"What a weird cabinet reshuffle", muses Dan Hodges. "Massacre of the moderates!" shouts Labour. Yes, really. "Brutal ministerial cull" says The Mirror. On and on it goes. Yes, some Tory careers have limped unlamented into the night, including some big hitters. But the story is of ruthlessness and verve, of Dave slicing through his government and leaving behind him a pile of quivering limbs. Dan can barely hide his admiration. This is the audacity of a PM at the top of his game. Au contraire, this reshuffle is symptomatic of weakness and a belief that the Tories are looking down the barrel of electoral defeat.
Dave's reshuffle had to be audacious and far-reaching . These last four years have seen him consistently exposed as a weak, hapless ditherer who's soft on the city and craven before the Tory Taliban of his own back benches. Yet it is also a triumph of media management that all of Dave's failings are projected onto his opponent. Nevertheless, after the failed gamble of the Juncker stunt the PM needed to look in command again. So why not reshuffle everything, especially when his government - with the shameful connivance of the LibDems and my own party's front bench - are pushing "emergency" internet surveillance powers through the house?
What the reshuffle says above all is that Dave believes he's going to lose next May. Think about how the "sacking" of Michael Gove unfolded over the course of the day. What started off as a shock has revealed itself to be something else entirely. First, Dave insists that his moving Gove to chief whip is neither a sacking nor demotion. And then Gove himself, rather indiscreetly, implied on C4 News this evening that he had a say over his own move and that of other ministers. It's all a bit Grimsby Docks if you ask me. Or not, if you follow your nose. Dave is thinking about his legacy and, moreover, the succession. He wants to bequeath a Tory party without anti-women, anti-black, anti-gay hang-ups (ironic, seeing as three gay ministers got the push today) to a modernising leader such as he. Who could this be? Forget Theresa May and Boris Johnson, Dave's keeping the seat warm for George Osborne.
Gove's unseemly public spat with May over the Birmingham schools 'Trojan Horse' "scandal" was transparent manoeuvring on behalf of Osborne. With his appointment as chief whip, Dave could not have handed the chancellor's future campaign manager a more powerful position. Gove now has carte blanche to canvass the parliamentary party, to find out all the little scandals and dark secrets, to whisper promises of elevation here and threats of exposure there, to establish what the state of play for the post-2015 Tories is likely to be, and relentlessly promote the scheme and stature of his bestest buddy.
Sure, Dave knows Gove costs votes so moving him from education comes with a dose of cynical electoral calculation. But he wasn't parked in the chief whip's office to keep him out of the way. Dave placed him there to oversee the succession and ensure continuity, and just like his damaging ideological experiments with children's education, it's a task Gove will pursue with relish.
Chances are you've seen this. In what looks like summer kite-flying to me, the Tories have floated the idea that people who receive Employment Support Allowance for mental health problems should undergo treatment on pain of losing social security payments. Forcing medication on people, piling unnecessary stress on existing illness ... there's a special category of stupid for the cretin who came up with that. It's as vicious as it is ridiculous, yet has that ring of plausibility to it. You just know they will implement it if this government is given a new lease of life. Still think there's no difference between the Tories and Labour?
Such a policy sits within the horizon of our political imaginations. The Tories are responsible for thinking it up, for bringing it to the table. Yet underpinning it are a whole set of shared assumptions. You see, life in 21st century Britain isn't all about consumption. The trendy cultural theorists and marketing gurus have sold you a pup. Allow me to be woefully unoriginal: it's all about work. You know it, I know it. If you're on the dole, you're scum basically. Unemployment is never a matter of economics, it has nothing to do with a lack of jobs. It's an individual tragedy, nay, an individual failing. If you haven't got a job it's because there's something up with you. There's a flaw, a malaise, an indiscipline, an absence of competence that speaks the truth of your character. You're not merely unemployed. You're unemployable. From this flows all manner of policy assumptions that most readers will know well: criteria for qualification, compulsory job-seeking activities, CV enhancement "opportunities", continual physicals, work-for-dole schemes. You could spend all night picking through one petty rule after another. Think about the culture too. The press routinely denounce the unemployed and expose benefit fraudsters. And look at their depiction on TV. Shameless might be fictional, but the unworthy, dangerous poor cluttering up Benefits Street and Jeremy Kyle aren't. Even worse, it's the sweat of your brow that's keeping these people in Google Glasses and Super Hi-Def roll-up TVs.
