LENIN'S TOMB

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Mayor debate posted by Richard Seymour

The organisers of tonight's mayoral debate, London Citizens, took it upon themselves to vocalise #whatlondonwants. That is, as a civil society organisation rooted in the churches, synagogues, mosques, community groups, trade unions and so on, it drafted a moderate agenda for very mild and temperate social reform, and put this to four of the mayoral candidates: Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone, Jenny Jones and Brian Paddick. The agenda included things like community land trusts and cracking down on dodgy landlords, extension of the living wage, more power and money for civil society groups like London Citizens (this is called better government), safer streets, jobs for young people, and so on.

The actual debate was surrounded by much adornment and ballyhoo. A school choir singing "Lean on Me" while the audience clapped. Many upbeat preacher types exhorting the accomplishments of community and the power of positive attitudes. Headteacher types treating the audience like a school assembly. Children summoning all their courage to mumble their scripted words. "Community leaders" aplenty - a slimy phrase which I detest. I thought to myself: what this event really needs is some corrosive cynicism.

Of genuine interest, however, were testimonials from campaigners and workers, relating stories about a side of London that seemed to make Boris Johnson's head slowly sink forward into his big fat-fingered hands as if to be cradled to a gentle sleep. The most shocking example was of cleaning workers in Hilton hotels, overworked, given no overtime remuneration, and payed such a miserable sum that after rent and utility bills they have only £7 a day to spend on essentials. In London, that's an impossibly small sum. You might want to bear that name in mind: don't caught in a bad hotel.

A few points about the main debate, then. First, quickly, it was only out of politeness that Brian Paddick was actually invited. He's a nice enough fellow for an ex-copper, and he's sporting some very sexy new glasses. And I thought to myself, I thought: "blimey, Brian, you ain't as ugly as I thought". And he even has some policies that aren't complete dogshit. But he's a Liberal, ergo he's a dead man walking. And he didn't do anything to improve his chances. If Jenny Jones wasn't such a repellent candidate for the Greens (more in a momen), they would easily take third position. Aside from anything else, Paddick is far too fond of cliche phrases along the lines of: "not just once a year, but 365 days a year", "taking this forward", "passionate about London ... passionate about people", "same old punch and judy politics". And I thought to myself, I thought: it's lucky Siobhan Benita isn't here as she would have nothing left to say. Which just goes to show, Brian Paddick is not a natural politician. He would be far happier giving up all this lark, growing his hair a bit longer and living with some scrumping hippies in the West Country.

Second, this was a naturally Labour audience. It always is. The organisers make a point of being polite to the point of obsequious to all the candidates, and this ensures a warm reception for everyone. This was true during the general election, when Clegg and Cameron were both feted with every sign of being returning footballers holding aloft a shiny new cup. Yet, despite this, you may recall, Gordon Brown carried the event on a wave of euphoria, and had one of his few real moments during that campaign (because he sounded briefly and vaguely like a Labour person). So, it's Labour territory. This was Ken's to lose; and, he didn't lose it. His fares policy was extremely popular, but not as much as his pledge to restore the EMA for London students. The latter, I would think, he should probably be making more of. His housing policy is pretty bland and not that distinguishable from his rivals. On the police, he hasn't changed his schtick - he's about getting Londoners and coppers 'on the same side again', and putting more officers on the beat. Soft on police crime; soft on the causes of police crime. But it was mainly on issues of national significance that he pulled ahead of his rivals. He beat on the government's public spending cuts, and said that as the economy had just tipped into recession it was obvious they'd taken the wrong course. (Well, they don't think so). He also hammered the bankers, and said that the problem was fundamentally about how they and their greed had been allowed to set the tone in politics and industry for a generation or so. This was all very popular. So, I think he was the de facto London Citizens candidate. And I think he will push Johnson very close in this race.

