Saturday Interview: Lily Jayne Summers

Lily Jayne Summers is a founder and editor of The Columnist, a cross-party e-zine that blogs on current affairs and entertainment news. Lily is also a member of the Labour Party in Stoke-on-Trent North, and has been known to tweet compulsively.

- Why do you blog?

Because, it's a way for me to express my political views and to challenge other people's notions or assumptions about an opinion or a political debate. Quite frankly, blogging is the best way to express yourself and the best way to be engage in politics. The only way to engage properly is to put your opinions across vigorously and blogging can be a medium for this.

- What has been your best blogging experience?

Hmm. Although I have't been able to interview way more influential politicians than me, I think the best blogging experience is where late at night, I'm finally able to pen my thoughts on a particular subject or to think of something to write about is the best blogging experience I have. There is nothing better than finally finishing an article!

- What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger?

Just have fun. Quite simple. Don't worry about being perfect in writing your thoughts, or worry about whether you're particularly good. When I started I was awful and I'm sure many people think I'm still awful now. But having fun is the only thing you need to blog. Everything else is irrelevant.

- Is blogging different now from when you first started following blogs?

Not really. Beside the growth of smaller political websites and magazines i.e. The website I co-edit, not much has really changed since November 2012 when I penned my first blog post.

- Why do you tweet?

I actually love engaging with Tories and Lib Dems. It's amazing to be able to argue, discuss and express your opinion with someone with a different opinion. Especially when I know quite a few amazingly intelligent, lovely Tories for instance and libertarians where I can have a convivial chat on why Ed Miliband is awful, or why David Cameron has a long nose, etc, etc.

- Who are your intellectual heroes?

John Maynard Keynes. John Stuart Mill. Karl Marx. Friedrich Hayek. Christopher Hitchens.

- What are you reading at the moment?

God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

- What was the last film you saw?

Apollo 13.

- Do you have a favourite novel?

1984 by George Orwell.

- Can you name an idea or an issue on which you've changed your mind?

Votes for 16 and 17 year olds. Before I was opposed or ambivalent on the issue.

- How many political organisations have you been a member of?

The Labour Party, Republic and the Fabian society. Also hopefully CND in the near future!

- What set of ideas do you think it most important to disseminate?

The case for nuclear disarmament. Drugs legalisation. LGBTQI* equality. An elected head of state. And finally, an economy that works for everyone, that doesn't lead to rising inequality and inexorable unsustainable growth. One that isn't subjected to the kind of neo-liberal economic thinking we've seen since Callaghan.

- What set of ideas do you think it most important to combat?

Free-market economic thinking. Not because it's immoral, like advocating the death penalty for instance. But it touches on the basic argument on what kind of economy do we want to enjoy. An economy that only works for the most opulent, that sees rising inequality, unsustainable growth or an economy that fit for generations that can work for everyone and allows prosperty for all.

- Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major influence on how you think about the world?

John Stuart Mill - On Liberty

> Who are your political heroes?

Clement Attlee. Willy Brandt. John F Kennedy. FDR.

But the one who always stands out is Tony Benn. There has been no greater man of intellectual capacity, personality, honesty and conviction than Tony Benn. If I ever have the unique opportunity of fully going into politics, it would be an honour to follow the same model Tony Benn displayed in honesty, fighting for what you believe in and sticking up for the most vulnerable in society.

- How about political villains?

Margaret Thatcher. Ronald Reagan. Any politician who advocates social conservatism, the war on drugs, and free-marketeer is a villain to me!

- What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day?

At the moment the economy. We have an economy where the working class are not feeling the effects of growth. We have an economy which has a housing boom. We have an economy which is £500bn more in debt than compared to May 2010. We have an economy which is growing more unbalanced and a balance of payments deficit which is increasing. We need a new model for our economy and hopefully Ed Miliband can be the nucleus of that.

- If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be?

Only one?! You're a very cruel interviewer. To remove the UK's nuclear weapons. The end of the monarchy. The end to war on drugs. Hmmmmm. Probably the end of the monarchy and an elected head of state. Simply because it's so difficult to do. (The Queen won't sign Royal Assent to her being sacked)

- What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world?

The growth of artificial intelligence. See this, for instance.

- What would be your most important piece of advice about life?

Always live life to the full. Be happy. Fight for what you truly believe in.

- What is your favourite song?

Two Steps From Hell

- What do you consider the most important personal quality?

Honesty. It doesn't matter if you disagree, but if you can honest about what you fight for an believe in, then you have my respect.

- What personal fault do you most dislike?

Arrogance.

- What, if anything, do you worry about?

The Tories winning the next General Election in 2015.

- What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?

Fight for the person you truly are. Avoid self-harming. Be confident in yourself.

- What do you like doing in your spare time?

Chess. I'm slightly addicted to that game at the moment!

- What is your most treasured possession?

My cat, Mr Whiskers.

- Do you have any guilty pleasures?