This we know. It's one of history's ironic chuckles that addressing working people explicitly as workers has proven most effective keeping us divided, atomised, and at war with ourselves. Some might pretend class doesn't count, but those 'some' aren't those who articulate, repeat, and benefit from peddling hate towards our most vulnerable people. The question then, is why. Typically, at least among left accounts it's located in capital's largely successful struggle to subordinate an ever greater share of social life to its imperatives. In the British context specifically it is heavily conditioned by the strategic defeats inflicted on organised labour in the 1980s, defeats that have left a legacy more abiding than the lip gloss, big hair and luminescent socks one typically associates with that decade. Technological change at work, deindustrialisation, in-your-face consumerism were all intertwined, conditioned and conditioning of struggle and their aftershocks. A history of culture, a history of work, a history of class, a history of capital, a history of politics since 1979 is partial, biased and wrong if it fights shy of appreciating the whole context of that period.
As a general rule, with slightly different emphases and terms, that's accepted across the left. There's your reason for the popular acceptance of scrounger discourse. However, it's a bit of a leap to say antipathy toward White Dee is a direct result of a disadvantageous class peace coupled with media brainwashing. What's missing is an intervening level of analysis, a realm of theoretical magnification that demonstrates how the general and the particular fit together the way that they do. We need to zoom right in and look at the microphysics of power, of the small, barely perceptible and sneaky ways power positions, flows and circulates through and around individual human beings. Michel Foucault is just the fella to help us out.
Foucault's body of work is the most useful and challenging to have come out of the French post-structuralist scene. Among his most lasting and substantive contributions is his critique of political theory and formulation of a new method of understanding power. You can find more on sex and power here, and some stuff on the relationship between Foucault and Marx. That's why Foucault here is getting the Noddy treatment.
Unlike traditional conceptions of power, where it is something to be wielded, to be imposed and imposing, as the capacity to force one will on another and compel them to do things, Foucault opposes this "negative" understanding with a positive, or productive reading of how it works. The difference between the two is starkly illustrated in the opening pages of his Discipline and Punish. The first example is a graphic description of the 1757 torture and drawing and quartering of one Robert-François Damiens, a criminal condemned to a grisly end for the attempted murder of Louis XV. Foucault juxtaposes this with a daily schedule taken from the Mettray penal colony less than a century later. This specifies a rigid timetable of activities, when inmates should be in their cells, etc. For Foucault, these typify the shift that power in early modern France had undergone. In the first, it speaks of a situation where power is deposited in the body of the sovereign - the monarch. Therefore Damiens' fate is to be ripped apart, for vengeance to be violently and publicly wreaked upon his anatomy so that the sovereign's (social) body is recuperated by a display of his power. Reading the scene demonstrates how power works, that it is the prerogative and property of the sovereign, that his person is pre-eminent before all others. The second is suggestive of an entirely different operation of power. Here, the society, the social body is sovereign, that each individual carries with them a particulate of that sovereignty. And to recuperate its body, rather than obliterate those who offend against it society is concerned with punishing and disciplining its convicts, of rehabilitating them so they can be re-absorbed into the social body as productive, law-abiding citizens.
Here, in his early work on madness and subsequent treatment of sexuality, Foucault's interest is in how power "makes" subjects. The prison is the place where political technologies of the body came together and were refined. To rehabilitate criminals a variety of means were introduced and repeated. The regimentation of the day, the emphasis on prison labour, drills, the possibility of perpetual surveillance, these technologies aimed to discipline the criminal body, to create a docile but productive subjectivity through the routine and observation. For the authorities, it was an opportunity to experiment with new techniques, to develop panoptic architecture for incarceration . Hence, at one level of remove, it required the prisoner to collude, to adapt to the regimen as if it was their common sense, to submit. This for Foucault is key to his microphysics of productive power - it flows relationally, positions people, manipulates bodies, creates souls.
Foucault isn't Michael Howard though. He knew prison didn't work. After all, where there's power there's always resistance. But on paper, these techniques of the body, these political technologies were extremely attractive to anyone who had to manage groups of people. From emerging nation states and their population management problematic, to schools, workplaces, hospitals, barracks, disciplinary power was embraced. It inscribed itself on the internal lay out of class rooms, workshops, offices, wards, and was elaborated wherever there was a problem to be "managed". Or, to put it in Foucauldian terms, the will to management articulated the problem, such as sexuality. Think about it, think how authority, the possibility of surveillance, and self-surveillance club together to inculcate specific organisational subjectivities across a range of institutions and walks of life. The diffuse capillaries of power would like you to love Big Brother, but acting as if you do will suffice.
