From the archives: why we stand in elections

One theme that is emerging is that, these days, I use the word socialism a lot less when I write - and a good thing too. However, I was intrigued when I came across this piece I wrote in July 2004 on 'Why we stand in elections'. Tempted as I am to tinker with it to reflect some changes in my perspectives I think I'll be brave and post as is.

It's not that long ago that many on the left assumed that we never stood in elections. There is no Parliamentary road to socialism, meant we never use parliamentary elections. Now the assumption has flipped the other way. Not only does everyone believe that we must stand in elections, but there is very little questioning of why we might be doing it.

I want to take a quick look at what a socialist election campaign is meant to achieve - and the kind of thing we should attempt to avoid.

Obviously, for socialists, we see elections as an opportunity to advance "socialism" and persuade people over to left wing arguments on a whole host of questions.

We hope that by standing in elections we can raise crucial questions that no one else will raise and can help build campaigns in the estates and on the streets that fight for social justice, often uniting with people who fall well outside of 'socialist'.

A socialist campaign should try to reflect the principles that launched it. Team work, democracy, fraternal discussion and working class politics need to be crucial threads running through those campaigns.

We don't avoid certain questions or adapt our answers because we think they might be vote losers. Nor do we go out of our way to bludgeon people with a full list of socialist demands, or pick out what think might be our most unpopular demands.

None of this means that we never compromise, that we always stand no matter how bad the vote might be or anything like that. Tactical questions are important to make sure we don't end up finding ourselves stepping backwards, but it's this overall picture - the real reason for standing in elections that we should not forget.

A socialist election campaign needs to draw new people in and give those with less time the opportunity to do a little on this special occasion. There are a whole layer of progressive people across the country that simply will not become 'activists' attend meetings and regularly support demonstrations - but they will, once a year say, go out and leaflet and stick a poster up in their window. We need to find ways of going to them rather than expecting everyone to be head banging activists.

This layer is particularly important because we should be striving to give them as much democratic input as possible so they feel this is their movement and when they go to work or are waiting at the school gates they are confident to put the arguments of that movement.

If activists and supporters are to give their all they must feel they are part of the campaign, they have a say in decisions and that it represents their views - rather than simply supporting someone that they think will do a good job. In short it must be accountable to the supporters on the ground rather than a top down plan by the 'leaders' of the movement.

All of this raises the question of the difference between our democracy and theirs and it all points us in a very different direction to the careerists and opportunists that pollute the Labour Party. Protests are not simply good opportunities to get your face in the paper - they are the essential building blocks of the struggle for a better world. Elections and elected officials are worth only what they add to this fight.

We do not stand to get elected, but we do hope to get elected, to win greater support for the left and gain a profile for our ideas that we could not otherwise achieve. The press will always suppress information on minority candidates, particularly socialist ones, but we can twist their arms if we prove ourselves to be news and to ignore us would clearly smack of censorship.

However even when we get a hearing, we should never expect that we get a FAIR hearing. Despite all this the media is a crucial tool in any modern campaigning work.

Whilst those socialists who remain in Labour may conceivably argue that a fight inside Labour may push it to the left - there is no Labour election campaign (for instance at the June 10th elections) that can be said to be a real fighting expression of the anti-war movement, or that connected with the local population on a socialist basis, no matter how left wing the candidate.

For the Labour Party power is an end in itself, and protest is useful only where it enhances the vote - for socialists political power is only worth bothering with if it gives the movement more confidence, shifts the population to the left and strengthens our ability to fight. Socialists never say 'we will do this for you' what they must say is that 'no one but yourselves will protect your interests, rise up and fight.' And in this unity is strength.

From the archives: Bitter fruits of Russian Imperialism

This piece, from September 2004, documents my reaction to the terrible events in Beslan when over 1000 people were held hostage and over 300 killed by Chechen terrorists. Russia today still faces a terrorist threat from this region.

As this article is written it seems that something like 350 people have been killed in the Russian school siege, where Chechen terrorists took hundreds of men, women and children hostage in a school.

The world news is full of the terrible ordeal that these people have been through, and in particular of course the children.

Whilst there has been an historic oppression of the Chechen people dating back to the Tsarist days and the invasion in the 1830's, the current conflict centres around the break-up of the old Soviet Union and Chechnya's ability to break away and form a separate state as other regions have done.

The Russian government says that this is simply unacceptable and that Chechnya is part of Russia, and sent troops to the area in 1994.

