On my way into town this morning, I received a text message. "Have you seen today's Sentinel!" The exclamation mark indicated urgency. What could it be? Had Paul Nuttall finally declared for Stoke Central? Had egregious backroom shenanigans made the paper? Has another local MP announced their resignation? It was something much more shocking. When I got to see a copy, the headline read: "University professor's online sex chats with underage girls". That doesn't properly convey the seriousness of the crime: said man was found in possession of some of the most disgusting and abusive imagery as well. What made it shattering was who the conviction was handed down to: Professor Andy Dobson, formerly of Keele University.
For those not familiar with his work, Dobson was, and I suppose still is, the world's leading green political theorist. His main contributions were around the notion of ecological citizenship, that large numbers of people were entering into politics with ecological and environmental concerns in mind, and this conditioned their activity, their modes of organisation and issues of interest, and the construction of their identity. Ecological citizenship had also become diffuse. As the state took on the language and practice of bureaucratically mandated equality, it too encourages moments of ecological citizenship. Engaging in recycling, saving energy, pedalling about or using public transport are green virtues that have integrated themselves into mainstream notions of good citizenship. Dobson wasn't content with allowing the state to become the repository of environmental virtue; the crisis of climate change could not be averted just by leaving out the recycling bin. It required active agency by citizens to change their behaviour and push for green policies. He was therefore an advocate of critical citizenship education in schools. This went beyond conventional understandings restricting citizenship to the sanctioned political process (i.e. the responsibility of voting and perhaps joining a political party). As the environmental crisis pays no attention to constitutional niceties, he argued that citizenship classes must teach students how to organise non-conventionally. In other words, alongside learning about politics and parties, they must cover the nuts and bolts of running a campaign, how to mobilise participants for demonstrations, lobby politicians, organise civil disobedience and so on. Latterly, Dobson was also exploring the the place of listening in political theory. With the decline of dialogue and the reduction of political debate to name calling, outright lying and affected ignorance, a major study in this area could have been as timely as potentially useful.
When I was doing my PhD, I saw and spoke to Dobson almost everyday. He was a popular member of staff and was very well liked by the students. Considering his superstar status, there was none of that arrogant nonsense surrounding his person. And as far as I knew, he had a teaching load no different to his less celebrated colleagues. Dobson is partly responsible for my doctorate, he was the internal examiner of my thesis. And everyone knew "Andy" to be an extremely busy man. When he wasn't discharging academic duties, Dobson gave the local Green Party a lot of time and personally oversaw many of its campaigns in North Staffordshire. He went so far as to write the party's 2010 General Election Manifesto. Always busy, always up to his neck in one project or another. I can remember more than one occasion where postgrad students and lecturers wondered where he got the time from to do all this stuff.
And then, suddenly, it all stopped. I was talking to someone a couple of summers ago, and they told me about Dobson's disappearance. One day he was there, the next he was gone. There was no explanation. His website was wiped of all material, he answered no text messages or emails. The University basically scrubbed him, though no one apart from senior management knew whether he was remained employed or not. The assumption I and many others made was the volume of work had got the better of him and he'd undergone a crisis or mental collapse of some sort. The disappearance and extreme withdrawal from his career and friends a means of trying to find balance. And this was very much the view of one of his friends I saw just before Christmas. Now we know it was because he'd been arrested on sex abuse imagery and internet grooming charges.
I have absolutely no sympathy for Dobson. I feel for his young family, for his friends and colleagues he disgracefully let down. And most of all, the young girls he groomed online. I hope Dobson's predatory behaviour will not leave them with psychological scars and lasting harms. Unfortunately, his sentence - 10 months suspended and 10 years on the Sex Offenders Register - does not reflect the seriousness of the offences he admitted to. His reputation is in tatters, most of his friends and acquaintances will now forever shun him, but he should be thanking his lucky stars. If he hadn't got a brilliant career and wasn't a pillar of the local establishment, if he was a postman from Cross Heath or supermarket worker from Shelton, how likely is it the judge would have proven so forgiving and lenient?
What this means for the future trajectory of his work is unclear. Academia tends not to be like the world of pop, whereby the works of sex offender rockstars are placed on the list of proscribed tracks. When Louis Althusser murdered Hélène Rytmann, his wife, apparently in his sleep, he was remanded to psychiatric custody. There was a tidal wave of shock, but all throughout the early part of the 1980s Althusser's ideas were taken seriously, discussed, critiqued and eventually abandoned as intellectual fashions moved on. What will be the reception to Dobson? Will his ideas and the emerging research programme survive his disgrace? One thing is sure, he himself is done. There is some assistance available to people who have unacceptable desires, as explored a couple of years ago by Channel Four, but Dobson chose not to avail himself of this. Instead he secretly, craftily made the decision to abuse young girls online, and compound that suffered by others by acquiring abusive imagery. We'll never know why he risked everything for a cheap criminal thrill, but he is entirely responsible for his choice.
Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness resigns and the Northern Ireland Executive tumbles into chaos, again. Though I suppose it's a measure of progress given the history that it was an old-fashioned political scandal leading up to this, and not something bound up with the entrenched sectarian divide. What we have is a tawdry tale. A tale of money and the most incredible incompetence.
While First Minister Arlene Foster held the enterprise portfolio, the Executive introduced the Renewable Heat Scheme, a system of subsidies to encourage the take up of renewable sources of heating. So far, so banal. The problem was this scheme was generous, extremely generous. For example, according to the BBC, a business using a renewable-fuelled boiler over 20 years under the equivalent scheme in Britain could look forward to a government bung of £192,000. The Northern Irish scheme would have paid out £860,000. And so a scheme that had a £15m underspend in 2015 jumped to a budget-busting £400m overspend by the time it was closed around this time last year. If that wasn't bad enough, there is some evidence that it was being gamed by unscrupulous sorts. Thanks to a whistleblower, there were reports of "entrepreneurs" setting up boilers in previously unheated sheds, warehouses and garages and putting in claims. Ouch.
There is absolutely no suggestion that Foster is embroiled with crooked applicants, but there are claims of inept arse-covering. When the improper use of the scheme first came to light to senior civil servants, it is claimed Foster was uninterested in the allegations and fought to keep it open. And when it became too prohibitive, there is a suggestion that her subordinates tried to cover it up and make it look as though she was unaware of the problems. Are there any truth to the rumours? The evidence suggests so, but that's for the inquiry to unearth and, yes, McGuinness and Sinn Fein are right to argue that the DUP arm of government can't pretend business-as-usual. Especially when it's not the first time the party's leading figures have got into trouble with public money. But also, SF aren't entirely masters of their own fortunes here - as 'Cash for Ash' has rumbled on, they too have come in for criticism for appearing aloof from the whole affair. No amount of absurdist Gerry Adams tweets can alibi their quietude.
As the province gears up for an election, it's worth making a couple of points about Northern Ireland's relationship to wider politics. Or, should we say, non-relationship. Coverage of its affairs can be found in the broadsheets, but apart from the occasional trip across the Irish Sea by Question Time, it's not even a sideshow to Westminster's big top. The sad truth is that since SF and the DUP sorted out their power sharing arrangements, leading to the utterly surreal double act of Martin McGuinness and the Rev Ian Paisley, the rest of politics isn't that interested. The Northern Irish office, once one of the toughest briefs in front line politics is now considered a backwater. Small wonder Dave was content to leave it in the hands of Theresa Villiers. For example, back in summer 2015 there were two paramilitary murders - one an alleged commander of the Provisional IRA, and another an ex-member in what was widely seen as a tit-for-tat attack. The Provos, of course, weren't supposed to exist any more and so Stormont was plunged into crisis. The Ulster Unionists withdrew from the executive and Foster came in as a caretaker after the resignation of Peter Robinson. And yet this barely ruffled a Westminster engrossed in the drama of Labour's first leadership election.