Having elaborated a 'genealogy' of power, Foucault's impact has been a profound across the social and human sciences. Yet, before his premature death, he also noted that disciplinary power was becoming old hat itself - the disciplinary society was making way for the surveillance society. Here, the political technologies of the body that were explicitly elaborated in the 19th century had more or less become the popular common sense, that the possibility of surveillance, panopticism, was a diffuse property inscribed in the very fabric of everyday social relations, and that we as subjects in this surveillance society would not only accept it as the norm but gleefully participate in it. Social media and the desire to be visible is as pure a surveillance technology can be.
This brings us back to the why, to the fit between macro-level social transformation and the outpouring of work-centric discourse. The institutional set up of the post-war settlement, on one level, tried to reconcile the ultimately irreconcilable. The economy/society relation was overtly mediated and managed by the state. Running sectors of the economy to maintain full employment and the health of British capital rested upon compromises between organised labour and business. The latter, for its own part, was organised and disciplined by commercial imperatives and preservation of private ownership. The former was organised and disciplined by the relatively tight-knit working class community, its self-organisation and discipline in the workplace and, to a degree, a certain level of cultural homogeneity. Going to work to earn a wage was not a matter of laying yourself at management's disposal. For the strategic sections of the working class, discipline at work was conditioned primarily by the everyday, bread and butter politics of employees as a collective. Just as there the need for a legislatively-mandated minimum wage was regarded superfluous (and in some cases, harmful to working people) because wage levels were determined by free collective bargaining, so the problem of work discipline did not exist. The post-war period was no golden age by any means, but neither was there an idea, let alone a panic, around supposed cultures of social security dependency and worklessness. The working class, effectively, regulated itself. The political technologies of the workplace was about maintaining workers as a collective bargaining chip and not for management's convenience.
You might be able to see what I'm driving at. Thatcher's offensive in the 1980s shattered the attempted institutionalisation of class struggle. Privatisation, closures, mass unemployment, even selling off council houses, this weakened labour vis capital, but it also wrecked the means and the technologies by which the working class disciplined and prepared itself as workers. Therefore the explosion in scrounger discourse that emerged in the 80s wasn't only a cynical Tory ploy to demonise the millions they made unemployed, it's the top-down assumption of responsibility to cultivate an alternative worker subjectivity because the working class could no longer do so. And as the weakness of the labour movement has persisted, so has the overly and overtly discursive inculcation of that subjectivity. Education has been subtly remodelled away from learning and knowledge to "skills". HE is explicitly marketed in terms of "employability". Political discourse in its more "positive" moments is premised on "hard-working people" and their "aspirations". In the surveillance society, these discursive moves have been thoroughly internalised - scrounger horror stories fall on fertile ground while the long-term unemployed, the disabled, all those who do not work run the risk of exposure and ostracism, and the stress of trying to justify themselves. "I worked all my life until ...".
In sum, scrounger rhetoric is part and parcel of a disciplinary technology appropriate to the surveillance society, a society which destroyed the institutional capacity of its working class to constitute itself as such independently of capital, and now anxiously but vindictively tries to ensure worker drones with aptitude, discipline and drive are produced and reproduced. It might appear that this inculcation occurs from a position of strength. Yet among the barely-concealed angst and ceaseless moral panic, you might find a flicker of recognition, a fear, that this state of affairs is far from permanent.
Since Twitter killed the comments box star, a lot of fine blogging traditions have been forgotten. Memes like this one used to circulate around blogs, driving traffic through tagging and plentiful linky-love. There used to be lovely blog carnivals showcasing writing from your compadres and comrades. These were excellent for community-building and discovering smart bloggers you may otherwise have missed. And yes, one much-hyped tradition was the annual battle of the blogs. Each year, roughly coinciding with the onset of the silly season Iain Dale/Total Politics would run their top 100 political blogs poll. Bloggers of all political stripes and none would solicit votes and, in one or two cases, manipulate them so they get a decent position. Under the old name, this place did okay - it would have even been a top ten Labour blog in 2010 had the minion in charge bothered to recognise me in that category. I'm not bitter.