As the civil war intensified 1996 saw massive bombardment of the capital Grozny and estimates are that in this year alone around 70,000 people were killed. The civil war destroyed in infrastructure of the region, and Russian forces have continued a perpetual state of war ever since, setting up a puppet government whose President Akhmad Kadyrov was recently killed in a bomb attack.

Russian president said of these latest attacks that "we have shown weakness" - the obliteration of Grozny, the many thousands killed by Russian military forces both on the ground and from the air - all of this Putin characterises as weakness. It's nonsense of course - there is no military solution to the problem.

President Putin regards his order to level Grozny as weakness Russia will not withdraw its forces from Chechnya not because of some historic bond with Chechen people (of whom many Russians have a strong racist abhorrence of) but because Chechnya is essential in securing Russian oil supplies.

Some have been shocked by the high number of women who have taken part in suicide attacks and other violent acts. But many of these women have named themselves "black widows" because their husbands and other family members have been murdered by the Russian army.

Does Putin think these women only commit acts of terror because he's been too soft on them? To entrench the policy of state terror in Chechnya is to guarantee the escalation of terrorist attacks in Russia. Just as Bush's war on Islamic terrorism has ensured its growing popularity.

The only real way to fight terrorism is to fight for social justice on a world scale - not in order to be weak on terrorism - but in order to wipe out the deep rooted causes of bitterness, hatred and injustice.

From the archives: The Anti-Capitalist Hustle

The following is one of my reports from July 2005 from Edinburgh during the G8 GlenEagles protests. The rather fun film Kung Foo Hustle was showing in cinemas at the time (just to explain the title's context).

The Scottish Socialist Voice front page summed it up when it said "They came in intimidating dark colours with accents that marked them out as outsiders, armed and intent on violence. The Metropolitan Police, the West Yorkshire Police, the Humberside Police." The press has been whipping up the fears of the Scottish people for over a fortnight now and, as the way it goes now, the media first makes people afraid and then interviews them about their fear.

If they were to be believed, scenes of anti-capitalist protests would be more like scenes from the film Kung Fu Hustle. Also, those naughty, naughty embedded journalists from the BBC had been telling the world that the protests had been cancelled. Tut, tut, that's not very neutral - or factual. It's interesting, if not surprising, that the BBC was happy to broadcast news that there was no evidence for, simply in order to try to do the G8 a favour and turn protesters back from the demonstrations.

Today has been a day when the anti-capitalist movement has fought a good battle on many fronts and the disruption that they've caused to the G8 summit is not one tiny fraction of the disruption and devastation that the policies of the G8 countries create. The day began with anarchists, in true Che Guevara style, taking to the hills in order to rain chaos down upon the forces of their law and order.

Early morning road blockades and skirmishes with riot police resulted in a real headache for them and only a handful of activists arrested. One set of such activists at the Dissent rural convergence centre in Stirling were confronted by police the moment they attempted to leave their encampment. But they were still able to block a key road, preventing bowler-hatted apparatchiks getting to the summit on time. Other black-clad activists were able to disrupt Dunblane train station preventing other G8 summit goers getting to their appointments.

By this time G8 Alternatives had organised numerous coaches from all over Scotland and were attempting to converge on the pretty village of Auchterarder. The police had been practising their tactics of disrupting transport yesterday at the Dungavel protest and they did their best to prevent activists even attending the demonstrations. This made a mockery of police assurances that they would comply with the Scottish Parliament decision to allow the protests to take place.

Many coaches were detained outside of Stirling at the Broxden roundabout. Protesters became more and more frustrated but as their numbers built up the police found it far more difficult to contain their potential anger. They were given an ultimatum: let us protest at Gleneagles or we protest here, cutting off western road links for the whole of Scotland.

The police had tried various tactics to explain why they thought it necessary to detain the coaches, claiming that the anarchists had blocked off the road leading into Gleneagles. This was completely untrue and a blatant attempt by the boys in blue to create divisions within our ranks. At last the coaches were allowed to set off but only with a police escort chugging along at ten miles an hour.

Meanwhile in Edinburgh, thousands of protesters had been prevented from even getting on their coaches and in frustration a vigorous blockade of Princes Street took place with 2000 angry anti-capitalists. The police moved in and arrested the stewards because there's nothing they hate more than an orderly demonstration.

At Auchterarder, the several thousand protesters who had managed to make their way through earlier in the day, despite the police preventing anyone getting off at the train station, were soon joined by the really impressive convoy of coaches released from the police blockade. There must have been around fifty coaches, including double-deckers, parading through the village. The villagers' response was heart-warming to say the least. Smiling, waving, with thumbs up, time and again the villagers showed they had not bought into the bullshit.