Where mainstream politics is concerned, Northern Ireland is considered a settled issue. The bombs have stopped, sectarianism doesn't appear to be as ugly or violent as per The Troubles, so just leave them to it. They're a long way from London, nothing much happens there now and it only becomes useful for EU argument fodder or as a stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn with. But distance is only part of it. For the political establishment, whether its conservative or liberal variants, Northern Ireland is something to be feared and something to be ashamed of. Feared, because from their point of view the intractable sectarian division is primeval and tribal, and that irrationality could spill over into renewed violence on the mainland. And ashamed because Northern Ireland is out of step with the story official Britain likes to tell itself. The idea that not only does religious hatred scar one of the four components of the United Kingdom, but that the sectarian divide is institutionalised in its official politics. It embarrasses and offends a sense of (liberal) British self prided on inclusivity and tolerance. The best way is not to try and understand what's happened and happening in Ireland, but ignore it.
As long as there's no violence, out of sight, out of mind.
We're used to the Leave campaign lying. They made stuff up during the referendum campaign, and there's no let up even during the Christmas holidays. Change Britain is a "cross-party" outfit active across all the main social media platforms, and it made a bit of a splash today with its report doubling down on the notorious and widely-debunked £350m/week savings claim and said the figure could actually be as high £450m/week. That is the Brexit dividend, apparently, the value of what they're desperately trying to brand a "clean Brexit".
There is some confusion over the size of these savings. The Graun says £24bn, The Telegraph £40bn, and Change Britain, um, £10bn, the press reporting of what is, in actual fact, a press release, has been appalling. Papers and news sites, which ever way they lean politically, have blandly trotted out the figures as if they were gospel. Does no one know how to critically scrutinise numbers any more?
Needless to say, Change Britain's figures describe what they describe, but nothing else. As with a great many things, it's what they don't say that counts. I've had a look at their workings so you don't have to, and what's there is little more than wish fulfillment and, in a few cases, some worrying positions.
First off, they make the easy claim that Britain will save paying membership subs, which works out as a saving of £10.4bn. Presently, countries outside of the EU but are members of the European Economic Area, like Norway post a contribution, but at a significantly lower level than the subs the UK presently pays. Change Britain's clean Brexit, however, has us lying outside the EEA completely. We would have to pay no more into the EU pot than Canada is set to do through their trade treaty. i.e. Nothing at all. Sounds attractive, but there is a problem. In October, exports to the EU were worth £26.8bn and imports £39.6bn. There are significant interests both sides of the channel for trade to continue uninterrupted, but that doesn't necessarily mean cool heads will prevail. There is every danger a deal cannot be negotiated in two years, hence the open talk of a bridging arrangement that would extend the negotiations into the never-never (a move entirely in the Prime Minister's character). However, Change Britain want none of that - they want tariff-free access, but without the rigmarole of the complex negotiations that will get us there. In short, if they want to hop out of the EEA, Britain will face tariffs, no ifs, no buts. The wrexit crew might say that will harm the EU more than that harms the UK, but in the real world that would be small comfort to the millions of jobs placed at risk and the damage done to the economy. So yes, we might save £10bn in subs, but how much disappears as the economy takes a hit? How many people have to have their livelihoods ruined until a inferior Canada-style treaty comes along?
Change Britain's second moment of dishonesty regards the freedom Britain will have to negotiate trade deals elsewhere. One of Leave's strongest suits during the campaign was playing up Britain's strength. The economy has serious, long-term problems the Tories don't seem at all fussed about, but yes, Britain is one of the richest economies in the world and, of course, people from all over will want to do business here. Pulling out a list of countries that have already expressed an interest in trade deals, or are likely to, they estimate an increase of between £8.5bn and £19.9bn worth of exports once we enter into arrangements with them. How Change Britain arrived at these figures are mathematically reasonable (though their link for 2016 trade balances leads to 2013's), they are economically suspect. Suspect because a trade deal doesn't generate exports, economic activity does. The tearing down of tariff barriers does not create jobs or boost productivity, it relieves costs borne by exporters and importers. It can improve profitability, but as we've seen in almost a decade's worth of a capital strike here in Britain, boosting profit rates doesn't necessarily equal more investment and greater productivity. Secondly, tariff-free access can harm economies, or does Change Britain need to read about the consequences of cheap Chinese steel again - that is until the hated EU put a hefty tariff on it? And thirdly, these trade deals aren't going to get struck overnight. Working out something with Mercosur - the Brazil-led economic bloc of Latin American countries - is not going to be a simple head-to-head between governments. And as for the deal with the USA, well, there might be a problem. Until we get those deals, there will be no economic benefit whatsoever. For years.
Lastly, let's look at the bonfire of red tape. Apparently, British business is getting choked by Brussels bureaucracy. A strangulation to the tune of £1.2bn, which is very small beer in the context of a £1.8tn (or thereabouts) economy. But still, let's play Change Britain's game. Going through the 100 most burdensome EU regulations as identified by Open Europe, Change Britain are at least honest enough to acknowledge that only a small proportion of EU regulations would be repealed because of international treaties and continued policy commitments. Nevertheless, they've earmarked some pretty interesting regulations for the chop. These include the Data Protection Act, genetically modified food regulations, non-road gaseous and particulate pollutant regulations, registration and restriction of chemicals rules, waste batteries and accumulators regs, and farmed animal welfare rules. In short, irony of ironies, their Clean Brexit would result in more airborne pollution - a filthy Brexit, if you will. As well as a free for all in hazardous materials, and an abandonment of farmed animal standards. And greater freedoms for those who hold personal data to abuse it. I guess it hadn't occurred that their repeal might create unforeseen externalities, like monies lost through fraud, added costs to health care, the cost of cleaning up environmental damage, it goes on.
In all, Change Britain's bean counter's approach to a Clean Brexit amounts to politics of the dirtiest kind. This is not an exercise in cost/benefit analysis. It's a balance sheet of dishonest thinking and convenient forgetting, and deserves branding as such.
We have by-elections arising from tragedy. We have by-elections arising out of farce. Zac Goldsmith's decision today to resign his Richmond Park seat in protest against the government's decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow falls firmly in the latter category. This gesture will see him defend his seat as an independent while the Tory party proper have declared they won't be running.
I don't know if Goldsmith is fishing for complements and plaudits. "Oh, he's so, so principled" will come the leader writers of the Tory petit bourgeois. I'm happy to agree that another runway is more than unhelpful where our emission targets are concerned. And from an economic standpoint, throwing down yet more air infrastructure while the existing connectivity leaves a great deal to be desired seems neither wise, nor in line with the Tory aspiration to rebalance the economy away from London and the South East. However, progressive and socialist objections to the development are about enhancing the environment for the enjoyment and enrichment of human beings which, in this case, necessarily means opposing more pollution, more noise, and more congestion. Goldsmith may also believe thunder over Richmond should come from too frequent storm clouds as opposed to additional jet engines, but his greenery is ultimately misanthropic and backward looking. A conservationism in which a reified environment comes before the people who inhabit it and give it meaning, small wonder his "principled politics" happily coexisted with the nudge, nudge racism of the London mayoral campaign.
But let's be serious here. Everything about the coming by-election reeks of a gentlemanly understanding, the sort accompanied by funny handshakes and weird winking. Having made a song and dance about resigning should Heathrow get the go ahead, it was impossible for Goldsmith to find a face saving way out. However, as the Tories aren't putting up against him in practice it will mean very little, assuming he wins the by-election. The government's majority drops by one, but over on the opposition benches there's little reason to believe Theresa May won't find a supplicant happy to go along with the rest of her programme. And then, 18 months to two years down the line, she gives her overrated grand narrative a splash of green and Zac will come back to the fold.
That assumes he can retain the constituency. As Stephen Bush observes, on first glance Richmond looks like a super safe Tory seat. But it scored below the Tory London average during the mayoral contest, suggesting there isn't as much of a personal vote as one might suppose. This might have something to do with Richmond being one of the Tories' most liberal seats. It wouldn't have appreciated their MP's dog whistling Islamophobia, nor the love he gave Leave while the borough voted Remain. Furthermore, it was as recent as 2005 that Susan Kramer held the seat for the LibDems with a seven point advantage over the Tories. Reduced to under 20% in 2015, there is a good chance they could come surging back - especially as they too oppose the third runway. No doubt they'll crank up the battered by-election machinery deployed to excellent effect in Witney, but will the Tories mobilise for their unofficial candidate?