It was a bit of fun. Yet the annual poll was more than that too. Remember, this was before established media outlets starting gobbling up (primarily London-based) bloggers for their comment platforms. So it was a chance to get noticed, to stand out from the crowd, to get some kudos and a possibility the press equivalent of A&R offering a trial run in a "proper" newspaper. It was a big(ish) deal, and has been put out to pasture since 2011.
Thankfully, some blog awards are deader than others. Passing me by last year, Editorial Intelligence sponsor their own awards "for the industry to commend and support the best of UK comment journalism." Great stuff. And look at the categories, there's one for that oft-overlooked beastie: the independent blogger.
So I'm going to ask you, the reader, for a big favour. I want you to nominate me or, rather, this blog. I've self-nominated under the independent category. But it's fair to say I'd tick the politics, cultural, and media boxes too. What you need to do is hit up the nominations page, follow the instructions and submit your three favourite pieces by me from the last year. And that's it. Sure, a panel of judges are the real gatekeepers here but the more nominations a blog gets the more seriously they'll look at it.
Cheers for that. Now, for the footy.
Imitation, nay, outright plagiarism is the highest form of flattery. In this spirit find below the first in a regular Saturday feature carrying on the fine tradition established by the late Norman Geras. Eagle-eyed readers might spot a resemblance/"adaptation" of some of Norm's questions. So, from now on look forward to the low down from activists, bloggers, political types and other cool cats. And we kick off the series with ...
Jim Jepps is a political activist in Camden, London. He's written for a variety of publications and is involved in the The North London Star, launched this week. You can follow Jim on Twitter here.
- Why did you blog?
I first started blogging (at the Daily (Maybe)) just to see if I could write something everyday to improve my writing. I didn't tell anyone I was doing it but somehow people discovered me and I was too shy to stop. These days, when I blog, I do it for the discipline. If I'm going to crunch numbers or vent about new government proposals I want to do it properly, which I simply would not do if it was just for me or a rant on facebook.
- What was your best blogging experience?
Whenever I think of a joke that makes me laugh. I'm not sure I care if anyone else finds it funny, as long as I get to tell it that's fine.
- What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger?
Don't think too much, just get on and do it. Oh, and be nice to people.
- Is blogging different now from when you started?
When I started blogging it was pretty new, people didn't really know what blogging was and you still had articles and even books on 'how to blog'. That's long gone. Personally I think political blogging, in terms of the 'citizen commenter' has pretty much been killed off by the mainstream media co-opting the form. There are a few hardy souls left but the political blogosphere feels like it's deflating. Where there may well still be space to grow are group blogs (masquerading as magazines) and hyper-local blogs filling the space that local papers used to live in.
- Why do you tweet?
It's quick and easy, but I'm not obsessed by it. The form of 140 characters is good practice for writing headlines, or one liners, but I'm a fan of long form and original content and they tend to hang out in different venues.
- Who are your intellectual heroes?
Jean-Paul Satre. Naturally. And Keith Flett, I envy his facility with the one sentence letter to the editor.
- What are you reading at the moment?
I'm reading Woody Guthrie's autobiography Bound for Glory for pleasure and Richard Seymour's Austerity for not quite as much pleasure.
- What was the last film you saw?
World War Z. It has some nice moments but it's essentialy an empty movie, sadly.
- What is the best novel you've ever read?
I don't know. But I really enjoyed Walter Mosley's Blue Light.
- Can you name an idea or an issue on which you've changed your mind?
There have been a few. I was against Proportional Representation, now I'm for it. I used to think Trotsky was pretty cool, but now I'm not so sure. I wrestle internally on drug legalisation but have so far managed to hide my doubts in the public sphere.
- How many political organisations have you been a member of?
Define political organisations. I joined the Labour Party, but never did anything. I joined the SWP and Socialist Alliance, but escaped after eight years. I was a member of the Greens (for six years I think), and currently I'm free-range. The consistent thread has been that I've never been that tribal about party affiliation and membership of any organisation is just a means to an end. I distrust party loyalists or people who've been in the same party for more than two decades.
It seems to me that it's easier to have consistent politics if you don't tie yourself too tightly to a manifesto or the needs of an organisation. But perhaps I just never found a party that was a good fit for me.
- What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate?
Thinking.
- What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat?
Political dogmatism. I'm very unhappy with the way that people can get used up and spat out in politics, we need to learn to be more open to those we disagree with and take care of our fellow human beings. Someone saying something you don't like is not a license to beast them.
- Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major and lasting influence on how you think about the world?