Thousands of protesters then assembled and marched down towards Gleneagles. One of the protest organisers, Chris Nineham of Globalise Resistance, estimated that there were 10,000 protesters at the scene and we marched down to the steel fences that surrounded the conference centre. Some protesters took themselves into a nearby field as they were watched by rows of well-armed mounted police.

The scene was that of a well fortified encampment with lines of police and watchtowers with searchlights and Chinook helicopters circling overhead. The protesters rattled the fences and some, though not many, breached the outer defenses, if only momentarily. Police then set dogs loose into the fields and the mounted police beat some demonstrators back with brutal force. Police at the back of the demonstration, unbeknownst to the rest of us, harassed and intimidated and in some cases detained protesters. Whilst we were not able to get any further, we were within spitting distance of the world leaders.

What do these demonstrations prove? That the movement's very diversity is our strength. Whether we're black-clad, red-clad or white-clad, we all have a positive contribution to make. But it also shows that, in a sane society, the rings of police surrounding the conference centre would not have been facing outwards, opposing the demonstrators for peace and social justice, but would have been facing inwards, smashing up the meeting of those responsible for the impoverishment and murder of countless thousands of people around the globe.

From the archives: The Revolt of the Nobodies

This piece from March 2004 focuses on the anti-war movement of the time. Again the illustrations are new.

"The Great Men of the Earth, Approve with smiles and bland salutes, The rage and monstrous tyranny, That they have brought to birth."

from 'Great Men' by Seigfried Sassoon

The war was right, the war was good - and if it was illegal then the law is wrong. That was the message coming from Tony Blair in his 'robust defense of the war' this week.

There may have been millions protesting on the streets of London, millions demonstrating in every major country around the globe in a world historic first. But at the end of the day who are these people? What companies do they own? What political position do they hold? Who do they donate money too? Frankly, they are a bunch of nobodies.

Each demonstration has contained a fantastic cross section of the population. Young and old, black and white, probably the first significant mobilisation of the Muslim community in this country, we know all this - we've been there on the streets to see it for ourselves.

My favourite example of this was from the day the war began and hundreds of school kids in Colchester poured onto the streets in protest. The police went frantic, and as soon as they thought they had it all under control another gang would appear from another school blockading the high street and creating havoc. Fantastic and every copper on duty had an inkling of how General Custer felt at the Little Big Horn.

One of the great things about the younger protests is they made me (at 33) feel both young and old at the same time. You feel young from the inspiring energy and fearlessness around you and then they'll start chanting "We all live in a fascist regime" to the tune of Yellow Submarine and you think "Well, strictly speaking although capitalism breeds imperialism and fosters dictatorship we're not actually living under fascism." But obviously I didn't bring it up at the time.

Apparently the rulers of ancient Rome, when returning home from a successful imperialist conquest, would have a slave stand behind them in their victory procession murmuring in their ear all the while "remember man is mortal". Blair turned this on its head and had Alistair Campbell whispering in his ear saying "Go on Tony, you've got a historic mission, people love you, it's a war against evil Tony, go on drop another bomb."

They might feel they are being written into the history books as Great Rulers - just as Nixon, Hitler, George Bush (the elder), et al have done before them, but it will not prevent their ignominious end.

Western Imperialism knows only how to destroy. Their bombs and bullets and check points have not got a snow ball's chance in hell of bringing democracy, peace and prosperity. Bush and Blair were dreaming if they ever thought that the people of the Middle East would welcome this kind of military intervention and occupation.

If they ever thought that.

Leaving rather dubious BBC polls aside the Iraqi population has not welcomed Western troops with open arms, and it is ordinary people who suffer from the anarchy, poverty and brutality endemic in Iraq today. By and large it is ordinary people who take part in demonstrations against the occupation, for water, for jobs and security. It is the nobodies of Iraq that, driven to desperation take part in the revolt.

The solutions that the West offers to poverty is carving up the reconstruction contracts among themselves, privatising utilities, its the bucks that are fast rather than the reconstruction. Rather simply, without water there can be no liberation. There is a rage in Basra that swells up out of the ground. A rage born of years of sanctions and hardship, of murdered loved ones, of poverty and indignity.

But there is a hope in the world today. The millions of nobodies both East and West that can resist, that can demonstrate, that can rise up. Unfortunately too many people still know their place in the world today - but the great signs of hope are that some of us really are beginning to reply our great leaders "Who are we? No - who the hell are you!?!"