By way of a sequel to this from a few years back, here are five more books about Marx and/or Marxism that use the materialist method to understand the world.
The first of these has to be Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (2000). It had sat on my shelf for 16 years before I finally got round to reading it this summer, and I've kicked myself ever since. In a great working of theoretical synthesis, Hardt and Negri bring together theories of political sovereignty, political economy, Marxism, and postmodernism in an entirely convincing whole. The basic thesis is global capitalism is transitioning to an international system in which capital, or Empire as they call it, is a decentered, disembodied sovereign better able to regulate the growing capacities and objective strength of the multitude (a Spinozan concept that sort of indicates the masses, which have variously assumed the form of slaves, peasants, and proletarians) than the nation state. As an emerging, unconscious entity, the Empire is an alien power straight out of Marx's Paris Manuscripts. A surprisingly readable work that makes legible complex processes, it remains a fresh work that could fool you into thinking it was published this last year. It casts a great shadow over the next book ...
Cognitive Capitalism by Yann Moulier Boutang (2007) explores the case Hardt and Negri make on relation to the new shifts on global capitalism, particularly with regard to Negri's earlier work around the 'social worker'. i.e. The new breed of proletarian that has the production of knowledge, services, or care (in sum, social relations) as the object of their work. Boutang argues that key to the transition from the old to the new is the growing capacity of labour power. In the age of the so-called mass worker, the hegemonic form of work had people fed into companies where they would be trained and socialised into work. This was bound up with a conscious strategy pursued by big capital since the advent of Scientific Management, that subordinating labour to capital requires that the latter holds the knowledge of the production process. The emergence of 'cognitive capitalism' finds that labour power's aptitude with new technologies is something acquired outside of workplace relations, and that the coming hegemony of this work puts capital at a double disadvantage: labour power is a self-actualising and innovative force of production independent of capital. And, as such, to generate profit capital has to assume more overtly parasitic and unjust forms of surplus value extraction. Think Uber. Think Deliveroo. Labour is constantly networking and forming its own brain trust, which, for want of a better phrase, capital can only ponce off - think about how Facebook and Google feed off the data sets your online doings produce with no financial benefit to the user. This is just a condensed flavour of what's on offer, so Cognitive Capitalism comes as an essential work.
Speaking of essential, there is The Hard Road to Renewal by Stuart Hall (1988), another book I've been meaning to read for ages but only read this last week or so. What Hall does in this collection of essays from New Left Review and Marxism Today is provide a properly Marxist analysis of Thatcherism. He characterises it as a hegemonic project (albeit one that did not achieve complete hegemony) that sought to redefine politics and values across a broad front: economics, politics, and culture. He does this by analysing the British state as it declined relative to the rise of the other great powers and had to transform itself into an instrument that more directly intervened as a participant of class struggle and manager of a large population. More specifically, he picks apart the crisis of social democratic capitalist management in the 1970s and discerns the emergence of authoritarian populism, a strategy by the right to ride the wave of anti-establishment and anti-statist feeling and transform it into a buttress for the establishment. He also castigates Labour and the left repeatedly for ignoring their Gramsci and never seriously engaging in a similar kind of project: rather the former chases public opinion without trying to lead it, and the latter is fundamentalist and stuck on the defensive. Lastly, he notes that Thatcherism was never about providing solutions to capitalist crisis, even if it dressed up in those clothes. Instead, it was about tilting the balance of class forces to the right and keeping them there. As a Marxist analysis of politics and an explanation of the impasse we find ourselves in almost 30 years after publication, it too is a vital intervention everyone on the left should read.
Going back to basics a bit, I want to big up again the best introductory book on Marx and Marxism I've ever read. And that would be Terry Eagleton's Why Marx Was Right (2011). Taking the form of a series of common objections/misconceptions about Marxism, the book provides answers. It's not a dry-as-ditchwater exercise along the lines of "this is what Marx really said". Quote-mongering is kept to a minimum and, instead, Eagleton allows the materialist method and concepts do the talking. On economics, on the salience of class, the relationship between Marxism and the "new" (though now, rather old) social movements around race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and the environment, I can't ever see its supersession by something better. It's one of those books that should have been around when I was a touch younger - its clarity would have saved a lot of time wading through useless, dusty tomes.
Lastly, I had a lot of fun with Austerity Ecology and the Collapse-Porn Addicts by Leigh Phillips (2015). Perhaps the most "populist" of this round-up of books, Phillips makes a case for a Marxist approach to technology. i.e. That innovative new tools, ways of working, and technologies are dialectical fusions of benefit and risk, but that on the whole development has been a force for good. He is outraged and offended to find the Luddism at the heart of nearly all Green and environmentalist politics has been tailed and adopted wholesale by the left, and subjects reflex opposition to genetically modified organisms, nuclear power, and consumerism generally to the fire of polemic and brimstone of the put down. These, he argues, are manifestations of an anti-human and misanthropic approach to politics. Those who worship Gaia, favour primitivist solutions to the ecological crisis, and get all gooey over earth spirit hocus pocus offer the way back to a past in which our species were fragmented, few in number, and absolutely dependent on the blind whims of the seasons. Reactionary nonsense of the worst kind, in other words. And a fundamentally debilitating one as it talks down our powers and capacities to cope with and ameliorate the environmental problems stacking up against us. That, after all, should be the focus of radical politics.
What does radical politics in the 21st century look like?
The internet has projected onto a wider canvas a rerun of America's culture wars. Partying hard since the late 1980s, postmodern self-theorised subject positions face off against self-theorised subject positions in battles for recognition and cultural space vis a vis each other rather than those who hold economic and political power. Related to this is the resurgence of a radically-tinged liberal feminism, a movement so varied and inchoate that prominent activists can challenge sexism and male violence one day, and collect a gong the next. Sitting uneasily with the 'new' feminism is a fast-gaining trans-insurgency around cultural acceptance, against violence by men (again), and access to responsive health care. The new politics of race and lesbian and gay equality are now so utterly mainstream that conservative governments can champion same sex marriage. That is, unless one is a Muslim.
On the environmentalist spectrum, key tenets of green thought have been adopted by radical politics. These include the environmental consequences of capitalism, the critique of economic growth, a concern for biodoversity, and the acceptance of climate science twinned with scepticism towards science and claims of progress. All too often, the critique of capitalism is subsumed in a rage against technologically advanced society itself, and finds expression away from mainstream greenism in back-to-the-land primitivism and refusenik communities cut adrift from history.
Traditional revolutionary leftism is still around, if you know where to look. In the British case, the groups laying claim to the mantle of Marx and Lenin have long abandoned the struggle to organise the mass of working people as a political party (if they ever did). They instead pursue a species of postmodern identity politics. Resting on an immaculately shaped grouping of no social weight, they appeal nostalgically to a working class that hasn't existed since the mid-1970s, or intervene in an amorphous "movement" with all the subtlety of a Ken Livingstone debating Israel, and repel those they seek to attract.
The distinctly untrendy bread and butter politics, which never went away, come and go, albeit now with more input from 'social movement trade unionism'. Manifesting in campaigns to defend public services, to resist gentrification, to protest the strip mining of the welfare state, and the taking of industrial action, the subterranean struggle of people upon whom the media gaze seldom falls bubbles up always and everywhere, but tends toward the episodic and sectional, drawing in only the immediately-affected. The trace each campaign leaves, whether successful or not, activates only a small minority for wider politics.