If I had pleasures that were guilty, why would I reveal them?!

- What talent would you most like to have?

To fly!

- If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for?

To not be trans.

- How, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money?

Nothing. :)

- If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be?

Hayek, Marx and Keynes. That would rather ... interesting.

- Socialism. Will you live to see it?

Possibly. It depends on capitalism's response to the challenges of inequality, global warming, poverty and the end of inexorable economic growth across the world. If they can change capitalism again like they did away with the type of capitalism in Marx's day, then I doubt it. But if they cannot offer a new model then socialism could be the new, sustainable, renewable economic model of the future.

On Bombing ISIS

War is politics by other, violent means. Proving the axiom right now is the arc of slaughter carving a great bloody crescent out of the Middle East. Start from the Mediterranean coast and move gradually in. The racist hysteria in Israel has found an outlet in the carefree pounding of the Gaza Strip. Civilians? Children? Collateral, Guv. Blame Hamas. Scan eastwards and we find Assad's regime just about clinging on. This secular but brutal monarchy has defended itself by any and all means at its disposal, be it torture, massacre and, arguably, chemical weapons. As despicable Israel's actions are, Assad's crimes in the Syrian civil war are far, far worse. Further east still there are the mediaevalists of ISIS, or the 'Islamic State' as they style themselves. With a little bit of help from Qatari and Saudi friends, its several thousand misfits and thugs have carved out a petty caliphate the size of Ireland. Except it's not that petty if you're on the receiving end of it. Many a fundamentalist has raised the cry "death to the infidels!" Only IS has a morality deficit large enough to operationalise it.

As we know, their lightning fast advance after the rout of the Iraqi army has put hundreds of thousands of people at risk. If you're a Christian, a Shia Muslim, a Yazidi, or lead a secular existence then your life is in danger. If you live in Northern Iraq or North East Syria, you live in a land that could bear witness to another round of genocide and religiously-motivated murder.

Unfortunately, from the comfort of Britain some care to dismiss the clear and present threat ISIS poses the people of Syria and Iraq. While the account of the USA's historic shenanigans is spot on, the official Stop the War article on Obama's decision to start bombing ISIS positions is a complacent, tedious piece. It's complacent because it sets up the persecution and massacre of the Yazidi as a lesser evil to the extension of US interests that a bombing campaign would entail. And it's tedious as the hand of Israel and the US is seen everywhere behind the rise of ISIS. For example, the US "allowed" ISIS to run riot to frighten the Iraqi government off closer ties with Tehran. That worked out well.

Does the US have a base among the Kurdish proto-state centred on Erbil? Are they arming and using them to try and keep Baghdad out of Iran's camp? Undoubtedly. After the Iraqi army melted away, are the Kurds working as the State Department's proxy fighters against ISIS? Absolutely. It doesn't matter that the US are bombing ISIS positions and airlifting supplies to stranded Yazidi to shore up the position of their regional clients. Faced with life under an American puppet or a short, dark future under genocidal zealots, I would have thought the "progressive choice" be obvious.

This isn't to say there aren't some extremely serious questions demanding answers. Why is it Qatar and Saudi Arabia, whose perverse, fundamentalist autocracy is every bit a staunch an ally of the US as Israel, have been funnelling cash to ISIS without so much as a murmur from Uncle Sam? We in the EU aren't sitting pretty either. How much oil have we been buying from ISIS?

Last month writing about Iraq, I argued that the historic debt the UK and US owes the Iraqi people for smashing up their country and embroiling it in violence that has claimed the lives of almost 200,000 people rules out military action. After all, it ended so well in Afghanistan and Libya, to name two other unhappy countries. That was before the present crisis.

Very occasionally, good reasons and real reasons coincide. This is one of them. ISIS are a barrier to American plans for Iraq. They also pose an extinction threat to anyone falling into their clutches who does not meet their standards of religious hygiene. They need to be stopped. They need to be destroyed. And, at present, there is only one way of doing that.

Alice Deejay - Better Off Alone

I'm not ashamed to admit it. Better Off Alone is a damn fine tune from 1999, a song that soundtracked my summer in a sweltering factory.

Dave's Cruel Summer

2013. Labour had a crap summer. As MPs departed for sunnier climes a great gaping political hole opened up. Into its maw poured all kinds of grumbles and whinges, with advice tacked on. "Ed needs to do this. We need some policy. We're not cutting through." Since then Labour's policy maypole has got firmly planted, and the shadow cabinet are spending the silly season dancing around it, tying yet more ideas and initiatives to the mast. Under the heading of 'The Choice', Labour are using the news vacuum to get its message across. Good.