Bukharin's ABC of Communism. I'm a big fan of the dialectic. Sad but true.
- Who are your political heroes?
I'm keen on iconoclasts. Germaine Greer back in the day, or Sylvia Pankhurst who managed to get on the wrong side of almost every movement she was ever involved in. Mind you I also like radical pragmatists so Bob Crow and, yes, Nikolai Bukharin also deserve a mention.
- How about political villains?
I don't like to demonise people. Stalin was pretty bad. So's Nick Clegg. Don't make me choose between the two.
- What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day?
Tackling the toxic rhetoric on immigration.
- If you could affect one major policy change, what would it be?
I'd like to see real investment in tackling climate change. A mass programme of home insulation to reduce the amount of energy we're using, renewable energy research to improve the quality of 'green energy' and rail infrastructure investment across the nation. It's a scandal that we're pouring billions into High Speed Rail connecting to London when whole sections of the network aren't even electrified yet.
- What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world?
The ecological crisis threatens our food production, extreme weather events and even the future of antibiotics. That's pretty big.
- What would be your most important piece of advice about life?
Make it meaningful, if you can. Don't worry about being happy.
- What is your favourite song?
One song? Sydney Carter's The Crow on the Cradle (sung here by Pete Seager).
- What do you consider the most important personal quality?
Integrity.
- What personal fault do you most dislike?
In myself, bearing a grudge. In others, cruelty.
- What, if anything, do you worry about?
Money. Always money.
- What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?
Love your friends and family, they won't be there forever.
- What do you like doing in your spare time?
Coffee with a friend is my favourite thing. Two friends is ok, and once you get to three it's abominable.
- What is your most treasured possession?
I have a pair of trousers I'm very pleased with but, to be honest, I'm not very attached to things.
- Do you have any guilty pleasures?
Coca Cola. Sorry.
- What talent would you most like to have?
I'd love to be able to play the guitar. I'm just too lazy to learn.
- If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for?
I'm not sure. Something sexual probably.
- How, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money?
I'd probably set up a left-wing magazine that refused to affiliate to any party or groupescule. Vanity publishing at its worst!
- If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be?
I'd have Michael Moorcock, Ursula Le Guin and China Mieville, then sit back and listen.
- Socialism: will you live to see it?
We won't have a socialist government in Britain in my lifetime but every week I see acts of socialism, defiance and love.
Revolutionary politics has long been a fringe pursuit in Britain. The parties and organisations representing this tradition have barely got two activists to rub together. It has next to zero purchase in the media and as for elections, forget it. Yet when it comes to ambition, it's vaulting. Self-described revolutionary socialists seek nothing less than the seizure of power and the building of a new, more democratic society. Therefore in the 15 or so years I saw myself as part of the "movement", I approached questions of theory and practice through this lens. How do we get from the pitiful state revolutionary politics finds itself in to a conscious movement of the immense majority? I never claimed any great insight here. After all, 'what is to be done' is a problem many millions of activists and thinkers have grappled with since at least the First International. Yet one thing, what seems like common sense to me, is that your revolutionary party/network/collective should, at the very least, not endeavour to go out its way to be objectionable and outrageous. After all, if you think the ultimate fate of our species is choosing between socialism or barbarism then yours is a serious, complex business. Making enemies and alienating people for its own sake should be left to rebellious teenagers or the terminally infantile.
Enter stage left the Socialist Workers Party.
The Indy has the details, and the Daily Mail stuck it on their front page. If you haven't the foggiest what I'm on about, see this article from the latest Socialist Worker.
Charming. The SWP's stock can't get much lower, what with their depravity and weird, cult-like sex games but this little statement - almost an aside - shows rehabilitation in front of the labour movement doesn't feature on their horizon of immediate objectives.
Their making light of Horatio Chapple's death, however, is out of character. Socialist Worker fancies itself as a hard left Indy or Graun. Tastelessness is usually the preserve of Class War (the difference being, of course, that Class War was funny). Typically SW's pieces are couched in do-gooding tones. It's bleeding heart stuff, of a well-to-do someone explaining to the hoi polloi why capitalism is nasty and Tories are bad. In at least two cases that is precisely what's happening. Step forward Charlie Kimber, national secretary and alleged banking dynasty scion and Old Etonian. Pairing Charlie is Alexander Theodore Callinicos, great grandson of the 1st Lord Acton and son of the Hon. Aedgyth Bertha Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton. Yes, it's cheap to make something of their aristocratic backgrounds. Yet when SW does so over the tragic and quite horrifying death of an apolitical teenager, that's perfectly okay.