And now social democracy, or at least parts of it are undergoing radicalisation. Having ditched political principle for colourless managerialism, centre left parties across the West have lost out to populist right wing surges, and are now facing leftist challenges from within. This return of the repressed however is not matched, at least yet, by shifts in wider movements at large. It is a recomposition within an existing tendency overlapping all of the above. This includes existing party and labour movement activists, and a section of its passive support. As the institutional and constituency bases of social democracy and labourism corrode, the new leftism is a body shock realisation that it faces disintegration. By identifying its key drivers - neoliberal capital, government-enforced austerity, galloping inequality, and the political abandonment of our people - old warhorses like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders speak to anxieties provoked by a shifting and destabilising position and have proved in spectacular fashion that it can mobilise. Meanwhile, the old masters of the social democratic universe are left scratching their heads. Cocooned by parliaments, cushioned by the media, and swaddled by self-importance, they never saw the insurgency coming, and its that lack of foresight that condemns them to the political wilderness. Yet the question remains, as a product of decline, can a partially radicalised centre left arrest the decline?
This is, more or less, how it stands, and all are variously networked and bound by the here today gone tomorrow connectivity of social media. But how might a 21st century radicalism look like? I think it should look like Accelerationism.
As with all trends and movements, a lot of crap has been written about accelerationism. Some see it as the creed of Spiked/the RCP and its cadre of professional contrarians, a tendency that fetishises technology as is and pushes for its fullest development for the benefits to trickle down. Where have we heard that one before? Others, with a touch more naivete and without tedious opinion pieces to sell, lapse into a 19th century inevitablism, that somehow the new society will spring automatically from space telescopes and nuclear reactors. As an adulation of the technical, a celebration of the speeding up and compression of social life, the worship of the accomplished fact is no foundation for the radical: it is a mere affirmation of what is.
The accelerationist does not submit to the world but probes, analyses, asks questions, identifies trends, and strives to make concrete all progressive potentials. The object of accelerationism is not the digital trinketisation of social life, but social life itself. It stands for the ruthless criticism of all that exists not because it's fun, and/or allows one to pass as superficially radical, but to change the world. It eschews utopianism because the material conditions for everyone to live freely and deeply already exist. The job of accelerationist politics is to accelerate the human potentials capitalism has cultivated and realise the epoch of freedom that lies within our reach.
Yet as a politics accelerationism is a potential too. Its clearest and earliest expression was in the works of Marx and Engels, and as their insights have diffused, fragmented, and become vulgarised and embedded. Particulates of accelerationism are scattered over established radical politics and manifest partially and unevenly. Yet the core relationships identified and critiqued by classical Marxism have conformed to the prognoses declared 150 years ago: the more they change, the more they stay the same. Accelerationism is fortunate in the sense that while other forms of radical politics desperately seek a subject, its potential constituency of billions of propertyless wage and salary earners, the very people who labour, who think, who create this world have never been greater in number, been as inclusive of all social categories, nor wielded as much social power. In as far as established radicalisms tap into, express, and organise these interests, the task of the accelerationist is to be there and accelerate things by dealing with the politics as they express themselves. There is no time to be dazzled by illusion, especially those we conjure ourselves.
Accelerationism's ambitions are vaulting. It is not a fringe pursuit, but the distillation of really-existing trends that point beyond capitalism's antiquated limits. As such, accelerationism cannot help but be the avant garde of the avant garde. It demands to be a movement of movements, of the conscious activity of the immense majority acting for the immense majority. Therefore accelerationism is a synthesis. It imbibes the best and discards everything that is rotten about existing radicalism. It valorises the human, celebrating our capacity to think, to feel, to love, and to create. It has no time for misanthropic miserablism nor romantic rubbish that sees positivity in the poverty of ages past. It is resolutely anti-capitalist, though not averse to using capitalism against itself and bourgeois interests. And most of all, accelerationism stands for a better life for everybody, a world in which the scars of want are banished, where alienating work is done, and the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. It is everything that is best about technologically advanced civilisation, and then some.
The challenges this century is stacking up are terrifying, and left unchecked spell doom and ruination for billions. The despoliation of the environment and climate change don't just threaten standards of living: they put into question the possibility of living. Yet it doesn't have to be this way. Dealing with our problems is not beyond our ability, but they cannot be seriously addressed for as long as capitalism holds us back. If our species is to enter the 22nd century in better shape than it did the 21st, accelerationism, the politics of potential and promise, has to succeed.
Had Labour done it, the Tories would be screaming bloody murder. I am, of course, talking about the deal with the Chinese to build two nuclear power stations. If the Tories really were standing up for Britain, from a national security perspective it beggars belief that key national infrastructure be handed over to a power they would ordinarily be opposed to. But these are not ordinary times, and for Dave and Osborne, they are quite prepared to do anything to be China's best friend in the West.
On the nuclear deal itself, it's absurd on two levels. First is on the nuts and bolts of nuclear energy generation. In recent years, governments of all stripes and "reformed" environmentalists have green washed nuclear. It's reliable, they say. It's carbon-free, they say. It's sustainable, they say. On all three they're plain wrong. Conventionally mined uranium has, depending on who you ask, between 90 to 200 years worth of stocks left, assuming energy consumption stands still. Which it doesn't. Of course, getting that stuff out of the ground in the first place, transporting it across oceans, and refining it to be reactor-ready is hardly an emissions-free process either. And sustainable? If you can sort out the supply and ensure they remain safe (pray for no more Fukushimas), there's only so many places you can store spent fuel rods, irradiated water, and other by-products for the requisite 50,000 years or so.
Second is the taxpayer subsidy destined to end up in China's bank accounts. 10 years from now, if all goes according to plan, the new Hinkley Point plant will come on stream at the cost of some £25bn. The largest inward investment ever, except the government is acting as guarantor of a fixed energy price. Regardless of what's happening in the markets - you know, those very things Tories ordinarily bow and scrape toward - EDF, the French state company fronting for the Chinese, are guaranteed a floor price for their electricity regardless how low wholesale prices may plunge. In effect, the taxpayer is guaranteeing the investment. But it's not a public subsidy, you understand. The government are very much opposed to those. Meanwhile the vast potential of wind and wave, particularly around the northern quarters of these isles, remain untapped.
Why is this happening? Uncharacteristically, the government have played this straight. They want to be China's best buddy in the West. When their currency becomes fully convertible the Tories need the City of London to be the primary clearing house for capital flows. While London is ideally located between the stock markets of the East and North America, there isn't an exchange in Europe who'd turn down the chance to be the preferred partner of the Chinese government. And, as we've noted before, it helps support a key prop of the Tory base. Naturally, there are many other investment opportunities in Britain for footloose Chinese capital. Osborne has already mentioned the HS2 debacle. Again, billions earmarked for a useless piece of infrastructure from government coffers is a guaranteed return for anyone investing in it. There will be plenty of other opportunities.
Politically, being the number one investment destination for China in the West will help the British economy grow - and if you're a GDP fetishist like the Chancellor those numbers are the only ones that matter. It also allows for infrastructure spending to take place without blowing holes in his deficit and debt reduction schemes, and also allows Dave and successor to stride about the world stage as if Britain matters. We've sucked up to one global hegemon since 1945, so why shouldn't we carry bags for the next one too?
There was a time where new systems needed a whole stable of video game characters to give them that edge over the rivals. In the fourth generation (16-bit) era of games consoles, Nintendo and Sega came out on top partly because each had established a following for their big guns. Nintendo had Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and a range of more minor exclusives to hand. Sega retaliated with Sonic the Hedgehog and a pantheon of titles based around their arcade properties, or built from scratch as a me-tooism. Part of the reason why so many industry pundits bet against Sony to begin with was a) their forays into video game development up until that time, which included the release of some truly awful games on the SNES and MegaDrive, and b) their lack of what we now call unique intellectual properties, or IPs. Sure, they had Namco in their corner and could look forward to Ridge Racer and Tekken conversions, as well as ports of popular PC titles, but before Sony steam rollered their opposition it made a concerted effort to ensure the PlayStation was home to the best and most sought after exclusives.