Conversely, Dave's summer woes are piling up. First, there is Gaza. With appalling suffering filling our screens, with Israel's spin being called out as utter bullshit in the court of public opinion, our Prime Minister has been nowhere. There's been a couple of platitudes about Palestinian victims, but these are always qualified by unambiguous support for Israel. That all his office could do was cry foul and accuse the opposition of "playing politics" when Labour condemned the slaughter. Prattling on as if some sort of gentleman's agreement was in effect merely underlined how out of touch the PM is. Once more on a foreign policy issue, Dave has been found wanting. Once more on an issue demanding leadership, Ed Miliband has pre-empted him.

It could all about to get worse for Dave too. The Tory pack's reporting of Sayeeda Warsi's resignation yesterday has been ungraceful by their own shoddy standards. Having seen hard Tory Zionists like Louise Mensch roundly condemn Israel's massacre, I have no doubt Warsi's feeling on this is genuine. Her opposition is in tune with reservations in the wider party too. Andrew Mitchell has come out for an arms embargo on Israel. Hugo Swire is reportedly very unhappy too. Even Boris Johnson, for once, did not mince his words. Dave needs a restive parliamentary party like a splitting headache.

Ah yes, Boris. Finally he's done with the dithering and announced he's looking for a seat. Dave's put on a brave face that fools no one. Yes, Johnson wouldn't be looking for a way back in if he thought the Tories were more likely than not to get back in next year. That much is clear. But what the punditry are missing is how destabilising this could prove to be in the meantime. First, to have the second most senior Tory in the land and, arguably, the party's best-known asset declaring the 2015 match over before the first service can only dampen the mood of Tory activists. Some business-types might hold back the cash thinking it's a lost cause, and others will sit on their hands because they prefer Johnson to lead a "proper" Tory party back to power in 2020.

An additional problem is the Parliamentary Conservative Party or, rather, the behaviour of his lieutenants. Johnson wants the top job. But so do George Osborne and Theresa May. As intellectually deficient the Tories collectively are, they have low cunning in spades. Neither Camp May nor Camp Gidders are going to take a Johnson comeback lying down. In fact, in a rare Machiavellian move Dave's recent reshuffle was about securing the succession for Osborne. As Johnson spoke to the press this morning, text messages and emails winged back and forth inside the respective camps. Grids will be put into place as plans are drawn up. The Tories then will be fighting a two front war - an unconventional general election campaign most of them think they're going to lose, and an internal leadership struggle. With the latter break out into the open before next May? It's difficult to see how it won't.

If going into a difficult election with a dysfunctional party wasn't enough to spoil Dave's summer, there's more. Last night Alistair Darling, on the whole, did a good job debating Alex Salmond. Instead of losing, like - again - the punditry erroneously predicted, Darling arguably won. Yes, the First Minister had him on the ropes a couple of times. But on two key issues - uncertainty over currency, uncertainty over pensions - Salmond retreated into 'it'll be alright on the night' platitudes. And don't even mention the aliens. While for the sake of the union it is a good thing Darling is leading Better Together than Flashman Dave, it looks bad that the Tories are having to rely on Labour leadership to save the status quo. Far more damaging, however, is what the debate augers for the election campaign. Salmond is no push over and is one of the most formidable politicians in the UK. Yet armed with facts and figures Darling was able to effectively oppose substance to style, to slay rhetoric with uncomfortable truths. And, it appears, ordinary people quite liked it. Pleasingly, after obviously following my advice, Ed Miliband's speech on Ed Miliband signals a welcome abandonment of stunts and embraces his wonky, political strengths. This is what 'The Choice' strategy is all about: doubling down on the issues and leaving the airbrushing to Dave. And Dave's back room helpers, the Crosbys, the Messinas, the Murdoch cronies and the like know he hasn't a Tory on Merseyside's chance of going toe-to-toe on this terrain. TV debates? Dave will do all he can to duck them.

If you look at Tory messaging this last year, they think their hope lies in hopelessness, of ramming home relentlessly hate, fear, scapegoating and the tough action needed to crack down on them. Unions, benefits, Europe, immigrants, this is the shit ingot the Tories wish to transmute into electoral gold. Yet when asked what are the most important issues facing voters and their families, respondents on this YouGov poll consistently rank immigration as a low priority issue with welfare and Europe. 'Economy' is edging downwards while housing and, crucially, health are moving in ways Dave would not want them to. And as Labour are determined to personalise the coming election by asking people whether they feel better off now than they did five years ago, it's difficult to see how the Tories can counter this without redoubling their negative efforts.

As Dave holidays in Portugal, he must know the writing is on the wall, that the next nine months are going to be excruciating and agonising as his authority bleeds away and the problems pile up. It couldn't be happening to a nicer guy.

Herbert Marcuse on Dialectical Logic

In order to really know an object, one must grasp and investigate all sides of the object, all its relations and 'mediations' ... Second, dialectical logic requires that the object be taken in its development, in its 'self-movement' ... in its transformation. Third, the whole of human praxis must enter into the 'definition' of the object, as well as the critique of its truth, since as a practical determination the object is bound together with what is necessary to man. Fourth, the dialectical logic teaches that 'there is no abstract truth'; truth is always concrete.