Third, Boris Johnson confirmed every thesis I have advanced about his campaign, which makes me even cleverer, if that is possible, even cleverer than you imagined me to be. First of all, Johnson wanted nothing to do with being a Tory. He did not once rise to defend Tory ideas. The only whiff of it was when he gently patronised the audience over the call for youth jobs, by saying: "I don't want to create 100,000 new jobs if there aren't young people out there with the skills and the aptitude to do them". But this was small beer when he wouldn't even defend public spending cuts - far from it! When his chance came, he rose to echo Ken Livingstone in saying that, of course, Mr Obama was absolutely right and one should never cut public spending in a recession. He then went on to list his various investments. Then there was the dog that didn't bark. You see, when faced with a simultaneous campaign to impose a Living Wage and create jobs, the Tory's instinctive response is to say, "no, you create jobs by cutting wages. You can have high wages and high unemployment, or low wages and low unemployment. But you can't have high wages and low unemployment, by the power vested in me by hidden hand of the free market." Boris? He was all for the living wage, all for more jobs, all for everything the London Citizens wanted. And, well, if he was inconsistent or coy, he is such a skilled gaffeur that he could amiably bumble and bluster his way out of tight spots. He didn't even raise an eyebrow when he said he would put Ray Lewis - yes, Ray bonkers Lewis - in charge of the Living Wage. Now, of course, it's true that Boris was addressing a Labour audience. But this hesitancy to come out as a Thatcherite, the unwillingness to be seen dead near the government's policies, the desire to come through this without bearing any of the stigma of actually being a Tory, is indicative of what he's about. Boris Johnson wants to lead the Conservative Party. Moreover, his willingness to publicly bash government policy - such as the granny tax - shows that he is unafraid of anything his old friend Cameron might do to him. He knows the leadership is weak.

Finally, and apologies for the slight change of tone, but just who the fuck does Jenny Jones think she is? If you want to patronise and berate people, probably you shouldn't stand for election. If you don't like the sound of other people's voices, maybe just go stand in a corner. Of course, this will sound harsh. But when I tell you that, first of all, she was boring - very boring - you will begin to see my point. And patronising. She patronised the audience not just on the detail of policy, but in every nuance of her tone. Like Brian Paddick, she had a few policies one wouldn't completely turn one's nose up at, but I got the feeling she was there mainly to heighten her profile in the GLA and shore up Ken for a future working relationship. And when she opposed the idea - advanced by London Citizens - of free transport for students, she did so in a tone of voice that was rather like mummy saying 'you can't have that, but it's for your own good'. She explained that her opposition was partially on the grounds of environmentalism, which strikes me as both dishonest and reflecting the worst elements of green anti-consumerism. After all, it isn't as if most students have any choice but to use public transport - all keeping these punitive fares does is ensure that they spend more of their money on the necessary commutes, and less on things they need. Then, when booed for this policy, she chastised the audience "no, you're not allowed to boo me, they [the organizers] said so". Not a joke, this - complete poker-face all the way through. Yes, it's true that the organizers had proscribed booing, but a) this is a pretty risible, pettifogging prohibition at a political debate, and b) if you're a politician and you get an audience this friendly booing, blame yourself. You fuckwit. Jenny Jones lost votes tonight. And if this is her form, which I believe it is, she's a terrible candidate.

So there you are, London. Your choice. You lucky, lucky city.

Labels: boris johnson, green party, ken livingstone, labour, london, tories

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Ireland's left breakthrough posted by Richard Seymour

Looks like the United Left Alliance has made a breakthrough in the Irish elections gaining three confirmed seats, with two pending. The formerly ruling Fianna Fail had its first preference votes slashed by 24%, with the surplus distributed among Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Fein. The Greens got less than 2% of first preference votes and lost all their seats (I hope the Liberals are taking note). Here's the analysis:

Voters have given the main Irish bosses' party a drubbing in the country’s general election. And the radical left has made a breakthrough, getting at least three TDs elected, with more results to come.

The biggest shift is the slump in support for the Fianna Fáil. Its share of the vote fell to less than 15 percent nationally – compared to 42 percent in the 2007 election.

This is the worst ever defeat for the party that has dominated Irish politics since independence from Britain in 1921 and that has been in power since 1997.

Fianna Fáil’s support in Dublin stood at less than 8 percent. They went from 13 to 1 TD in the capital. This is from a party that historically had 100,000 members when the country’s population was 3.5 million. It previously would have expected to get 40 percent of working class votes. Political dynasties that have controlled constituencies for decades are gone and places that have returned Fianna Fáil TDs (MPs) since the 1920s are now looking elsewhere.

The Irish Green Party, which had slavishly propped up the Fianna Fáil government in coalition, was decimated at the polls and now has no member in parliament.

The Irish Labour Party vote rose massively. But its determined lack of radicalism means that it will not look to use that vote to campaign against austerity. Instead, it is likely to go into coalition with the bosses’ second preference party Fine Gael. Sinn Fein gained and looked set to be the biggest opposition party after getting around 18 percent of the vote.