This is where Crash comes in. Whereas Sega and Nintendo touched off the mascot arms race, virtually every outfit tried getting in on the act. Between 1988 and 1995, practically every software house in the field had tried their hand at mascot video games. Ubisoft - Rayman. Accolade - Bubsy the Bobcat. Gremlin - Zool. Ocean - Mr Nutz. Core - Chuck Rock. Codemasters - Dizzy. Some did alright, but most fell by the wayside and are remembered without affection by gamers of a certain age who've since moved on to other things. Whether developers Naughty Dog (they of Uncharted and The Last of Us fame) thought they were creating Sony's answer to Mario and Sonic for them knew or not, they were nevertheless treading a well-worn path. And Crash was every inch a 90s bandicoot. His character style was zany, as opposed to Mario's stolid dependability and Sonic's ice cool. He cut a countenance that was slightly unhinged - there's a look of panic on Crash's face has he runs toward the screen as the game opens. But it comes with a knowing sensibility as well. Prior to leaping on the back of a boar in the two hog run levels, Crash looks over his shoulders and his eyebrows start twitching as if something improper is about to happen (NB this was a full 19 years before those David Cameron allegations surfaced). You'd also be hard pressed to classify Crash or any of his allies and adversaries as cute. Rather, despite his marsupial origins, Crash has something of a simian gait about his person. He wears nothing but blue shorts and trainers. In other words, our Crash was an anthropomorphic every man who didn't realise the body projections of the teenage boys likely to buy the game, but in some way embodied their ungainly awkwardness with a dash of 90's adolescent attitude.
Shadows cast by Crash's predecessors didn't end there. His spin attack was lifted directly from the Tasmanian Devil (who'd also had two outings on the MegaDrive prior to Crash). His collectible was wumpa fruit - as opposed to coins or rings - that yielded an extra life once a hundred of them were gathered up. Smashing open crates yields them and other goodies, like the masks of Aku Aku that protects Crash from the usual instant death one can expect when colliding with an enemy; or the tokens of his love interest, Tawna, that can transport him to increasingly challenging bonus rounds. And, of course, as the hegemonic game form during the 16-bit era was the platformer, so Naughty Dog's response had to be the same. However, the job of any mascot worth their salt is to showcase the capabilities of the machine it's running on, and Crash did that in spades. The first level has you taking a leisurely 3D stroll down a jungle path. Later levels involve tricky action from the same perspective. Not only was this novel as Crash would have been many gamers' first experience of 3D platforming, it was a completely new gameplaying experience. Naughty Dog, however, had the nous to ease their audience in. Visually arresting 3D levels were broken up with tradition two-dimensional stages. And sometimes they messed with the gamer by introducing 2.5D elements, and mixing 2D and 3D platforming. It demonstrated the PlayStation's raw power advantage over its clunk-looking predecessors, and pointed to the direction gaming was set to subsequently go.
Despite all that, Crash was something of a simple affair. It certainly didn't possess the depth of Super Mario 64, which hit the shelves a few months prior. In this sense, it was the heir to Sonic. While Mario had always prided itself on original game design, elaborate puzzles, and a huge number of secrets to uncover, Sonic was more an A-to-B (at speed) sort of game. Sega did hide a few secrets of their own, and had from the off experimented with multiple routes from start to exit. This is Crash's style, except more linear. There are a few hidden areas where goodies can be found. And bits of levels can be unlocked by collecting gems as you go (you're awarded one if you get through a level having smashed all the crates and without losing a life). If you want to get the "secret" ending, pursuing all the gems is exactly what you need to do. Sounds straight foward? It is, but it's also as tough as old boots. The 3D levels take some getting used to as judging distances with a fixed and not-always-entirely-helpful camera can lead to many needless deaths. There's something to be said for the control scheme as well. I don't know if it's me, but I had the same problems with the game as I did when I got my mitts on a copy 18 years back. Crash at times seems unwieldy and his control scheme over-sensitive. Contemporary gamers used to their thumb sticks would have a hard, frustrating time adapting. If that wasn't enough, some of the level designs are very challenging. Especially the 2D levels gamers of the mid-90s would have some familiarity with. The game isn't cheap, but if you don't take the time to observe the patterns, or learn how to control Crash properly the thing will eat you up. That probably explains why wumpa fruits and extra lives are so plentiful. Things don't seem quite frustrating when you still have 55 lives left in the bag.
There are a few other aspects about Crash that are of interest. The first is the game's naked orientalism. Set on three islands off Australia's coast, the first sees Crash doing battle against grass skirted natives. The first 2D level, Native Fortress, has you avoiding fire pits and spiky polls - as well as a few warriors - while you collect the fruit and make your way to the end. The first boss, Papu Papu, is a headdress-festooned big-bellied chief who fits no south sea islander stereotype at all. Using such locations might have seemed like a good idea at the time, especially as those levels bleed into subsequent tours of exotic-looking ruins (similar to a number of zones to have appeared in the Sonic games), but now one would hope it would be beyond the pail. Less controversial is a common trope in 90s video games: environmental despoliation and out-of-control science. Plenty of platform games mined this seam at the time, including Sonic, and it's something I'll be visiting in the future. Here, all of one's environmental fears find expression. The nemesis, Dr Neo Cortex (consciously modelled on Brain from Pinky and the Brain), is conducting genetic experiments to breed an army of animal soldiers - of which Crash is a result. As you move through the game, you come up against Cortex's other creations as end level bosses. Also, as the map makes pretty clear, your antagonist's mad sciencey efforts are pouring toxic waste into the sea and is threatening the beautiful environments of the levels you've just been through. It's not enough that Cortex is evil with the usual megalomaniacal schemes. He has to be a polluter, also. And a last word on the object of the game: this, like many other platformers, is yet another rescue-the-girl fetch quest. Except this time, Tawna is being kept by Cortex for unspecified observation and experimentation. Grim. However, it is worth noting that marketing objected to this premise and was dropped from future releases. If it was too tired for the mid-90s, why does it still occasionally rear its head now?
Unlike most PlayStation games (with the odd exception), and considering Crash Bandicoot is a relatively early PS1 title, it remains quite a good looking game by contemporary standards. Of course, graphically it doesn't hold a candle to your Super Mario 3D World and suchlike, but it has a certain vibrancy to it suggestive of craftmanship and care. It's a bold, brassy number just like the PlayStation itself. The luscious greens of the tropical levels, the flickering firelight of the caverns, the garish colour clashes of the industrial stages, they work together to crowd out the hard edged polygons characteristic of so many PlayStation games. There's little in the way of the characteristic PS1 flicker as well.
Crash was very well received and spawned sequels well into the succeeding generation of consoles, though now Naughty Dog have bigger fish to fry his IP has fallen into disuse. This is unsurprising because the games were very much of the interregnum between 2D and modern 3D gaming, and there is little more than the nostalgia some might feel that commends Crash's return to the gaming scene. Overall, an important game. A frustrating game. A rare looker of a game for the medium. But one that has more or less fallen into obscurity, and doesn't offer a great deal to warrant its rescuing.
My friend and comrade Chris Spence of Newcastle-under-Lyme CLP attended the huge Jeremy Corbyn rally in Birmingham on Sunday, and has been kind enough to provide me with this report of the event.
Before I start I should make a little confession: I’m voting for Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership election and last week I volunteered to help with his campaign so I am far from an unbiased observer!
The left’s man of the moment was rushed by car from an earlier event in Coventry (where around twice the venue’s capacity turned up to hear him speak) to address a huge, diverse crowd at the Bordesley Centre in Birmingham.
Arriving around 15 minutes later than billed, Jeremy entered the main room to cheers and a standing ovation whilst he tried to work his way through the crush to the platform. The hall was so full that additional chairs were brought in on either side of the platform, and it was standing room only in every available space that wasn’t filled with chairs – it was a good job no-one was too concerned with fire safety regulations! The crowd was so large that another room downstairs was also packed out, and watching via video link.