"I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on those lifeless things. The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear. "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works ye mighty and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away." "

Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley

To all those Great Men past, present and future whatever empire you build, what ever position you attain, your day will come.

From the archives: Dreaming of a new left

This is another piece from April 2004 on building socialist unity and I've posted this for my own historical interest really. I was not a member of the Greens at the time as you might guess from the content, the 'we' refers either the left or sometimes specifically those who wanted Respect to do well. I've edited the article down a bit for length, removing some references to election stats that no one cares about anymore - even if they did back then. I've added new pics.

For a new left culture

One of the grand old traditions the left would do well to leave behind is the sectarian and, frankly, bad mannered approach to other sections of the left. It’s hard enough to conduct a decent political debate without additional unpleasantness and deeply entrenched sectionalism.

I doubt any of us has a totally ‘clean slate’ but it’s hardly surprising that some SWP members have been less than enthusiastic about the Socialist Alliance because, for them, it was the place they’d go to be personally abused and be expected to swallow with a smile.

In fact, the way in which we conduct a debate can dictate whether meaningful discussion is even possible. Due to the level of Galloway baiting it became completely impossible to have a real discussion about the workers wage and what it signifies. This issue became so bound up with the attacks upon this anti-imperialist, reformist socialist member of parliament that many who would have supported the workers wage found themselves completely unable to do so. If the movement had been giving Galloway support, despite both the real and imagined political differences, it would have made proper dialogue possible.

If only we were as vigorous in our attacks upon our enemies as we are upon our potential allies.

We can all of us find reasons not to unite with any given person – but the over arching principle of the post-Seattle left has been that of unity. Whether in the anti-capitalist movement, the left in the unions or political re-groupments, the entire trend has been a coming together. It may well be that this period is ending and certainly the establishment of RESPECT has been difficult to regard as an example of consensus building and democracy, but that period is not yet dead and it is still possible for us to make gains.

The recent National Union of Students elections show a worrying backward step where Socialist Worker chose to stand a candidate against the only left winger capable of over turning Labour’s strangle hold on the presidency. Thankfully Kat Fletcher was able to win despite the divide in the left, though what their few dozen votes achieved for SWSS God only knows. The given reasons for standing against Kat Fletcher was that they held a different position on Israel / Palestine, this would be the most abstract bit of sectarianism if it were not a pretext.

Socialist Worker members will have no difficulty voting for RESPECT members who have a different view on this question, nor a left wing candidate in a trade union election that holds a different view. The real reason is unfortunately the attempt to retain a hermeneutically sealed organisation at the expense of the wider movement. Let’s hope the lessons have been learned from this little episode of grubby sectarianism.

UNITY ACROSS THE BOARD

We need to develop a more cooperative blend of politics on the left against the prevailing mood. I think that every socialist, no matter what their affiliation, or lack of it, can play a part in building a positive and collaborative culture. Refusing to involve ourselves in progressive movements, no matter how much room for improvement there is, would be a real mistake.

Where we are involved in any real campaigning in our area we should seek out potential allies no matter where they might be. Having a positive relationship with RESPECT is clearly part of this, and any serious campaigner cuts themselves off at their peril.

Socialists should involve themselves in everything they can that has any progressive content, and preferably do so as someone who genuinely wants that group / organisation to succeed. This not only includes RESPECT, but also Christian Aid, Greenpeace, Bus Campaigns and what ever may be happening in your local area.

I believe that unity is the name of the game, not any one particular organisational form that this may take, and this is the question we have been attempting to address. How do we achieve greater left unity? Not just of those who marched against the war, nor simply of the left organisations but across the board unity.

DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH

There are three golden rules to building a successful socialist movement in this country. Unfortunately no one knows what they are. But we can see that the closed circles and cliques of the old left are not up to the job of realising the fantastic potential that exists in this current period. These natural tendencies can be habit forming but let’s break with the mistakes of the past and take a revolutionary leap into a fresher, more open collaborative politics.

The diversity that exists in the movement is a source of strength, not concern. The left needs to become a more pleasant and interesting place to be. It is not enough to want to be in the same organisation as other left wingers whilst conducting a war against them – we should be allies in the fullest and deepest meaning of the term.

To do this we should, I think, try to develop a culture where we can explore ideas and be ourselves without fear of bilious condemnation. This is not incompatible with being an organised and effective socialist. Axe grinding is not politics – harping on about the issues that divide us cannot bring about greater unity, it can only poison the waters.

At the same time part of a democratic debate is the recognition that we have something to debate about – we are not of one common mind and often these differences take organisational forms – that need not bring about disunity in action, and can prevent a group becoming locked in paralysis by its internal disputes.