The radical left made a significant breakthrough with the candidates who are part of the United Left Alliance.

Newly elected TDs in the Alliance include Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party, Clare Daly of the Socialist Party, and Seamus Healy of the Tipperary Unemployed and Works Action Group.

Richard Boyd Barrett for the People before Profit Alliance and Joan Collins of the People before Profit Alliance and could both be elected, as the counting continues. Other members of the United Left Alliance polled strongly but are unlikely to win a seat.

The vote was so close in Richard Boyd Barrett’s Dún Laoghaire constituency that a recount has been called for tomorrow.

And here's the essential background.

Labels: bankers, fianna fail, finance capital, fine gael, green party, housing, ireland, labour, neoliberalism, recession, sinn fein, united left alliance

Friday, July 24, 2009

Labour's crushing defeat posted by Richard Seymour

In 2005, Ian Gibson won Norwich North for Labour with over 21,000 votes. Today, in a bye-election resulting from Gibson's resignation over the expenses scandal, Chris Ostrowski lost it for Labour with a pathetic 6,000 votes, approx. That means Labour shed more than two-thirds of its vote. The Tories are down 2,000 votes on their 2005 level, but won the seat because the collapse of the left vote. The Greens put on two thousand votes, but one would have expected them to do much better - and UKIP outdid them, adding about three thousand votes to their previous tally. Craig Murray probably didn't expect much better, but at least he beat the BNP. On this basis, the 2010 general election will see a Tory landslide and surge for other right-wing parties, including possibly the fascists.

It's all too easy to blame this on Gordon Brown's outstanding inadequacy, the MPs expenses scandal, and Blairite plotting. These are all important factors, and the vapidity of challenges to Brown - James Purnell, of all people - can't inspire Labour voters with much hope of seeing a change in the future. But the collapse of social democracy is not a specifically British phenomenon, as the results from the recent Euro elections demonstrate. That was a continental cull that spared only a few forces to the left of social democracy. Nor is it recent. The decline in party identification is long-term, and the principle reason is that these parties have largely succumbed to neoliberal policies that accelerate inequality, undermine the unionised public sector from where many of their votes come, and erode the income and working conditions of their core supporters. The Labour Party has dealt with this by trying to construct a new electoral coalition that includes sectors of the middle class and the rich, and it was this coalition that once made New Labour seem so indomitable. Their ideological catchphrases were aspiration and enterprise. They courted a culture of conspicuous consumption. But this was based on unsustainable private sector borrowing, and soaring house prices. With the 'credit crunch' and ensuing recession, New Labour no longer looks as if it can meet the aspirations it has volubly acclaimed.

There is an obvious question, though: why don't left-wing voters turn out in greater number to back preferred alternatives? So far, disaffection with New Labour is producing passivity and disengagement rather than electoral insurgency. I can only think it is related to the absence of a general mobilisation against job losses in this recession. Despite very brave stands in particular localised settings against job losses, despite the militancy of the construction workers, these have not yet become part of a mass movement. This could change very quickly when the axe falls on the heavily unionised public sector, but neither the government nor the union leaders want a fight on this territory before the election. The left is right to assume that any one of the struggles going on now, over Vestas for example, could be a trigger for a much wider revolt. But institutional factors don't favour it at the moment.

Aside from this, there is a sort of cultural production of passivity. The reification of socially produced institutions is such that, in the news spectacle, we experience them as almost god-like forces controlling our lives without reason or accountability. There's a surge on the Dow Jones today - phew! - and then it collapses. Asian markets are up - fingers crossed - and then they're down again. GDP figures are falling less rapidly than before, then we learn that it's a false dawn. Investors are confident, then they're fleeing in droves. Our future seems to depend on forces beyond our ability to understand them, much less control them. One of the great challenges in trying to rouse resistance to the loss of jobs and livelihoods is that the very idea of ‘resisting the recession’ can seem incoherent in light of its spectacular autonomy. I assume that this is a powerful factor where working class organisation is weakest, although that ain't necessarily so.

Your diagnoses, correctives, complaints and grievances in the comments thread, please.