Cit Douglas Kellner (1984), Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism, p.52.

Why the Great War Was Not Stopped

A century on and the establishment are still soft-soaping it. So no Dave, no. Britain didn't declare war against Germany for the sake of poor little Belgium, the rights of small nations or for the defence of neutrality. Those then groaning under the weight of our empire might have had a thing or two to say about these matters after all. These were the good reasons. The real reasons, which did not make war an inevitability, was acting to prevent French and Belgian channel ports from becoming German naval bases, and putting the Wilhelmine upstart back into its box. Cold, hard interests carried the day in the lead up to the declaration. Humanitarian concern was so much flim-flammery.

The question is why was this senseless and utterly unnecessary slaughter allowed to happen? Recall the extraordinary Basel Congress of the Second International in 1912. It passed a manifesto declaring the following:

If a war threatens to break out, it is the duty of the working classes and their parliamentary representatives in the countries involved supported by the coordinating activity of the International Socialist Bureau to exert every effort in order to prevent the outbreak of war by the means they consider most effective, which naturally vary according to the sharpening of the class struggle and the sharpening of the general political situation.

In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.

Fine words. Stirring words. This was not the rhetoric of some cranky sect gathered in Switzerland's version of Conway Hall either. The Second International was a mass movement. Its sections ranged from important working class parties to organisations numbering millions of members, affiliates and supporters. The German Social Democrats were the jewel in the crown, and its formal commitment to Marxism provided the International its shared intellectual reference point. Yet with the outbreak of war, Lenin reportedly fell off his chair and condemned his copy of Vorwärts (the SPD's paper) a forgery for reporting that the party's deputies had unanimously voted for war credits in the Reichstag. How did the mighty movement committed to turning imperialist war into class war fall apart? Why did sections of the Second International, with a few exceptions - most notably the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), rally to their national colours?

The contemporary revolutionary opposition lay responsibility for international socialism's betrayal at the feet of its leaders, and the argument has changed little in the intervening century. Rather than doing the right, revolutionary thing, the official Marxists of Germany, Austria and France, and the Labourists of Britain took the opportunist road, of treading the path of least resistance. Yet this was not a failure of nerve. Long before 1914 Rosa Luxemburg was regularly polemicising against the revisionism and opportunism of the SPD line. Her argument was that for a clique within international Social Democracy, their position as party and union bureaucrats invested them in the small gain here, the compromise there. They had become mediators of the relation between capital and labour. When push came to shove they jumped into the nationalist camp of war to maintain their privileged position, and were happy to deliver the factory and battlefield fodder to imperial interests. Lenin had made a not too dissimilar analysis of trade unionism and the class struggle in his maligned and misunderstood What is to be Done?. When he returned to his senses he took Luxemburg's basic position and argued the collapse of the International was thanks to a 'labour aristocracy' encompassing party and union bureaucracies, but taking in all kinds of layers of relatively privileged workers. While also dependent on selling their labour power for a wage, their higher living standards were brought by the "super profits" extracted from the colonies. As beneficiaries from colonialism, they had an immediate interest in maintaining empires and therefore acted as bourgeois contaminants in the workers' movement. As they had extended their sway through those movements, so social democratic and labour parties succumbed to reformism and, latterly, chauvinism and war fever.

This tale, with little modification, still passes for an explanation in Trotskyist and Stalinist circles. It is, however, obviously false. Not only was no evidence forthcoming proving the transfer of "super profits", but it also neglected to mention that Germany's "empire" was economically negligible, and Austro-Hungary had no colonies at all. Their wealth stemmed not from imperial plunder but international markets in economic competition with the other great powers. The second problem is an implied elitism, of assuming that where the leaders go the masses shall meekly follow. Had your Eberts, your Scheidemanns, your Hendersons, et al rallied workers to the class war banner then the July crisis would have grown over into a crisis of capitalism.

While the argument is a non-starter, it does avoid having to ask awkward questions about the political capacity of Europe's working class at that time. In Britain, the first six months of 1914, there were over 40 million strike days - only the strikes of 1921 and 1926 saw greater numbers taking industrial action. That July, St Petersburg was paralysed by 135,000 workers taking strike action and calling for the monarchy's abolition. Workers were conscious of their interests and were quite prepared to stand up for them in the workplace and against the authorities. How to explain the about face, of militancy evaporating and millions flocking to sign up? To answer the question is to put a huge question mark over the viability of revolutionary socialist politics. While Luxemburg and Lenin were right that the upper echelons of the labour movement had become integrated into their respective national capitalisms, so had the majority of workers themselves. Far from plain sailing, nevertheless Britain was a representative democracy of sorts and had improved the lot of working people through piecemeal grind here, strike action there. Ditto for imperial Germany and republican France. The parties and organisations of workers had wrested significant concessions from bosses and governments. Allied to rising living standards, pragmatism appeared to work. This was the early phase of the attempted institutionalisation of class conflict, and it seemed to be working. The majority of workers had a stake in the bourgeois state, in their nation. Conversely, despite double-digit growth, Tsarism in Russia and its struggle to maintain the autocracy actively stymied the rise of its growing working class. By denying it a stake in their system, Russian proletarians were more combative, more open to revolutionary ideas, more likely to resist the call to war - and even then they were not totally immune.