FOR A GOOD VOTE FOR RESPECT

Personally I think RESPECT made a mistake on the workers wage, republicanism and, Lord help me, even its name – but should I allow these issues to distract me from what are the most urgent tasks? Money, members and momentum. A defeat for RESPECT [note from 2010: this is referring to the 2004 Euro elections and the 2005 general election where Galloway was to be elected] would be a backward step for us all, and a success will pick up the pace for everyone on the left – this means all serious socialists should hope for a good result, no matter how painful we have found the process.

How could any of us hope to gain a hearing in a movement where we play a less than positive, or even disruptive, role? If we are genuinely in favour of a successful progressive coalition we should do our best practically as well as politically to making that coalition work. Whilst we cannot allow political disagreements to obstruct making a valuable contribution I hope people will not take that to mean I believe our political differences should remain unobtrusive – it is simply a question of how, when and why we raise these issues.

Due to the frantic pace of its development RESPECT has, by necessity, left dirty great holes where we would wish to see flesh on the bones. Be these questions of democracy, policy or organisation the best way that we can influence its future direction is through unconditional involvement today.

The fact that the French left were able to achieve more than a million votes at the last elections is an impressive feat we are unlikely to match, but we should be realistic about what a good vote is lest we only bring people on board until June 11th when they see a respectable vote as a total, crushing defeat.

BUT WHAT IS A GOOD VOTE?

My assessment of this is that if we have anyone at all elected that will be an achievement that was not on the cards five years ago. For the first time in my life I regret not living in London because to work for a candidate like Lindsey German, who both can and should get a seat, would be a real incentive to hard graft and that dreaded word enthusiasm.

If we got 3% (Nader’s share of the vote at the US presidential elections) this would be a good result. 3% of an entire country, not simply our strong holds, would be impressive.

A swath of under 2% votes and being seen to lose a sitting Green MEP their seat would be a bad defeat and, in all honesty, RESPECT will have to work hard to avoid that, but avoid it we can.

But however large the job in the run up to the June elections it is an ongoing progressive organisation that we need, that can fill the gap that used to be occupied by Labour which can fight on the ground in the estates all over the country. A mass national organisation can only be made up of hundreds of local groups who have gained respect in their town over the victories and principled stands that they have made – it cannot be built with a very efficient press organisation and national demonstrations.

The former has the added advantage of requiring any progressive bloc to remember why we are standing in the election in the first place, and quite a number of people are becoming worried that this is exactly what we are beginning to forget.

FOR A SOCIALIST LOVE IN

We do need to bring about a balance between vigorous political debate and unified action. There are stubborn tendencies in all of us that swing all of one way or the other. Either “the task is action so shut up now” or becoming completely paralysed and bogged down in our disagreements due to a purely polemical style of political activity.

Reminder, this article was written in 2004

From the archives: Food for thought

I wrote this piece in April 2004 which was a combination of a report and an attempt at looking at new ways of self education for activists. Currently I'm still doing something similar in Camden, and if you want an effective, top notch discussion forum where people both talk and listen - this is definitely the way to do it.

On Saturday we tried out an interesting experiment in Colchester. We didn't set world history on a new course but we did try something different that's worth telling people about.

A couple of us had been thinking for a while about the way that political discussion takes place on the left. We came up with some questions and tried to answer them;

• "do you have to have an organisation to be allowed to discuss politics"
• "do meetings have to start off with fifteen minutes [which in left wing language means 25 and feels like 40] of dry algebra first"
• "Is there a way of allowing the participants of the discussion more direct control over the debate"
• "How can we make the whole thing a more pleasant experience"

We felt that, apart from the odd exception, it has always been the discussion part of a political meeting that was the most interesting. So the first we decided to do is ditch the monologue at the start. We invited people round to one of our houses saying that we are going to have a political discussion and we're going to try out doing this in a far more friendly and relaxed way and let's see if it works.

The conditions were everyone brings food to share and everyone brings some thought they'd like to discuss. This could be a question they don't know the answer to, a problem we face as activists, an article they've recently read or an issue they simply feel passionately about.

For this first experiment we chose to have a broad title of the environment and I have to say it went extremely well, particularly my garlic mushrooms! Having the discussion round someone's house, over a meal makes things much more relaxed, and does not stop people coming if they don't have much money.

What about potential problems though? Aren't we limiting it to people we want to have dinner with and by not advertising we don't allow new faces? Both true and one of the problems of the left has been its reliance on closed cliques and circles - what I would say in response is that we were very careful not to invite a pure revolutionary core, but different people from different political perspectives and experience.