The function of a revolutionary newspaper, as Lenin put it, was to act as a scaffolding around which the party is built. Oh, how many times I've heard that metaphor used and abused down the years. Going by the primitive and distinctly Web 1.0 approach of nearly all self-described vanguard websites, the paper remains the preferred party media of choice by members and little Lenins alike - mainly because it keeps activists fruitlessly sprinting on the revolutionary treadmill. The real function of the paper, to which all members are expected to subscribe and read, is about cohering the organisation, of offering a drip feed of analysis and opinion that works both as a currency within the SWP's internal life and inoculation against the views of outsiders. It's also about the creation of necessary fictions, of marking past swappie glories and pretending its depleted ranks are making a difference now. It's right because it's right because it's right.
It's also the primary site of the SWP's revolutionary performance. Anyone who's had some experience with them know about their propensity to be really annoying. Yet, I can't help but read this performance as identity work. Whether its "spontaneously" trying to get through police lines to the EDL or agitating for never-will-happen general strikes, in thought and deed it has to look the piece with as little cost as possible. Revolutionary organisations, after all, are supposed to do revolutionary things. The paper, of course, is the record of its activity, a sort of deferred stage for readers to know what some activists have got up to. In this context then, it's mildly surprising the ra-ra-revolutionism hasn't resulted in more cheap, vacuous but ostensibly radical sneers like the above. Then again, as it's the bourgeois press they've upset they might smugly feel they're doing the right thing. These are supposed to be the people who hate and despise the SWP, and at next to no cost the party has been positioned as anti-establishment oiks to millions of readers more likely to think SWP is a synonym for safe working practices.
Don't be entirely shocked if, after today, the SWP resorts to similar trolling in the future. When they do so, each time recalls them as a toxic party as deficient in moral sense as it is of political nous.
There are ripples disturbing the surface of the tiny Stoke-on-Trent politics bubble, ripples conveying the fall-out of recent local government selection interviews in which three party members were turned down. As ever, I won't be commenting on those decisions directly, especially as they might be subject to the appeals process. In this spirit, I will not be accepting any comments about those cases. But what is worthwhile commenting on is the way the Labour Party here in Stoke and everywhere else selects its local council candidates. Yes, it's hardly up there with intersectionality and capitalism, or the political economy of the working class but, as per, there's a lot of bullshit swilling about and things need setting straight.
According to sundry commentators on local politics blog, Potteye, the process of selecting our candidates is illegitimate because the people conducting the panel interviews ... don't live in Stoke-on-Trent.
Okay, let's wind this back a little bit before dealing with the cretinous localism. What is the titular 'local government panel'? Simply put, the panel is merely those people who've been through the panel interview and are deemed by the party to be sufficiently suitable to stand as a Labour candidate come local election time. Once you're on the panel, you can then start applying for seats. If you're not, you will not be regarded by the party as an official candidate. As Stoke has all-out elections next year, the process of accepting and determining candidates is now taking place. Everyone interested, including sitting councillors have to go through this process.
The interviews themselves are fairly straightforward. Prospective panellists are asked about their campaigning record, party membership, their knowledge about basic procedures, and so on. Successful candidates are asked, if it is deemed appropriate, to sign candidate contracts stipulating campaigning commitments. It is worth noting the interview guidelines have been tightened up these last couple of years, and now comprise a small written element that tests for strategic acumen, as well as basic literacy.
Under the 2013 rule book, the process is organised and overseen by the Local Campaign Forum. This body comprises constituency party executive members, Labour group leaders (where they exist), and delegates from other affiliates in a local authority area. So, for example, in next door Newcastle-under-Lyme their LCF just about covers the constituency of the same name and a little bit of Stoke North. In Stoke-on-Trent, representatives of the city's three CLPs sit on the LCF, and so on. Identical arrangements exist everywhere, and are based on best practice. Lastly, the LCF has the final say on who is and isn't accepted onto the panel.
