping by just 2.8%. The SDP performed well because it was an outcome of the organic crisis in Labourism. Electoral precedent is no iron law, but the British electorate have form for voting in substantial numbers for political alternatives under certain circumstances. After the crisis in Toryism exploded into the open, looking back at UKIP's general election scores for 2010 and 2005 is misleading. Now the present day party is as much a product of crisis as the SDP was, what happened back then is a better indicator of UKIP's performance next May. Add that to hundreds of thousands of voters in the habit of voting for them in second order election after second order election, those polls might not inflate UKIP support by a great deal at all. UKIP's vote is not going to collapse. There will be no significant drift back to the Tories.
You don't have to be steeped in social theory to realise that the kind of society we live in is bound to have a huge impact on the things that happen in that society. And yet social movement scholarship these last 20 years has acted as if this law of sociological gravity does not apply. But when the theoretical perspective that consistently gives the weight of wider social relations due recognition is Marxism, you can understand why some scholars might prefer to fight shy of integrating capitalism into the analysis of movements. But it's not just a matter of political reticence. The kind of Marxism passed off as Marxism is mechanical, clunky, economically determinist and crudely reduces everything to narrow understandings of class. If that's Marxism then, how could it possibly make sense of social movements around women, race, sexuality, disability and nationality? Well, in my opinion, it can. And so do social movement scholars Gabriel Holland and Jeff Goodwin. Given the history of social theory since the unlamented demise of the USSR, sometimes the basics of a Marxist approach need restating time and again. Their 'The Strange Disappearance of Capitalism from Social Movement Studies' article in the excellent (but ludicrously expensive) Marxism and Social Movements does just this. Here's a segment summing up why Marxian methodology is vital for getting to grips with all kinds of movements.
Capitalist institutions (factories, railroads, banks, and so on) or institutions that capitalists may come to control (such as legislatures, courts and police) are often the source or target of popular grievances, especially (but not only) during times of economic crisis; these institutions, moreover, shape collective identities and solidarities - not just class solidarities - in particular ways; they also distribute power and resources unevenly to different social classes and fractions of classes; they both facilitate and inhibit specific group alliances based on common or divergent interests; class divisions, furthermore, often penetrate and fracture political movements; and ideologies and cultural assumptions linked to capitalism powerfully shape movement strategies and demands. The effects of capitalism on collective action ... are both direct and indirect (that is, mediated by other processes) and are the result of both short- and long-term processes.
Holland and Goodwin, in Barker et al (eds) 2013, p.85
Stated this way, it's common sense. For a case study on social movement history that operates with these principles, I recommend this book.
Ho, ho, ho, now we know why they call him "Beefy". Yes, regardless of all the horrors scarring the world there's nothing quite like a celebrity dick pic to set social media a-flapping. When Ian Botham tweeted a picture purportedly to be his "old man" this morning, Twitter had one of its periodic meltdowns. Botham himself denies all knowledge:
@RobbieSavage8 yes mate just changed my password !!! There's some idiots out there !!
— Ian Botham (@BeefyBotham) August 18, 2014
Sure you were hacked, Ian. The just-visible chin of said willy-wafter bears no resemblance to yours at all. No awkward questions from Lady Botham then. Perhaps his 1994 autobiography was sub-titled Don't Tell Kath for a reason. A couple of points of interest. First, the celeb angle. The internet groans under the weight of celebrities who've got their bits out. Whether freeze frames from mainstream film and TV, wardrobe malfunctions, long-lens shots, and the invasive upskirt picture, there's a ready trade in such fare. Some, okay, a lot of this is sexual. The celebrity system exploits sex appeal after all, whether consciously or not. Celeb nudity is the next logical step. It allows the aura of fantasy surrounding them to be pushed even further. Yes, believe it or not, there will be those who have enjoyed Botham's faux pas in an altogether different way. But this kind of aura is increasingly old hat. It belongs to a bygone age where celebrities were more distant, where there was a certain deference. Now we live with an everyday tabloid sensibility. Whereas the media once made celebrity sacred, reality television and social media have coloured them profane. While it is useful to be famous for a talent, it's no longer a prerequisite. The growth of celebrity culture, the websites, blogs, magazines and ents sections demands an infinite procession of famous people to build up and knock down. Celebrity nudity is just so much disposable fodder for the machine. Lucrative fodder, it has to be said. Even mainstream sites like The Huffington Post have top tens of full-frontal nudity. If a "leaked" sex tape, a scene, papped nakedness or whatever hits the internet it's clickbait for the few who get hold of it first. They also get to hog the search engines for the related keywords too. The greater the number of celebrities, the greater the likelihood someone else in the public eye will get their bits and bobs out. From the perspective of the one-handed internet wanderer, the interchangeability of celebrity segues seamlessly into the disposability of porn. As some pour over drug issues, relationship problems, outrageous behaviour and the rest, so others skip from naked celeb to naked celeb. There is no difference between people who get their kicks from celebrities who parade their lives as opposed to those who get off on their bodies. For both, there is something about exposure that captures their imagination, be it erotic or otherwise. The laying bare of bodies and lives, the thrill of peering at things that shouldn't be seen or known, it removes what's left of a celebrity aura and repositions them as everyday people one may gossip or secretly/not-so-secretly fantasise about. It constitutes a simulacra of familiarity, and illusion of an easily-accessed personal and sexual closeness. Also, Botham's tweet says something about sexuality in the media age. His is not the first celebrity John Thomas to be tweeted, nor will it be the last. It