What the movement can't do away with is the public meeting, democracy and all of that. But what we did was create a free space where political discussion is not only possible but also the rigorous control of any over aching dogmatic theory was absent.

We estimated that the right number is between 6 and 8, although having tried it once it's possible you could have ten. It was pretty impressive how the discussion stayed (mainly) on track and didn't degenerate into how's it going at work, etc.

The lack of a "summing up" from the top table was really, really good - particularly because everyone brought different thoughts, the discussion had been so wide ranging and interesting, and at times quite stretching that the day ended with the feeling that we had covered a lot of ground in an in depth manner.

One worry I had was that of "keeping control" what if someone dominated the conversation or went on for ten minutes on a particular point? The fact is it didn't happen - so we'll cross that bridge if and when we get to it. There's something about not just talking left but bringing the social back into socialist that was extremely worth while.

I thought I'd report it here because it's something that everyone can do and it was interesting to take part in. The proof of that is that although we'd sort of thought it would be a couple of hours we ended up discussing politics for five hours, and even then we were cut short due to the fact that people had to work in the morning.

From the archives: why feminism is good for men

This article first appear last year in the lefty daily paper the Morning Star.

Whenever I hear a bloke describe himself as a feminist I reach for the sick bucket.

I certainly wouldn't describe myself that way, despite believing in equality and having right-on positions on the major issues of day.

Sometimes labels don't get us very far.

When men describe themselves as feminists they are telling us something about their politics, but that is not the same thing as actually having consistent positions on women's equality.

For every political stance you can think of there is someone who describes themselves as a feminist.

It can give an indication of how someone sees themselves but it doesn't tell us what they think about sex work, trade unions, abortion, marriage or a host of other issues.

Despite feminism's continued relevance, it has become so devalued as a term that it gets used to describe almost anything.

A recent piece in the Guardian, which should know better but never does, described fascist sympathiser Brigitte Bardot as a feminist because "she represents the power of women. What's iconic about her is her shape, the way she occupies space."

Was this what the pioneers of feminism were struggling for - to be defined by their "shape"?

There's a middle class version of feminism that focuses on language while ignoring social inequality.

I can't be the only person who has had a female manager who is more than relaxed about the all-female cleaning staff being paid a pittance and given no respect while insisting that the workplace uses bizarre jargon in order to avoid "sexist language."

It's enough to give equality a bad name.

However the feminist movement has brought enormous social advances - and not just for women.

Struggles led by feminists have brought about significant positive shifts over the decades, although no-one sensible would argue that these battles are over.

The break from the rigid moralism that kept people who didn't love each other within spitting distance provided a massive step forward in quality of life for millions of people. Divorce has saved countless couples from emotional disfigurement.

The right to an abortion, easily available contraception and sex education have not just been essential for a woman's right to control her own body but have been absolutely revolutionary in terms of how we all live our lives.

Family planning isn't just something that has enhanced people's sex lives or simply allowed them to have one, it's a social revolution allowing us to make choices about children, sexual health and orientation that simply were not open to us before.

I'm certain that the 17-year-old me would have been a pretty poor husband and father and I'm very glad that, due to the advances that feminism fought for, it never had to happen.

And feminism has broken down barriers to advancement for men and women. It may sound strange to some that allowing women to be promoted into positions previously the preserve of men should benefit both sexes, but it certainly seems that way.

When my mum was at school not only was she not allowed to take her best subject - maths - because it was not a "girl's subject," but she was all but forced to become a nurse, which did not suit her.

It was not in anyone's interest that the job of, say, a heart surgeon, did not go to the best person because gender roles forbade it.

The other side of the coin is that many men of my dad's generation simply never learned skills such as cooking because it was assumed that a woman would do it all for them. How many men have no confidence to do the simplest things around the home because they have been told it is "women's work?"

Feminism has gone a long way to making workplaces habitable too. My first job was in a lawnmower factory and I thought it was hell on Earth.

I found it difficult to cope with the constant use of the c-word, the misogynist tripe that my workmates came out with and the dull-as-ditch-water view on what was and was not "homosexual behaviour," even down to your choice of biscuit or how you wear your jacket.

These attitudes have now gone away but feminism should be heartily thanked for the progress made in workplaces in terms of how people behave with each other.

Feminism may not be about bettering men's lives but there is no question it has improved them.