Despite intermittent microphone problems Jeremy laid out his programme for a better Britain, and a better world, based on his vision of a compassionate society investing in housing, infrastructure, high-technology manufacturing, and building real communities. His key themes were far from the “hard left” position which he is caricatured as propounding, and would be familiar to Social Democrats across Europe. In fact the message, and the mood of the room, reminded me quite strongly of 1997, but let’s not go there ...
Jeremy began by talking about the Conservative Party’s “deeply unpleasant” agenda – cuts to the vital public services on which we all rely; cuts to the tax rates for the wealthiest and corporations; the demonisation of immigrants, the unemployed and the most vulnerable in our “increasingly brutalized” society.
He mentioned some of the good proposals in the 2015 Labour manifesto, but suggested that the reason we didn’t win in May was due to not offering a real alternative to the Tory austerity agenda, and by failing to challenge the false economic narrative throughout the last Parliament. He also talked glowingly about the many positive things achieved by the Labour government of ‘97 including Sure Start, repeal of section 28, and the introduction of the national minimum wage. He also honestly accepted that there were serious mistakes like PFI, the Iraq war and the promotion of the financial sector above other industrial needs (all of which he consistently opposed at the time). When people say he couldn’t lead the Party after breaking the whip so many times, my answer would be that the Party should not be wrong so often!
Tellingly for critics calling Corbyn a throwback to the 1980s, he pointed out that the current government’s attacks on the poor, on manufacturing industry, on trade unions and the welfare state are a direct return to the politics of the Thatcher governments of the 1980s. It is the Tories, not Corbyn, who are stuck in a “time warp” of neoliberal orthodoxy for which we are all still paying the price.
Post-May, Jeremy and others on the left of the Party called for a lengthy and serious debate about the future direction of Labour’s economic strategy, social strategy and environmental strategy – instead we had a leadership election. Because of this, the left had no choice but to put forward a candidate to ensure that this crucial debate was held, and to offer a real choice to all the members, affiliated and registered supporters. Jeremy joked about managing to get the required 35 nominations “quite easily” (following a huge grassroots campaign to ask MPs to nominate him) “we had almost 2 minutes to spare after getting the last signature”.
He thanked those Labour MPs who had nominated him, even those who did it “reluctantly, deeply reluctantly, or extremely deeply reluctantly,” to much laughter from the audience. We were told about how his campaign started with nothing but a diary and a list of places to visit, and has now grown to a campaign covering 21 hustings and 42 public meetings to date, with around another 40 still to come. In only a matter of weeks, over 6,000 people have volunteered to help the campaign, and the public meetings are massively oversubscribed, spilling out of venues all across the country. In Liverpool the night before, around 1800 had arrived at the Adelphi hotel where there were seats for 800.
The people supporting Jeremy come from all ages, backgrounds and viewpoints – many are young people newly engaged in politics that finally speaks to them; others are those returning because they see an opportunity for the Labour Party to represent them after years of disenfranchisement. Corbyn has challenged the myth that young people are not political - against a backdrop of the Tory attacks on our youth (lower wages, higher education fees, cuts to housing benefit etc.) Young people may have been turned off by Party politics and the name-calling that characterises so much political discourse in the UK, but Corbyn has always eschewed personal attacks and it has struck a chord. No matter the nature of the personal accusations, Jeremy is insistent on talking about the policies which are important, providing a refreshing alternative to most politicians.
He praised the achievements of the 1945 Labour government (NHS, Town and Country Planning Act, council house building) and talked about the breakdown of the post-war consensus. He suggested that at some point Labour lost our way when we stopped defending the principal of a universal social security system to stop people falling into destitution. We need to stop blaming the victims, and accept that anyone one of us could rely on the social security system after personal misfortune.
Jeremy said he was disgusted at the language used about immigration at the last election. If there is a housing shortage, it is because we fail to build enough housing – it is not because of immigration. Likewise for all struggling public services starved of investment. Jeremy emphasised that we must use inclusive language because that is how we build strong communities – and it is strong communities which can build the future prosperity we all need.
Jeremy then discussed some of his major policy positions - The Economy in 2020 lays out plans including a National Infrastructure Bank – to invest in rail, housing, and also sustainable energy and high tech jobs – this is how to build a strong economy rather than leaving everything to the private sector. It may sound like a radical socialist platform here in the UK, but it is viewed as entirely mainstream and sensible in other European countries like Germany where they invest far more than we do, and reap the economic benefits as a result.
On climate change he said we have cleaned up our air and water in the UK, but by effectively exporting pollution to other countries due to differing legislation across the world. We need to be part of a global movement to harmonise regulations and to combat climate change. Climate change affects all of us, not just the poorest in the world. The steps we can all take: consume less, save energy, preserve our environment – should not be viewed as those of an obscure interest group but must be mainstream, and part of everyone’s lives.
Jeremy described the major programme of council house building needed. This will be based on investment which creates jobs, provides a better environment for people to live in, and provides the security that is so often lacking in people’s lives in the UK today. In contrast to the post-crash consensus, he stated that we must accept state intervention in the market as the best way to achieve this.
He talked about the importance of education to society and individuals and proposed all free schools and academies should be brought back under LEA control, and that all teachers should be fully qualified. We all benefit from people’s education so why should we saddle young people with crippling levels of debt? Corbyn would increase our already-low corporation tax by 0.5% to pay for university fees and would stop the race to the bottom on taxation.
He finished by saying that this is wider than an internal election within the Labour Party – this is about challenging the consensus politics around economics, around foreign policy and so many other things – surely we can do better than that? We should be opening things up, whatever the result on September 12th, we should come together to discuss democracy in our society and the way forward. Politics within the Labour Party must come from the lived experience of ordinary people – we should be developing this now, not waiting until six months before the 2020 election.
Some questions in the Q&A section proved quite rambling and have been reduced here to a policy heading:
Why didn’t Labour challenge the myth of Labour overspending causing the crisis?
Jeremy answered that the Bank of England should be publicly-owned, publicly-run, and the main regulator for the financial system. Banks must work for us, not the other way round. He opposed the sale of shares in RBS, and the fact that those banks continued to sell buy-to-let mortgages and advice on tax avoidance after the bail-out. We should have used public ownership to invest in housing and industry, he says.
Do we need to give up our principles in order to win power?
Corbyn is quite adamant on this answer - no. Winning is about determination to achieve change. Even people living in very Tory areas will be old one day, we will all need social care, high quality medical treatment at some point. We must be bold enough to say that those with the deepest pockets should pay a bit more. We should be proud of the idea that we can unlock the talents of everybody. Be consistent and specific about what we want to achieve. Some will attack us, they always have – but remember the media is not as powerful as they once were. Newspaper sales are still shrinking; people get information from a much wider range of sources such as social media, which opens up new opportunities to challenge political narratives.
Corbyn talked about campaigning in Thanet before the election and said that when we get beyond the bile and nastiness targeting vulnerable minorities, and instead move on to the collective solutions to the problems, you start to engage with communities. Austerity is a political agenda designed to further entrench individualism and reduce the role of the community in providing services. This government wants a return not to the 1930s, but more like the 1830s.
Will you challenge the power of a monopolistic Tory press?
Jeremy supports the NUJ position of not allowing cross-ownership of print and broadcast media. He called on everyone to support the BBC as a public service broadcaster, for all its faults. We should develop a system which allows for plurality of local newspapers that are not owned by large conglomerates.
What will you do to achieve Party Unity?
Jeremy wryly said he recognises that many in the PLP have a very different view of the world than some of those in the room today. He would remind them that there have been 10s of thousands of people involved in the leadership debate and that it is much wider and more democratic than the old system of MPs electing leader. We must open the party outwards to the wider community and not turn inwards into an arcane discussion group; we need to widen the debate on economic, social and environmental policy direction to the membership. This is probably the most radical part of his agenda, and the one which strikes fear into the hearts of many in the PLP!
What do you have to say about Calais?
It is fundamentally a humanitarian crisis. The only solution is a Europe-wide response to a European crisis. We must stop using dehumanising language.
What should be done about local government cuts whilst we are in opposition?