Returning to the 'local candidate selection by local people' argument, it's a basic check and balance against the sort of cronyism that has blighted Labour parties in the past. The people chosen to conduct the interviews are experienced activists well-placed to judge who would make a good Labour candidate or not. As Labour is a national party with a national brand that contests nationwide elections, it has every right to ensure its prospective representatives wherever they are come up to standard. Which is why custom and practice in Staffordshire is to have interviewers from outside the local authority area conduct the interviews. Just as those who were asking the questions in the disputed panel interviews were from outside of Stoke, so members from Stoke are occasionally interviewers for elsewhere. In my time I've interviewed people for Newcastle, Tamworth, Stafford borough, and County Council seats. Presumably, anti-politics types in those places have a right to be aggrieved because the kinds of problems those places have - unemployment, house shortage, health care concerns, etc. - are totally and utterly unique and nothing like the challenges we have here in the city. And vice versa.
As far as I'm concerned, this way of going about selecting candidates is sensible and sound. It does not prevent, but it makes it harder for gravy train types to collect their allowance while doing little, and it stops branches full of a sitting councillor's mates from letting selections happen with a nod and a wink. Candidates are assessed by a clear set of standards, and are held to them when reselection comes round the following time. Please show me a party who has a better way.
I've got two heavy duty blog posts brewing, but I cannot for the life of me summon up the energy to begin writing them this evening. Besides, the footy's on, there's a new Mega Drive game dying to be tried, and I'm halfway through Richard Yates' Revolutionary Road. Bugger it. Let them eat dubstep.
As Parliament prepares to disband for the summer, a vast supercell hangs poised to send tornado after tornado ripping through the political establishment. Rumours have long-circulated about paedophile MPs, and the absence of several dossiers submitted to the Home Office by the late Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens have forced Theresa May to establish a wide-ranging enquiry. Good. Let there be no doubt. If the olds boys' networks have child abusers in their midst, and have conspired to protect them from the consequences of their crimes I hope these vile creatures are dragged from the shadows and sent down for a very. very long time. However, there are two quick points I want to make.
Firstly, on the face of it the "misplacing" of Dickens' dossier is, at best, a catastrophic error. It is inexcusable that it should have gone missing. Yet that does not automatically mean its contents were of substantive value. As Reuben rightly notes, Dickens was
... a campaigner against witchcraft, and satanism, and against the decision by a previous government to repeal the 1735 Witchcraft Act – which he believed had made it a little too easy for evil to flourish. Of course these things were not unrelated, since like many people in the 1980s, Dickens was hooked on the idea that up and down the country children were being subjected to Satanic Ritual Abuse - a phenomenon now universally regarded as a moral panic with little-to-no basis in fact.
In 1988 he told She Magazine that “up and down the country” hundreds of Children were being “sacrificed” to the devil. Interestingly, he said he was building up a dossier which he hoped would provide concrete proof of the evils of satanism, which he would be handing on to the police ...
In 1983 Dickens called on Brittan to investigate pedophilia at the royal court, buckhingham palace and in the diplomatic and civil services. It is impossible, right now, to know what was in that dossier – was it packed full of credible evidence, or was it dross about witches and satanists. Yet it is worth noting, that Dickens retained his own copy of the dossier, and remained alive for another decade, and was hardly shy about getting in touch with the media, if he felt (often wrongly) that had something credible to offer them.
This leads me to my second point. At the risk of sounding like Brendan O'Neill, the rising clamour around alleged paedophile politicians has created a constituency who almost want there to be a scandal. Matters are made worse by the crimes of Cyril Smith coming to light. So we have a media wanting something to fill their schedules and pages. And as for the wider anti-politics malaise, it's confirmation of the ultimate corruption of politics - despite mainstream politicians taking the brewing crisis by the bit and acting decisively. The febrile atmosphere leads to another issue. When a list of unsubstantiated allegations are a Twitter search away, when child abuse combines with a culture of lost trust and antipathy, there will be real problems ensuring any future defendants receive a fair trial.
If the rumours are substantiated, silence has, so far, allowed a bunch of paedophiles get away with it. It would be an awful irony if splashing allegations across the internet and media let them continue to do so.
If you were to glance at this headline, you might think Labour is tearing itself apart over rail renationalisation. It isn't, but that the bulk of members and supporters think the rail should be taken back into public ownership reflects its popularity in the wider population. Pretty consistently, over half of the electorate would like to see this happen, with just 20% content with the current set up. Apart from Tories who are evenly pro- and anti-, voters for Labour, the LibDems, and UKIP notch up big majorities in favour.