From the archives: The spheres of Cambridge

I don't know how many of you have read the Philip Pulman 'Dark Materials' books but one theme they rely upon is the idea of worlds layered one upon the other, never quite touching but just one step away. So you have different Oxfords all co-existing without even noticing each other. Some very similar, some very different but all occupying the same geographical space.

I've begun thinking about Cambridge in very much that way - that you have different spheres who knock against each other in the street, overlapping, wrapped up in their own priorities but only recognising others from their own world.

Most noticeably this is true with the homeless community who, even when they're asking you for change, look through you like you aren't real. But it's also true with the two universities. Cambridge is a very different place to the bin man in Arbury to the Cambridge University student put up in halls whose world revolves around his or her college.

Quite how many of these communities there are it's hard to tell - particularly when you're only in one of them yourself. A few examples would be the Turkish community, which seems pretty tight, as do many of the Asian foreign students. Then there's the white working class "youth" in the clubs on a Friday night and their related but impoverished younger cousins lounging about on Parkers Piece or skateboarding around the Grafton Centre.

It isn't simply that there are class distinctions here (which there clearly are), there are also fundamentally different ways of seeing the world. A multistory car park is a place to store your 4x4 to some and a wild place for urban fitness to others. Parkers Piece at night is a place of concern for some who are crossing it and to others this is the social centre of the city, poor things.

Tonight I had the good fortune to cross one of these boundaries and get sucked into part of the world of the homeless community, if only for half an hour or so. On one level it was pretty unpleasant, essentially I had to intervene to prevent a Moroccan guy having his head beaten in by two, well, um, urgh, scumbags I suppose you'd call them.

There was an odd moment though when they realised I'd stepped into their space. The look on their faces, even the guy I was saving from a pasting was, "hold on - you're from the other place - you're not meant to be here!" The funny thing is part of me agreed, it was as if I shouldn't even have been able to detect a racist attack was taking place right in front of me.

But once you've started something you often feel you need to finish it so I stayed in their sphere. Anyway, my presence managed to diffuse the situation and I walked a ways with my grateful charge as he ranted and raved about how he wasn't one of them, he had a daughter, somewhere, and an Armani jacket.

As we parted he even charged me for his time, telling me "Come on, I've walked all this way with you" forgetting I was walking with him to make sure he was safe. For once I was happy enough to give him what was in my pocket and tell him to take care of himself, but it was still fascinating to see that although the gap between us had closed enough for us to actually recognise the existence of the other the fact we were from completely different worlds still remained, so I still hadn't quite transcended the status of cash machine for him.

Neither of these worlds is more real than the other, neither one more substantial - although mine is decidedly more comfortable than his to be to be sure. I'll be sleeping the sleep of the just up on my shelf tonight and Christ knows where he'll be. For a moment though we did see one another and were able to help each other out, if only for a brief while.

From the archives: Max Mosley and the policing of sexuality

In this celebration week one thing I'm going to do is to take a look back at the archives and repost some of those forgotten classics. Here's something I wrote for Stroppyblog in 2008 in the wake of revelations that Max Mosley had been visiting a sex dungeon.

Frankly all the papers have been very naughty. Very naughty indeed, and I have a basement flat that they must proceed to immediately for their proper chastisement. It really is not on plastering what are private goings on all over place. What's the use of being a fabulously wealthy son of Britain's most prominent wartime fascist if you can't have a private life, eh?

The term public interest is a strange one in the context of the Max Mosley sex scandal. Of course the public is interested, we all want to know whose bits and pieces have been going into whose whatchamacallit, but there does not seem to be a compelling democratic requirement for us to know the first thing about Mosley’s proclivities “sick” or otherwise.

Some of the discussion in the press seems to be of the opinion that because Mosley does the kind of things that only former Blue Peter presenters would contemplate he is not fit to be in charge of that stupid game where ridiculous looking cars whiz about until time itself seems to be standing still. For instance the Telegraph’s Kevin Garside thinks that the revelations around the case “paint Max in a deeply unflattering light, and more readily associates him with the kind of behavior unsuited to one running an international body like the FIA.”

Really? Frankly I could do with that one being spelt out for me because I'm not getting the connection. Perhaps he's called for the driver who comes in last to be stripped and lashed around the track and it's only now people have realised he had ulterior motives beyond simply spurring the others on to do better. However, unless this is so I am nowhere near convinced.

Admittedly when Garside describes Mosley’s sex life as “rich and varied” it’s difficult to know whether he is referring to the fact that Mosley’s five “friends” cost him £500 each and therefore he is regularly indulging a habit beyond the reach of most - even as a Christmas treat. That doesn’t include the reported £ 35,000 yearly upkeep of his fully equipped oubliette either. Yes, obscenely "rich" even.