As organised labour movements found their feet and successfully prosecuted its interests it's small wonder the increasing sense of advance, of security, of solidarity contributed to nationalism's mass appeal. Hence when declarations of war were met with outbreaks of class peace, it was the case the leaders were following the workers, not the other way round. The Socialist International was not able to prevent the war because the working class enthusiastically went along with it. It wasn't just the lamps that went out across Europe one hundred years ago. The hope European capitalism could be brought down by revolutionary socialism was snuffed out too.

Image: Crowds celebrate in Trafalgar Square after Britain declares war on Germany.

Ridge Racer Type 4 for the PlayStation

It's not news that the fifth generation of consoles left a legacy of some truly ugly games. Something like the first iteration of Tomb Raider on the PlayStation or Sega Saturn looks rank by today's standards. Back then it was very well-received and appreciated as a technical achievement, but no one ever thought the game was pretty. Such is the lot of the three dimensional games that appeared on said systems and its contemporary, the Nintendo 64. They were to 3D what the old Atari 2600 was to two dimensional gaming. Great to play, grim to look at.

Granted there were a few that looked alright, and as per the laws of video game life as the consoles aged programmers got a better grip with the hardware and squeeze bravura performances out of the circuitry. One such game happens to be my recent obsession: Ridge Racer Type 4. Released on these shores in September '99, by this time I had lost interest in video games even though, like nearly everyone else, we had a PlayStation too. So approaching a retro game without any familiarity or nostalgia is, I suppose, like normal gamers buying new, modern titles.

The original Ridge Racer was a coin-op conversion and launch title for the PlayStation and, as such, looks a bit ropey even by the system's standards. As Namco's cutting edge arcade game, and like every good launch title, it showed up not only what it could do better vis a vis its geriatric predecessors but also its potential. It was a reason-to-buy along with a killer clutch of early software that, sadly for Sega, its Saturn rival did not match. As such Ridge Racer established itself in the PlayStation canon, even if (whisper it) the game wasn't all that playability-wise. Two generally well thought-of sequels followed before Type 4 arrived on the scene.

I've already alluded to it, so I'll say it explicitly. For a PlayStation racing game, Type 4 is as gorgeous as it gets. Blockiness is reduced to a minimum, the so-called 'PlayStation shimmer' isn't that distracting, the cars and environments are well drawn. The colour scheme is especially praise-worthy. When you're bombing around the tracks, the brilliant blues or downbeat hues of dusky digital skies is enough to make you think it's summer outside. We all know tunes can be summery, but games? The lighting effects on the cars and roads for night time driving give the game a stylish edge that retro gamers appreciate in Japanese-made titles. Seeing the fireworks explode as you race the final track on new year's eve '99 is indicative of the craft approach Japanese designers are known for. The soundtrack too is excellent. As a mix of drum and bass, ambient techno and proto-trance it conveys a hyper modern, if not futurist feel on proceedings.

As per its arcade roots, Type 4 is not a simulation. The accent is on playability, of flouting the laws of physics as you glide around corners at speeds in excess of 190kph. The responsiveness of the cars vary, but everything works as it should. And the artificial intelligence isn't bad either. I swear there have been too many times when computer-controlled opponents have blocked me from overtaking them, and by far the worst offender is invariably your team mate!

Type 4 was after Sony's own Gran Turismo changed the terms of video game racing. It could not offer the depth of that title's career mode, and so replied in other ways. This, if you like, is the 'sociology bit'. At £40 a pop and with no trophies or achievements to shout about, responsible game designers had long been keen to maximise value for money, or last-ability. Secret levels or ratcheting up the game hours was one strategy, the other - common to racing games - was the pursuit of ephemeral experiences. Type 4, erm, typifies this. The game comes with 'just' eight tracks and two single-player game modes, the 'Racing Roots Grand Prix 1999' and a race against the clock. There are also four racing teams with four car manufacturers (corresponding to difficulty levels). Racing each possible combination and qualifying for races in all the different qualifying positions unlocks cars for the time attack mode. There are 320 in total. Life's definitely too short. Yet there will be hundreds of thousands of gamers out there who spent countless hours either side of the millennium unlocking most or all of them. Yet think about the substance of the experience - the racing of slightly different designs around the same eight circuits with, in most cases, very slight variations in handling, speed and acceleration between them.