Local Government must cooperate across Party lines to make the case for the vital nature of local services, not compete with each other for central government funding. Youth Services should be placed on a statutory footing to protect them from cuts.
ISIS and the Middle East
You don’t bring about democracy by bombing with a B52 from 30,000 feet. The only solution is a political one, the exclusion of Iran from the process by the UK and USA has exacerbated the problem in Syria. Not to say that it would be easy, our relationship with Iran is problematic and complicated but excluding them and relying on military action has made things worse. Peace through dialogue!
Counter-terrorism strategy
The “Prevent” strategy only targeting the Muslim community simply adds to division – we need to give everyone a stake in society and be inclusive, not drive people away and into the arms of extremism.
Nationalism
Wrapping yourself in a flag does not get houses or hospitals built, or raise children and pensioners out of poverty – it is important to challenge nationalism.
Education
It is vital to teach our young people about the history of democracy and how change has been achieved in the world: how we got the vote, how we got universal suffrage, how we got council housing etc. We need to teach that power lies with us all to build a stronger democracy. The best ideas come from below, not from top-down impositions.
Corbyn finished the lengthy Q&A in the packed (and now seriously sweaty) hall with this call to action:
“If we want to change our society, our Party, we need all new members and supporters to play a full part in creating a strong, vibrant, coherent democracy within the Labour party that will really help bring about the policy changes that will allow us to challenge the philosophy behind what this government is doing – attacking the poorest and most vulnerable, and destroying the life chances of those who work very hard.”
I have attended several Labour Party events in the last few years and have never seen such an enthusiastic and positive atmosphere – it was electrifying!
Image Credit
Dear Yvette,
Re: Leadership of the Labour Party
I read extracts of your interview with the Indy with some interest as, I think it's fair to say, your platform for Labour leadership is considered the 'lightest' among the contenders so far. No one is in any doubt what Liz Kendall stands for. Ditto Jeremy Corbyn. And last night on Newsnight, Andy finally put more flesh on the bones of his National Care Service idea. I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say he followed my advice, but it's stark that whereas your three opponents have defined themselves you are yet to do so. And that's a shame, because some big ideas are getting floated in the leadership election this time round, and you should be meeting like with like. If you win on the basis of being the least offensive to everyone you will be storing up future legitimation problems for your leadership.
Today's Indy interview goes a little bit of the way in setting out what you believe, but nowhere near far enough. Let's talk about Jeremy, seeing as everyone else is. You say:
Inevitably there is frustration and anger at the prospect of five more years of Tory government. It is really important we channel that anger into defeating the Tories. It is no use just shouting from the sidelines. It is no use being angry about the world. We have got to change the world.
I don’t think we want to go back to the 1980s and just be a protest movement ... Today’s four and five year-olds could have to spend their entire childhood under a Tory government if we are not determined and ready to win again.
That message isn't going to win over many Jez supporters now, especially when when the grating and the dud of the party's parliamentary/spad/journo establishment have articulated it in spectacularly panicky terms. And not being daft, you know this too. The only reasonable conclusion one can infer is that you're explicitly pitching for Liz's second preferences. Yet, as we know from Labour First's open letter to Progress, it seems some Liz supporters are bent on not lending their second preferences to either you or Andy. You've got to win them over rather than posing as a steady-as-she-goes default choice.
You do have some advantages here. From what I can gather, most Liz supporters see themselves as forward-thinking progressives. Tony Blair's silliness about the future being the only comfort zone is so much gibberish to some, but it chimes with how Blairites view their tendency. The left and the centre - which includes you and Andy - are yesterday's people. You fight shy of what they perceive as the real world and you offer little in the way of confronting and managing it in pursuit of economic efficiency and social justice, as they like to put it. Liz's platform, for instance, recommends itself to technocratic minds. Her plan to decentralise power, for example, is a good one that would keep the wonks and the geeks very happy. Her politics, however, have some very serious weaknesses that you do not share. There are breaches your campaign can step into.
The largest of these is 'the future'. In your Indy interview, you discuss the opportunities presented by Green industries and you rightly castigate the Tories for treating it them as green crap. Good. But you need to go further. If the future is to see a renaissance of British manufacturing you have to bang the drum hard for onshore and offshore wind, wave power, solar power and, to make sure it's Team Yvette that's future-tinged, perhaps say a few words about nuclear fusion research. You also have to set your face against fracking for pretty obvious reasons: more carbon emissions, landscape and property blight, overstated claims of a jobs bonanza. A plurality of the public are opposed, and not a few of them live in seats we need to win back in 2020. The Tories have left an open goal on this one, particularly as they favour fracking for short-termist reasons.
You are also the only candidate consistently talking about science, the digital revolution, and preparing the economy for jobs that don't even exist yet. As I'm sure you know, one of the biggest policy challenges coming is a new wave of automation. These could render redundant a number of low skilled, low waged, labour intensive jobs. More importantly it could sound the death knell for a great many office-based jobs too. As Paul Mason points out in his new book dealing with this topic (among other things), business as a whole is laying off investing in this way for the moment. When the market is more buoyant and the big savings become clearer, it's going to happen. This can be dealt with in one of two ways. Pretend it doesn't exist and hope that these jobs are replaced like-for-like by the expansion of other industries. That seems to be the Tories' course and, as the 1980s and the so-called "jobs miracle" since 2012/13 tells us, that is simply not going to happen. Or some far sighted leadership can be shown now, and you're in the best position to do this. Be warned though, it might involve thinking some properly unthinkable thoughts.
By stealing a march on these things you won't just win over Liz supporters; there are floating Andy and - yes - Jeremy supporters who might be inspired by what you have to say. You can show the Labour selectorate that you know what's coming and you're the only one who's thinking about those challenges. It also puts the Tories on the back foot because of their short sighted and reckless approach to managing the economy.
Look, my politics differ a lot from yours. However, I recognise that you have a lot of experience, have the thick skin a leader needs, and these qualities commend you both to the position of the Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister. You will not get to see either of those offices unless you start distinguishing yourself from the others, and certainly not by trash-talking Jeremy. What's it to be?
Yours sincerely,
Phil
We've had the leadership hustings, but what about the other contest running in parallel? Who will deputise for the leader and take the party by the scruff of its neck? It's going to be Ben Bradshaw. Or Angela Eagle. Or Stella Creasy. Or Caroline Flint. Or Tom Watson. Like the preceding hustings the format was identical, so there's little reason to style this write up differently.
How would you like to improve the job prospects of the young?
SC: We've got to get the deficit down because of all the interest payments going to the bankers. But we do need to adopt a different approach, one that emphasises house building, jobs growth, and putting money into people's pockets.
AE: We must invest more in young people and work against insecure jobs and zero hour contracts. We also have to attack the Tories for their false economies, such as their willingness to cut preventative health care programmes.
BB: We have to grow the number of well-paid jobs, and we can do this by investing in infrastructure, developing a dedicated industrial strategy, and also keep up the investment when the economy is strong. We also have to tackle the productivity challenge - we saw output grow under Labour but it has declined under the Tories.
TW: We used to make things here in the West Midlands, and hi-tech and green industries offer an opportunity to rebuild our manufacturing base. We should also set up regional investment banks.
CF: Labour has to be credible on the economy, and on this point we were too unclear to voters. We need to have something we can offer small and medium-sized enterprises to help create good jobs. It's also appalling that too many kids are leaving school without the education we need.
Should Labour review its links with the trade unions?
AE: I'm proud of our links - the unions gave birth to our party and keep us connected to people's workplaces. Too many are treated badly at work, and so democracy should be something more than what we do every five years. The unions are part of our soul.
BB: Labour needs to mend, not end its relationship with the unions. We have to make the case for union membership, and work to build them up in the private sector and new economy.
TW: Organised labour is under attack, be it on political funding or the democratic right to withdraw your labour. The unions have stuck with us through difficult times, and we need to stick by them now and show our solidarity.
CF: I'm proud of being a trade unionist and we shouldn't be cowed by the Tories. We've got to reach out to recruit as well as reach into the union membership and find out why many of them didn't vote for us.