Incidentally, there seems to have been very little focus on the prostitution angle of the case (and some of the evidence seems to be casting him in more of a pimp than a client) but there has been a great deal of censorious frowning about the so-called Nazi connotations of his ritualized abuse. As if the real social conditions of the women involved is far less interesting than the make believe games they were being paid to indulge in.

Mosley denies there were any Nazi overtones to his orgy, even though one of his captors was wearing a Luftwaffe uniform and a fellow prisoner pleaded with her guards that they were “Aryans” and so did not deserve to be harshly treated. Obviously there were Nazi overtones – but so what? They weren’t organizing a BNP branch, daubing local shops in swastikas or running for office as far right candidates – they were (or at least he was) having fun, mucking around – and they were not to know they were being videoed, so any sensitivities about other people’s feelings are irrelevant because for five out of six of them this was a private function, even if one of them was the wife of an MI5 agent. They just weren’t to know that the News of World would be posting selected highlights on the net.

In “Spanking good fun” I described the common “old stereo type of the elite white male in a powerful job by day and lashed to a dungeon rack by night” and that seems to fit our Max rather neatly. But the stereotype holds our attention because of the contrast between real world power and the make believe powerlessness - not because it reveals the old white guy's true nature, but because it reveals an unexpected side to it.

Some political people seem to be confused because they’ve mistaken sexual games for real oppression. Now obviously slap and tickle without the tickle is not everyone’s cup of tea. Fair enough, but that’s no excuse to go around tutting and getting sniffy at consenting activities you were never meant to find out about, let alone invited to.

In fact it’s worse when people start talking about BDSM as if it’s some sort of bizarre acted out therapy where he’s been working out “issues” with his father. I don’t get turned on by going round building sites, tapping pipes and then shaking my head sadly (which is how I imagine my Dad at work, perhaps the reality was different) and I don’t think it’s an appropriate way of sorting out any father/son issues that may or may not exist. Maybe it’s just that he’s into a particular form of kinky sex, and so he does it. I don't think you'll be getting any great psychological insights just from the press reports though.

Obviously there are some personal ethical issues involved. He’s been getting up to this for decades and forgot to mention it to his wife. That, dude, is not cool. There’s also the prostitution thing, I don’t think it stops being prostitution just because they’re getting paid large amounts of money and appear to be rather happy about the whole thing (which is perfectly possible). So there are power issues here, but it isn't the caning that's the issue.

Whatever the wrongs and rights of this I still find it difficult to get excised and start ranting about his deviance or immorality. I mean he’s not one of those back to basics Johnnies is he? He’s never openly nailed his personal morality to the mast – that just isn’t his kink - so I don't think it's our place to lash him for it. No matter how much he begs.

But still some want to send in the Nazi sex police. The weird thing is the press appears to be taking the position that kinky sex is alright, but German kinky sex? That’s just sick!

Take this from the Guardian when it was put to the reporter that in fact it was just an English dungeon fetish and had nothing to do with the Nazis the journo's patriotic feathers are ruffled and he replies "I know of no English prison that beats its inmates with a stick until their buttocks bleed. I know of no English prison where the warder will deliver those blows and count them out in German. I know of no English prison where the inmates then have sexual intercourse with the warder who has just given those blows." Whilst, of course, the real Nazi regime was just like the fantasy played out for Mr Mosley. Maybe someone needs a history lesson.

We should reject the policing of sexuality even by people who are progressive on other issues. The simple fact is that something can be an expression of a deep desire without being a literal exposition of what you’d like to really happen. Dressing up in a Nazi uniform for kicks does not make you an advocate of genocide – even if you’re a member of the Royal family.

Ah, I’ll go further, because I see some thin ice I’d like to skate on. Some people have rape fantasies, they do, it’s a fact. It does not mean they actually want to rape or be raped they are simply drawing from the deep, dark well of sexuality and if you are one of them it does not make you a bad person and you shouldn’t spend even one second feeling guilty about those fantasies.

Just as a dream does not mean you actually want to play strip poker with William Shatner at the local library (although, actually, that might be pretty cool) a fantasy or a fetish is just that and is not *real* in the sense that you're likely to act it out elsewhere. If you can’t see the difference between being caned by someone in a sexy uniform and the historic horrors of the Third Reich then you have officially left the building of free thinking and joined the temple of dogma where they burn the mention of "incorrect things" because they think that means they will no longer exist.