This hunt for ephemeral experience is integral to the ethics of gaming before the internet. Born of necessity, of the vast majority of console gamers not being able to buy a new game every week, mastery comes from playing something to death, of knowing absolutely every secret, every stratagem and sharpening up transferable gaming skills. Being able to kill Type 4, for instance, puts the player in a good position to display their skills if they have a gaming sesh on other racing games around a mate's house or, back then, in an arcades. From the publisher's point of view, building in such content was more than just good practice. Drawing the player into the hunt for ephemera primed the market for future titles in the franchise. The gamer knows that future iterations will carry over many of the features and game play they found so compelling. In Type 4's case, there have been eight titles for a variety of formats since.

As a retro experience, there are few PlayStation racers that have stood up as well as this. Give it a spin.

Saturday Interview: Rowan Draper

Rowan Draper is a Labour Councillor on Stafford Borough Council, Secretary of the Constituency Party, and a founder member of the Young Labour Councillors Network. He was shortlisted for the LGiU's Young Councillor of the Year 2014 Award. Rowan blogs here and is an active tweeter.

- Why do you blog?

When I was a Students’ Union Officer in 2008 I believed that having a blog would enable me to communicate with a larger audience and to put across my message of what I was doing and how I was working.

When I left I took up topical writing and wrote pieces on TV, football and life. Nothing to write home about but I was bitten by the blogging bug.

When I setup my regular blog the intention was in the spirit of my SU officer days: to be accountable to the people I serve, to write about what’s going on and to present information in bitesize chunks but I do mix that in with topical writing about current affairs and political developments on the odd occasion.

- What has been your best blogging experience?

Best? I’m not sure what I define as best. I’ve enjoyed blogging about my scrutiny of the local Clinical Commissioning Group and that’s brought me more hits than usual but I would like think the best is yet to come as I continue to develop as a politician and political writer.

- What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger?

Write about subjects you really care about because if you want to build a regular readership they will want to know what they can expect from you and staying on topic is one way of building a regular readership.

- Is blogging different now from when you started?

Wordpress has improved its options and I continue to like their platform. I did dabble with Weebly for a bit but wordpress won me back. My writing has improved, I think, and I use much more videos and pictures to spice my blogs up.

- Why do you tweet?

Because it’s open and anyone can have a conversation. Too often connections in life are closed off before we’ve already begun, look at Facebook for example (you have to accept a request), whereas Twitter enables you to just say “Hey” and build a conversation with anyone in your world. At least, it gives you the opportunity and it’s up to you to take it.

- Who are your intellectual heroes?

I like Brecht’s theories on Alientation Theatre (or Verfremdungseffekt, for theatre buffs), I’m interested in Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed to engage citizens in changing their world, and I like Antonin Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty.

- What are you reading at the moment?

George R. R. Martin’s A Dance with Dragons and I’ve got to finish Tony Blair’s A Journey.

- What was the last film you saw?

In the Cinema? Thor with Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman. At home? The Dictator with Sacha Baron Cohen.

- What is the best novel you've ever read?

I’m not a big reader so I wouldn’t like to diss the wide range of good books out there I haven’t exposed myself too but I liked George R. R. Martin’s A Storm of Swords. It’s a book with a lot of action in, and given all the other books are very active that’s some doing, but it also reminded me why I was reading.

- Can you name an idea or an issue on which you've changed your mind?

The Iraq War.

When America and Britain were looking at going to war, it was 2003 and I’d just turned 18. Two years previously we’d had the Twin Towers taken out and the 7/7 bombings in London were only two years away from happening. My original position was that the conflict was about oil, and political status, and that Britain shouldn’t have any part of ‘The War on Terror’ especially as it looked like an escalating conflict that could have required more and more new sign-ups to the forces.

When I got politically active and started researching events, history, politics and the like my world view slowly started to change. When you’re on the school yard and you see someone smaller being physically bullied by someone bigger (or multiple people) you’re able to step in and say enough is enough.

In our geo-political world there’s too much hand-wringing of the things we can’t do because it’s too difficult. We need to look at the examples of where intervening was right: Bosnia for one. Iraq was another example of a country that needed help to remove Saddam Hussein and offer a life of hope to its people.

- How many political organisations have you been a member of?

I’ve been a member of The Labour Party since 2010, a member of the Association of Labour Councillors and Progress since 2011, a member of the Community Union since 2013 and I joined the Co-operative Party in 2014.

- What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate?

Modern politics. I think a number of individuals within politics, inside parties and outside, fall into the trap of small c conservatism and believe that the way they've always done things is the best way to do it. We constantly need to be alert to and guard against ways of suppressing people's right to be democratically engaged and influential within our politics.

- What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat?

I can't just pick one. We have to combat the agents of sexism, ageism, ableism, racism, and homophobia. It cannot be right that in the 21st century that people still have to endure vile behaviour from other people based on a trait about them that they cannot change or have no influence over.

- Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major and lasting influence on how you think about the world?

The Prince by Niccolo Macchiavelli. It's interesting to note the political maxims he wanted to make to the world, in respect of the Medici family, and how it's still relevant today. Talking about how leaders can either be feared or loved is especially pertinent in a context of political apathy that sees most Westminster politicians loathed en masse rather than respected for the work they do for their communities.