seems to be a cultural thing. I have heard women complain about getting cock shots from complete strangers on dating sites, yet none of my male friends have ever mentioned the appearance of a random vagina in their inbox. So why men (not all men)? Some of it comes from a dark place - of the tawdry, creepy thrill of harassing women knowing there's vanishingly little chance of a comeback. For others it's a case of masculine projection. Who needs a fancy sports car when all you require is a camera to show you've got a big dick? Conditioning both is a stunted sexuality focused almost entirely on genitalia. It's easy to blame porn for this, with its gratuitous crotch shots and close ups of the action. Yet I think this is more symptom than cause, and is rooted in the indissociable relationship between masculinity and sexuality. Dipping your wick, as it were, remains a key marker of straight manliness among men. It's the notches on the bedpost, a quantifying of desirability and being a lad that matters. Women are passive bodies, objects whose own agency has to be overcome for the all-important conquest. Women's sexual pleasure is secondary to their incorporation into a narcissistic project of self. If this is the sexual culture many men are socialised into, it conditions intimacy in particular ways. There is the (gendered) separation between love and sex, waxed over by relationship experts, agony aunts and uncles and Mars/Venus-style life coaches. More importantly for the cock shots, there is a failure of erotic imagination. Because genital heterosexuality is about gratifying and impressing other men, men are left ill-equipped to establish a rapport with women. So, instead, they go with what a woman has to do to turn them on, but reverses it. For example, if a woman sends them a message with a pic of her genitals and the line "come and get me" they know it would work for them. So why wouldn't sending a dick pic have the same effect? Especially as porn and your Lothario mates show women are gagging for it just as much. It projects one's sexual outlook onto others and makes assumptions about women's motivations, precisely because genital sexuality positions them without agency. Hence when these kinds of online advances are spurned, it's either because the woman is frigid or fussy. Not because sending a photo of your penis is entirely inappropriate.
Rory MacKinnon, a journalist at the Morning Star for the last three years has resigned from the paper. This comes after facing disciplinary action for pursuing the case of Caroline Leneghan. Readers and left-watchers may recall that Caroline went public with some very serious domestic violence allegations against her former partner, RMT assistant general secretary Steve Hedley. A full account of what has happened with Rory is available here and here. So what is going on? Why has the paper - one of the few to give domestic violence the seriousness it is due - attacked the messenger in an attempt to kill the message? Before we go there, a few words about the case itself. Unlike the notorious SWP rape accusations, Steve Hedley was reported to the police and his union. As this took place six months after the attack and despite ample evidence, they declined to prosecute the case because of the time elapsed. When it went before the RMT they determined he had no case to answer, under the rules of the union. None of this amounts to an exoneration. It wasn't a matter of the evidence being put to him and being found wanting and, as such, Caroline's allegations will continue to dog him. My opinion? The evidence, both material and pertaining to the incident point to only one conclusion. Sadly, it also needs stating again that women who have survived physical and/or sexual assaults incur significant personal costs in making an allegation formal. When Caroline went public the whispers ran up and down the grapevine about her mental health, rumours designed to traduce her character and render her complaint illegitimate. For trade unionists and socialists to act in such a way is unpardonable but sadly, not without precedent. The Morning Star then. Why? I think there are a few things going on. 1. The paper generally refrains from commenting on controversial issues internal to labour movement organisations. This is not always the case. For example, during last year's row between Unite and the Labour leadership over the Falkirk debacle, the Morning Star was supportive of Len McCluskey's position. There's more to it than not washing the labour movement's linen in public. Putting trade unions under a supportive but critical microscope is bound to offend senior figures somewhere down the line who might be less than keen to renew bulk orders in future. 2. It's election season in the RMT. The union has to fill the void left by the sad, premature passing of Bob Crow. It so happens one of the candidates contesting the general secretary's position is Steve Hedley. Again, in deference to trade union diplomacy the Morning Star would unlikely publish anything that may swing the contest one way or the other. Not being a RMT watcher, I have no idea what Steve's chances are, whether it will be closely run or a repeat of the kinds of results his TUSC comrades get. Regardless, I doubt many members would welcome what might be seen as outside interference, as serious as the issue is. Especially as the RMT's enemies in the mainstream media could pick it up. 3. According to Rory's account, he was sent to a RMT's delegate conference to report on proceedings - with the union's blessing. I don't know if it is routine at RMT lay gatherings for journalists to ask questions in session, let alone bring up a controversial issue with internal ramifications; or whether the Morning Star expects that from its employees. Following what Rory says, I'm guessing the answer to both is no. For the RMT, it was interference in an issue the union leadership regard closed. For the paper it was a matter of professional judgement. Hence when the RMT complained management initiated disciplinary action. I take this to be the Morning Star's position, even if it makes them look weak on domestic violence and Stalinist on the dissemination of an inconvenient story. Does this make the Morning Star structurally misogynistic? I don't think it does. It is an accident of their diplomatic approach to trade union controversies. This becomes a structural problem if management doesn't seize the moment and carries on as if nothing has happened. You don't need to be au fait with tea leaves to see a situation like this might arise again. Perhaps too it's time trade union leaders also thought about a more grown up relationship with the "daily paper of the left". It's a poor friendship when the sole reason you're interested in someone is because they will tell you what you want to hear.