Labour are the natural go-to for renationalisation. It's the one furthest away from the rail companies. It's also the party that has partially broken with market fundamentalism, whereas the others cross their fingers and call it a long-term economic plan. And there's history. It was Labour who ensured the state had a hands-on role in the economy after the war. Yet, despite the record, against the widespread support for the policy (second only to renationalising the utilities), the party leadership prevaricates and fudges. It is expected that this week, rail policy will retain competitive tendering for contracts, but allow a state-owned entity enter the bidding process. Why the studious avoidance of a policy that is a surefire vote winner?
Part of it comes down to the shadow chancellor's cautious economics. Yes, Ed Balls is reputed to be a Keynesian these days. This was the niche he carved out during the Labour leadership contest, and has relied on Keynesian nostrums to oppose Tory austerity ever since. However, the relationship between Ed and JM is one of fleeting acquaintance rather than deep, philosophical commonalities. Basically, Keynes believed that markets tended toward a stagnant equilibrium with little innovation and high unemployment. Ed, however, nods more toward neoliberal common sense. Yes, the government should pursue an industrial strategy. In economics, the state has to be an activist. Yet his preference distinctly leans against direct intervention. The state's role is to create the best possible conditions for markets to flourish. It steps in only when things go catastrophically wrong. It is countenanced as a last resort, as per during the 2008-09 crisis.
In Ed's opinion, the markets in energy and rail aren't entirely broken. Their dysfunctions can be overcome with a bit of tinkering. Hence, having a state-owned company bidding for franchises compels existing contract holders to up their game. And in those bits of the network won by the public contractor will still be disciplined by the market under pain of losing the franchise when it next comes up to tender. It's a classic fudge the front bench thinks would satisfy the clamour for renationalisation, while satisfying Ed's (and Ed's) preference for market-based solutions.
So much for woolly theory. As ever, there's hard politics in play. At the Fabian Conference earlier this year, I asked Ed about rail renationalisation - why not, considering how popular the policy is? The answer was as you might expect; "can't make spending commitments ... it's not a priority ... if any cuts are to be reversed, they'll come before this ... let's try repairing the markets first." The reticence is part hangover from New Labour, in which nationalisation is the N-word never to be uttered. And it sits uneasily with the pro-business offensive the leadership have been making of late. Pledging to nationalise something doesn't go down well in business circles. If the trains go, what other failing markets could be up for state takeover? It's all about securing "confidence" and opposing this to Tory recklessness already undermining "stability". There's also the small matter of the present franchise holders. If they know their number is up, there's zero incentive for them to upgrade and replace rolling stock, improve the service, etc. The state would inherit a dilapidated service requiring the injection of taxpayer cash to make right.
Here's the second point. The Labour leadership are pledged to restore their reputation for prudence by managing austerity "fairly", rubbing out the deficit, and cracking down on public sector debt. Everything is fully costed - the schtick of inviting the OBR to cost Labour's proposals is a nice rejoinder to the usual Tory "tax and spend" nonsense. Nationalising rail via a zero cost phased return is too much of a variable, a potential unknown that could be lumped in with uncosted spending and thereby jeopardise the "sound finances" strategy, and with it a huge pile of Tory/Labour floating voters.
I think this is the wrong approach and further underlines the disconnect between Westminster and the rest of the world. It might be that those floaters in the marginals want a government who's careful with taxpayers' cash. Who doesn't? And yet, the present situation is that franchise holders already get handsome bungs from the government to keep prices down. In reality, that subsidy is basically a profits guarantee. Voters aren't stupid. They prefer renationalisation because a centralised service in a natural monopoly makes sense, and they'd much rather see any money it makes returned to taxpayers' coffers.
So come on Eds, do the decent thing. Do the popular thing.
Want some new(ish) blogs? Of course you do.
1. A Liberal Life (Unaligned/anti-UKIP)
2. Dream Deferred (Unaligned/anti-fascist) (Twitter)
3. Feminists Unknown (Unaligned/feminist)
4. Gender Minefield (Unaligned/feminist) (Twitter)
5. Labour Central Devon (Labour) (Twitter)
6. New Narratives (Unaligned/feminist/trans)
7. Novara Wire (Unaligned) (Twitter)
8. The X-Ray Factor (Unaligned/health) (Twitter)
9. Twickenham Labour Party (Labour) (Twitter)
10. Vixens With Convictions (Unaligned) (Twitter)
11. Young Fabians (Labour) (Twitter)
That's your lot for this month's round up. If you know of any new blogs that haven't featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email or Twitter. Please note I'm looking for blogs that have started within the last 12 months. The new blog round up usually appears on the first Sunday of every month.