- Who are your political heroes?

I like Andy Burnham, Julia Gillard, Barack Obama, Tony Blair and Birgitte Nyborg.

Gillard's viral attack on Tony Abbott is something that has inspired me since I first saw the video. Politics should be a passionate subject and the way she took on his mysoginistic politics in the manner she did provides a model for how and why politicians should stand up for themselves, what they believe in and for those that need them to deliver.

I admire Obama for being the leader that could have been. He used poetical oratory and provided hope to a nation and a world that needed healing after two terms of George Bush. He inspires me to dream big, and believe that anything is possible, which in politics I have found important to remember. There are often too many roadblocks and as we've seen with the Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act, he's doing something worthwhile and he's had to endure unbelievable pressure for wanting to do the right thing by the American people.

Tony Blair. Outside of the political rhetoric those within the UK will enjoy I think it's important to note the impact of a leader who said enough is enough and was determined to influence the global stage to defend people from genocide. Blair's involvement with Bosnia is unlikely to be forgotten by the Bosnian people and his determination inspires me to carry out a vision for my community and country in its best interests.

Birgitte Nyborg is a fictional politician but I think that I couldn't not include one. I could've talked about The West Wing's Jed Bartlett or Matthew Santos, House of Cards' Frank Underwood or any of the many other political characters but I like Nyborg's passion and commitment to doing what's right for her people. She surprises people on a number of occasions and she does all of this whilst being a loving mother and partner. I think it's this reality check that engages with me.

- How about political villains?

David Cameron is somebody I can't get my head around. His ideology seems to be invisible and his motivation seems to be a desire for power and wanting to be the Prime Minister of the day. Of course that doesn't make someone villainous on their own but I think our political leaders need to have a vision, values and reason for what they're doing. If there is one with Cameron I'm yet to see it and so it makes him villainous to me because pushing policies through like the Bedroom Tax, which didn't start afresh and hit so many people who had no opportunity to move.

The Rajapakse dynasty in Sri Lanka. It cannot be acceptable that a government in civil war orchestrates and coerces its people into 'safe zones' only to bomb them.

Nick Clegg should never be forgiven or welcomed back by progressives for enabling the Conservatives to triple tuition fees, abolish EMA, sign the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to law, and I hope that after he did nothing to help Sheffield Forgemasters get a loan off of the government in 2010 that Sheffield Hallam votes for Oliver Coppard as their next MP in 2015.

- What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day?

Combatting political apathy. Encouraging engagement.

- If you could affect one major policy change, what would it be?

I would move our Parliamentary system to a presidential one where electors would vote for a prime minister and government, and then backbench scrutineers of the executive separately.

- What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world?

Political disengagement. We have to have people around the negotiating table whether it's in Britain or the Middle East. When people stop listening and won't talk to each other we are in greatest danger of repeating our past.

- What would be your most important piece of advice about life?

Don't sweat the small stuff.

- What is your favourite song?

At the moment, it's a toss up between a cover by Elsie Lieberth of David Guetta's Titanium and Mhysa by Ramin Djawadi.

- What do you consider the most important personal quality?

Integrity.

- What personal fault do you most dislike?

Insincerity.

- What, if anything, do you worry about?

The future and life. How it will all come together and whether I will be where I want to be and whether I'll be happy where I am.

- What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?

Which younger self? I think the general point I would make is relax. You will get to where you want to be, and it will take the necessary time to get there, don't be so focused on it.

- What do you like doing in your spare time?

Sport and exercise, when I can, but it mostly ends up being social media.

- What is your most treasured possession?

I like and treasure my iPad.

- Do you have any guilty pleasures?

Glee.

- What talent would you most like to have?

I would like to be able to graphic design more effectively so I can create better leaflets and direct mail.

- If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for?

To win an enormously large sum of money.

- Ah. How, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money?

I would buy a nice house for the next 10-15 years.

- If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be?

Rahm Emmanuel. Obama's first Chief of Staff and now Mayor of Chicago. I'd love to talk to him about the election campaign and governing in the White House. Suggested as the inspiration for the West Wing's Josh Lyman I'd love to pick his brain.

Meghan McCain. Republican Presidential nominee John McCain's daughter. Author of Dirty Sexy Politics which talks about her experiences on the 2008 Presidential campaign. I dig how outspoken she is and her IDGAF attitude that is refreshing to politics.

Olivia Munn. She plays Sloan Sabbith on Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom, and from her twitter accounts she's made me laugh a fair few times. Given the other guests on the table I'm sure it'd be a good idea to have someone who can cut any political tension.

- Who will win in 2015?

Labour will win a majority.

When Genocide is Permissible

Never. Well, sometimes. Or at least thinking aloud about it is okay. Why else would The Times of Israel publish such a thing? They may have removed it in short order, but as we know once things get on the internet ...