Labels: bnp, david cameron, elections, gordon brown, green party, neoliberalism, new labour, socialism, tories, ukip

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

No2U2 posted by Richard Seymour

I don't know about you, but I've had quite enough of positive politics. I have endured as much looking forward and not back as I can stomach. And if I have another bite of change I can believe in, my vital organs will rise up in mutiny and have it out with the host in an orgiastic gorefest that will make 300 look like a children's party. As to the whole business of positivity, forwardlookingness and changiness, you can keep it. Do what you like with it. Fuck it with a prize-winning turnip and put it on Youtube for all I care. Just don't bother me with it. This is by way of saying that when you vote in the European elections this Thursday, it should be on a negative, awkward, and obstructionist basis. It should be a vote designed to delay, sandbag, stonewall, frustrate, hamstring and bloody well barricade. No to the EU, no to neoliberalism, no to the fash - this our troika. No offense to the excellent antifascists at Searchlight, but I am tempted to raise the slogan: "Hate not Hope".

Recent polls [pdf] have shown that parties collectively designated 'Other' have a historically high combined vote of 21%. Worryingly, the BNP have the support of about 5% [pdf] of voters, although this is reduced if you count only those certain to vote. This represents a state of flux and fragmentation in the base of the main parties, so there is a good chance of improving representation for the left. For that reason, I have been perusing the array of possibilities for left-wing voters. There is, of course, No2EU, supported by the RMT, the Socialist Party, and the Respect Party. Though I fundamentally disagree with their stance on migrant labour and their bewilderingly polyannaish approach to the 'British Jobs for British Workers' strikes, they are doing their best within the terms of a flawed argument. They defend public services, oppose the Lisbon Treaty, defend workers' rights, oppose racism against asylum seekers and Muslims, and have daringly chosen Bob Crow - one of the most demonised figures in British politics - as their figurehead. They may as well have picked Abu Hamza. For sheer chutzpah, I like it. There is just one problem - they have about as much chance as an ex-choirboy in a Roman Catholic seminary that has recently appointed Father 'Fingers' O'Flahertie as its dean and has as its slogan 'We come in all shapes and sizes'. I don't just mean that they won't get a sizeable enough vote to make that 'no' loud enough. I mean that they are obviously not a durable coalition and therefore it might even be cruel to encourage them with your meagre gesture of support. Still, a vote for them is a vote for the left, and my understanding is that in some cases the PR system is such that any vote for a small party will help thwart the BNP. [Not in the vast majority of cases, though. As it turns out, a vote for No2EU will probably split the left vote in the last round and thus give the BNP a seat - see the comments thread].

Then there is the Green Party. They are reasonably big-hitters in the polls, and are the main left-of-centre party to benefit from the accumulated disaffection and polarisation brought about by the recession and the recent parliamentary scandals. Yougov polls usually give them between 4 and 6% of the vote, although some ComRes polls give them over ten percent and, though I can't vouch for this, the Greens are claiming that a new poll to be released tomorrow will give them 15% and place them ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, they do have a rather unpleasant liberal leadership, and they dabble in appallingly pious and vacuous rhetoric. (They are, apparently, "the only party bold enough to set out a positive vision". I hope I am not the only party bold enough to jab two fingers in that vision.) But still, give them their due: their call for a 'Green New Deal', with increased public investment and low-cost housing, isn't at all bad. They are opposed to neoliberalism and propose to boost the welfare state with a citizens' income, precisely the opposite of the current trajectory. They propose to revise the posted workers' directive so that it doesn't undermine national pay and conditions agreements, oppose the UK's opt-out from the working time directive, and generally favour workers' rights. And unlike other European Green parties, they haven't yet descended into humanitarian imperialism. By no means as traditionally left-wing as No2EU, they're still a decent 'no' vote.

The last chance saloon is, of course, New Labour. They are going to be destroyed and, to be frank, they deserve it. As cynical as they are contemptible, as weak as they are nasty, they represent the nadir of British reformism. You really have to be in a desperate position if you're going to throw your vote at this miserable shower. You'd have to be stuck with a choice between them, UKIP, the BNP, and the Tories. And imagine how dirty you're going to feel after rewarding this pathetic tribe of Third Way sycophants. If they're the only way to keep out the far right, then by all means give your vote to the most right-wing component of the Party of European Socialists. But that is like paying off a protection racket, impoverishing yourself to forestall grievous bodily harm. So if you have to do that, please remember how it felt, and redouble your efforts toward ensuring that you are never left with a choice like that again.

Well, that's it as far as I can see. Those are your options. And even as you prepare to vote 'no', remember that for the European Union 'no' means 'yes' until they're forced to see things differently. Your vote matters, but it matters less than what you do about it afterwards.

Labels: bnp scum, elections, eu treaty, european left, european union, green party, new labour, tories, ukip