SC: Unions have made a difference and I'm very proud to have worked with them on the campaign against legal loan sharking and women's rights.
Which previous deputy leader of our party was best, and why?
BB: All of the deputy leaders since I was elected in 1997 have been great. It's a tough job keeping the party together and delivering difficult advice to the leader. At the moment Harriet is doing well taking the fight to the Tories.
TW: I get compared to John Prescott the most, but I am also very proud of Roy Hattersley and the role he played holding the party together in the 1980s. Also I would pay tribute to the calm, cerebral qualities of Margaret Beckett.
CF: All had their own talents, but I would have to pick Harriet. She has twice stood up and performed her duties in very difficult times for out party.
SC: I've always had a soft spot for John Prescott, and he is backing my campaign. Like John, a deputy has to work with and encourage the grassroots, but do that with a modern twist.
AE: Margaret Beckett is backing me. When John Smith passed away she stood up and made a moving tribute to him. She was our first woman leader, and the job of the deputy is to be loyal to our leader.
What issues are important to women?
TW: They are the same issues they have always been: fair pay, education, childcare, affordable homes. The attacks on in-work benefits are going to hit women more.
CF: Women and men tend to be affected by the same issues, but we do need to find better ways of talking to women especially about them. This is something I have a great deal of experience doing.
SC: I am a proud feminist and a proud socialist. Why is it that childcare is still seen as a women's issue? Also, two women a week are killed by domestic violence - if that was happening on the football terraces there's be uproar. And we need to get more women involved in our party.
AE: We've got to work at supporting women in our party structures. If women can't be heard then our party has to be their voice.
BB: I think everyone here is worried about these issues. For example, how cuts to tax credits will impact families. We also have to look at how we do politics and I think we would do better if we moved to a more encouraging, more feminine politics.
What does Labour need to do to take votes back from UKIP and the Greens?
CF: We increased our vote in my constituency and ensured UKIP came in third place. We had more open ended conversations with voters and ran target campaigns. For instance, we found and named and shamed bad employers, and from there we were able to address voters' other concerns.
SC: Those parties told a powerful story of who is to blame and who will defend the people from them. To win, we have to build on the work our councils are doing. We need to champion people trapped in renting, offer a strong house-building plan and offer some real answers to the difficulties faced by the young.
AE: Since 1992 we gave double our majority in my constituency and we've done this by having conversations and confronting people's worries. We have been able to overcome the lure of anti-politics by being seen about in the constituency and accessible to anyone who wants to get in touch.
BB: We need to have credible policies on immigration and welfare but not use UKIP's rhetoric. We also have to be green and combine that with our broad appeal. But we must remember that four out of the five voters we needed to convince supported the Conservatives. That has to be the main focus of our challenge.
TW: UKIP is an 'irrational vote'. I recently talked to a group of UKIP voters and one of them told me we should microchip immigrants so we can keep track. We have to be willing to listen to those opinions so we can build a response to them. And the way we can win UKIP voters back is by encouraging and strengthening our community focused councillors.
How can we make sure the environment is back on the mainstream political agenda?
SC: This is an issue for Labour in Europe. Only through collaboration across borders can we make progress on climate targets. But we have to make the case for showing a strong relationship between the environment and local politics, this is the only way scepticism can be overcome.
AE: We do have to deal with climate change together as a group of nations, but progress has stalled since the Kyoto Protocols. But the potential opportunity for social change here is huge. To meet the targets and prevent environmental catastrophe means we could be on the cusp of a great transformation of our politica because we need to work together.
BB: We need to talk about environmental justice as well as social justice, but we should be proud of our record - we were the greenest government ever. The Tories' moratorium on onshore wind robs us of cheap renewable energy and that will be passed onto bills. We also need to reach out to the activist work done by NGOs around this and celebrate them.
TW: We need to restate our commitment to international institutions while here we have to invest in industrial diversification and adaptation, which will help create thousands of new jobs. Green issues are the most important area of policy today.
CF: It's important to talk about the threats but we must discuss the opportunities too. By aligning climate change mitigation with job opportunities, we can make it matter to many and reach out to them.
How should we appeal to older people?
AE: We didn't have enough policies that older voters found attractive. We must ensure that people feel secure in their retirement, but also that it is a retirement that is active, supported by free travel, and social care must become an top priority.
BB: They didn't trust us on the economy and believed there was a deficit when it came to leadership. We also need to challenge this notion of 'selfish OAPs', they often vote the way they do out of what is best for their families. We need to sound credible across different age groups.
TW: Too many older people live a lonely life, and that is something we need to think about and tackle. Our party also has to get into and be part of their social networks. I also think they were alienated by the cult of youth we have on the front benches.
CF: As you get older you're more likely to vote because wider issues matter to you more and more. That is why social care now is a massive issue and it's something we need a credible position on. We also have to realise that the age of deference has gone and adjust accordingly.
SC: We should not accept the Tory logic of winners and losers. Older people are parents and we should starting thinking of them as such - this way we can make a pitch for solidarity rather than trading off.
In their summing ups, Stella said that for us to win we have to start fighting back now and keep up the pressure. But this is something the whole party can do - we have to make sure we're visible in all manner of grassroots campaigns and use the new techniques available to us. Angela said she never wanted an exit poll moment like that exit poll moment again. We have to ensure our campaigning is better connected and give our members more of a say. She said she's a straight talker, and will always be the members' deputy. Ben said he was the candidate for the tough challenge of prising voters off the Tories. His experience in Exeter, which was once a safe Tory seat and is now a safe Labour seat, means he's suited to this job. He also said he would not fear telling the leader hard truths. He has no agenda and can work with any of the leadership candidates, and that 'Labour', 'loyal', and 'winning' are the only labels he would accept. Tom said that the hardest truth is knowing that it's always our fault when we lose. What we say, what we do, and what we don't always matters. We have lost touch with the people we should be representing - our people who voted UKIP did so because they were voting against us. But we can win again if that connection is rebuilt. And lastly, Caroline talked about her background as the child of an alcoholic single mum who used university to escape her past, and was then a mum of two kids by the time she was in her mid-20s. She has had real life experiences and this has fired her as a campaigner, constituency MP, communicator, and policy originator. We need a real community movement, and her experience makes her very well placed to lead it.
Once again, I was only able to capture the substance of what was said. But overall all the candidates were well received by the audience. There was little in the way of polemical shadow boxing between the contenders. I think the winners on the day was a tie between Ben Bradshaw and Caroline Flint. Ben came across as polished but genuine, and Caroline as tough and straight-to-the-point. Their closing pitches, which is hardly conveyed by their rendering here, were among two of the best I have ever seen anywhere. Some might say they were better than any so far seen in the leadership campaign proper. So kudos to them for that. Angela was perhaps the most ill-at-ease of the five, what she said was good but, tellingly, she made her way to the podium and read her closing remarks out whereas her opponents had memorised theirs. Tom was Tom - he was assured, charismatic, and clearly felt relaxed performing on his home turf. And Stella came across very enthusiastically, if not a bit too earnest. In all I think all the candidates did well.
Dare I tempt fate again and perhaps jinx a candidate by making a prediction? I'm going with the bookies favourite, Tom Watson. His candidature is a real unifier. I know people on the left who are supporting him, and likewise people on the right. What he conveyed was an understanding of the kind of beast the Labour party is and what needs to be done to get the organisation fired up and sorted out. I'm afraid Caroline and Ben are likely to split the difference when it comes to what you might describe as the 'Progress vote', though I think Ben particularly does have something very interesting to say about the Tories and how we can beat them. Stella, of course, has a high profile and also has that cross-wing appeal Tom has, except he's been around for longer. And Angela stands to scoop up the remainder of the vote of those people who are anti-Tom (they do exist), aren't particularly enamored of the New Labour right, and think Stella is too new. Unfortunately, that's not a terribly large vote pool.
Yet, again, all could change. Events and all that, and there's still a long summer to get through.