Yochanan Gordon's execrable screed shits on the memory of his ancestors. I am loathe to bring up history, but someone else once justified the extermination of Europe's Jews in terms of securing the national well-being of his people. Yet Gordon has done the world a service. By putting his thoughts down on paper, as it were, he has distilled the barbarism consuming Israel. The "facts" are crap, but the facts do not matter. The 800 or so words articulate a feeling, an impulse.

As Paul notes, Israel is founded on existential crisis, has fought three life-or-death wars, and is incapable of reconciling itself to the responsibility it has for the present state of affairs. That crisis runs through the Israeli body politic like gangrene. Sometimes quiet, very occasionally dormant, at other times the infection surges. The moments of apparent health increasingly fleeting, the periods of high fever ever more lengthy and tending toward permanency. See how Gordon invokes the idea Israel is under siege, that the West - who, as we know, offer muted criticism at best and munitions at worst - doesn't "understand" and doesn't care, that Gaza incubates anti-semitism and genocide of Jewish people, and how the home-made mortars and rockets of Hamas are statements of eradication. The kind of language, the hysteria, the poisoned collective consciousness of the Israeli Jewish majority is only a shade less bloodcurdling than North Korea's. The difference being North Korea faces a blockade by the world's most powerful nation. Israel, however, enforces a blockade with America's blessing. The Stalinist kingdom arguably faces a siege. Israel is carrying one out.

The poison of Israeli politics reflects its institutional set up as an occupying power. The capacity of the likes of Netanyahu - and worse - to talk up, to exaggerate threat and have it accepted is founded on this basic fact of Israel's existence. Just as racism elsewhere doesn't drop from the sky, so it is here too.

If a descendent of holocaust survivors arguing for genocide isn't irony enough, the further awful twist is the destruction of Gaza and the murder of its people is creating future enemies of Israel, some of whom - by its actions today - could pose it an existential threat tomorrow. History tends to show bloodshed does little to stymie bloodshed.

Local Council By-Elections July 2014

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- June	Average/ contest	+/- August	+/- Seats
Conservative	40	17,652	29.3%	+7.0%	441	+6	-7
Labour	38	15,497	25.7%	-19.9%	408	-579	+5
LibDem	26	6,709	11.1%	+9.2%	258	+186	+2
UKIP	34	9,197	15.3%	+3.8%	271	-11	-2
SNP*	1	595	1.0%	-5.0%	595	-575	-1
Plaid Cymru**	1	228	0.4%	+0.4%	228	+228	0
Green	21	2,355	3.9%	+1.6%	112	-2	+1
BNP	1	58	0.1%	+0.1%	58	+58	0
TUSC	4	54	0.1%	+0.1%	14	+14	0
Independent***	18	4,383	7.3%	-3.2%	243	-51	+1
Other****	10	3,486	5.8%	+5.8%	349	+349	+1

* There was one by-election in Scotland.
** There were three by-elections in Wales.
*** There were four independent clashes in June.
**** Others in July comprised of Patriotic Socialist (2), Blue (13), Tower Hamlets First (762, 744, 726), Mebyon Kernow (217), Liberal 121), Mebyon Kernow (58), It's Our County (835), English Democrats (20), and British Democrat (95).

Overall, 60,214 votes were cast over 40 local authority (tier one and tier two) contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. For comparison see June's results here.

Is that a catastrophic result for Labour? On the face of it, yes. With local authority contests, however, not all is as it seems. Whereas last month Labour polled 45% of the vote, it did so off the back of very favourable contests. This month it hasn't been the case, as you can see by the Tory result. Yet the Conservatives still lost seven councillors and Labour gained five. You can now see that all the talk of Labour winning the election next year but not the popular vote might have some legs. We shall see.

The LibDems return to their normal level of support after a very poor June. Though local council by-elections screw around with the two main party percentages a great deal, this is a certain consistency to this level of performance. Despite what the polls say the vote share here is a likely pointer to next year. And, at the risk of sticking my neck out, the same is true of UKIP. Nearly everyone seems to think UKIP's support is going to significantly backslide. Maybe. Then again, among the hardest of the hardcore voters their support levels have been consistent. Sure, these are second order elections and "don't matter" to the majority of people but it's evidence that a large section of the electorate are in the UKIP voting habit. The more you prefer one party in second order elections, the more likely they'll earn it for the general. So I'm going to stick my neck out. Next year UKIP will poll in excess of 10% on the basis of their local by-election performances.

It's worth keeping an eye on the Greens too. They've picked up another councillor this month and appear to be taking by-elections more seriously. Only five candidates behind the LibDems, might we see them overtake the yellow party in numbers of seats contested?

And the BNP have made an unwelcome reappearance with a pitiful vote. Still, their tally of 58 managed to outpoll the combined efforts of four TUSC candidacies. Give it up comrades, your perspectives are bunk and you're on a hiding to nothing.