This, apparently, is the Labour government's biggest crisis. The unfolding details of the murkily declared donations made by David Abrahams to various party high-ups are apparently going to deal Gordon Brown the sort of telling blows from which he will never recover. Funny that, I'd have thought deceiving the country into a senseless conflict in the Middle East in which hundreds of thousands have died might constitute a slightly more grisly lowpoint, but what do I know? I don't live in the Westminster Village.
Let's have some perspective: compared to the sleaze of the Tory years, and to many of the hideous wrong turns on actual social and economic policy of the past 10 years, the past week's shenanigans are small beer. But that doesn't mean they're not serious, and not an indictment of the way the party's higher echelons conduct themselves - they are, and they don't stem from mere individual oversights or misdeeds. They stem directly from the systemic political culture of New Labour, which revolves around the unquestioning, quasi-adolescent worship of rich, powerful people and the downplaying/ignoring of ordinary members' collective concerns.
Yet in picking through the mess and offering possible ways out, we need to be careful what we wish for. And we can always trust the Blairs and Browns of this world to draw the least desirable, least logical conclusions. Yup, Gordy's response to the problem of unaccountable, undeclared donations from private individuals is to crack down on declared donations from accountable, public organisations - trade unions.
You don't have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to see an agenda at work here, both from the ultra-Blairite right of the Labour party and the Tories, to use the current problems to attack the party's most transparent and consistent source of political and financial support. Now there's plenty of criticisms to be made of how the union-Labour link works (chiefly, to my mind, about the lack of accountability of union leaderships towards their own members over how they intervene in Labour politics, granting the party leadership the licence to do what it wants without any real mandate from their members - such as at the party conference democracy-shredding fiasco this year), but union support for Labour cannot be equated with Ecclestone/Abrahams-esque donations, reflecting as it does the aggregated contributions of trade unionists who opt to pay into affiliated political funds. Let's see businesses that back the Tories - or Labour for that mattter - ballot their shareholders in the same way.
Cynics may argue - understandably, to an extent - that the union-Labour link now delivers so little that what's the harm in breaking it alltogether? But let's not be deluded - an ending of the link would enable the party to charge even further rightwards completely unconstrained. Don't think New Labour can't go any further right - they can, and will. It would also be a gift to the Tories, which is why they're braying on the sidelines in support of such a development.
The other, equally ill-advised, option being given an unwelcome airing at present is state funding for political parties - again, in some quarters, because it would weaken the union link. An awful lot of constitutional liberals and policy nerds have embraced this one, but I can think of few more counterproductive and stupid solutions to our current political malaise.
To steal the language of the right for a minute, politics is a marketplace of ideas. If you can't survive in that market you've no God-given right to exist. If political parties can't generate a big enough membership and support base to sustain themselves - because they've become unaccountable and unrepresentative - then they've got something of a nerve to then ask the taxpayers (those very taxpayers who are voting with their feet by not joining, or leaving, political parties) to bail them out. Tax income should fund the machinery of the state, but the parties have to be independent, standing on their own two feet. Give them equal access to mailshots, and broadcast airtime, sure, but state funding would weaken their relationship with their members and, ultimately, their accountability to the wider public. Members of parties get a vote on how they are run (at least in theory); what sort of say would taxpayer-contributors get? It's a form of taxation without representation. State funding perpetuates the idea of politics as a spectator sport, paid for by the public but never played in by them.
Of course, we should acknowledge that the era of high-spending, low-participation politics produces lots of unsquared circles and the age of the Mass Party may be behind us, for now. But the way to restore faith and involvement in political parties and organisations begins at the bottom - more accountability, more inclusive forms of democracy and, we should be honest, less tribalism. But so much of the frenzied discussions of recent days could end in a bad situation being made even worse.
Monday 3 December 2007
Tuesday 20 November 2007
The politics of non-politics
In the early days of New Labour, the leadership's approach was in many ways to attach itself visibly to "taboo-breaking" rightwing policies, in an almost shock-jock fashion. A calculated "fuck you" to the left, aimed squarely at the centre-right gallery. Remember, for example, how pleased with himself Tony Blair sounded when, way back in 1994, he defended his much-publicised decision to send his son to an opted-out school - as a defiant refusal to bow to the forces of "political correctness". They did this sort of thing a lot back then - on crime, immigration, welfare and others.
In their deeds, of course, Blair-Brownites still do, but the words seem different now. Softer, more asinine, more meaningless. This is largely because so many of the actual policies on which they initially prided themselves have proven not to be popular - and not just among the left. There's no populist enthusiasm in the country for PFI or the foreign policy disasters of the past decade, or even ID cards, so it's best simply not to mention them (while silently acqueiescing in their implementation. Dog-whistling on immigration isn't worth much either (aside from its rank immorality) as the Tories do that sort of ugly stuff with so much more conviction. Always have.
So the tack's been different in the late Blair/early Brown era. If you want to get on politically now, the best tactic is simply not to mention politics at all. This 'politics of anti-politics' was a notable feature of the recent parliamentary candidate selection campaign in my local CLP where, with only the occasional exception, the (many) contenders tended to shy away from airing specific opinions on the government policies they might actually have to vote on if they got the job.
Instead the emphasis was very much on being nice to children and animals, motherhood and applie pie, jumble sales and tea stalls, on a waffly "working for the community". Which is all well and good - you catch more flies with honey and all that, and this "community activism" can indeed be an approachable, imaginative and pleasant way of engaging people in politics and civic life in general. But aspects of how this approach is used trouble me a bit.
For one, there sometimes appears to be an implicit positioning of "community activism" as something separate from "politics". This is a false distinction. The instincts that lead people to set up charities, support local libraries and run family fun days are or should be the same that cause us to protest about wars or go on strike. It's all politics, and the key is striking a balance between the micro and the macro - and making the links between the two.
And I can't help detecting a bit of a New Labour ruse in drawing implicit unfavourable comparisons between this sort of community stuff ("good, worthy, in touch with the community") and wider political - and sometimes, inevitably, oppositional - campaigning ("unrepresentative, nerdy ranters in draughty meeting rooms above pubs") as if they're completely different things. They're not. And we shouldn't fall for it, and let ourselves be portrayed in this light.
But the politics of non-politics reflects something else - an emotionally brittle, infantilised fear of honest discussion and disagreement, the idea that any difference of opinion constitutes "a damaging split", that no one - the electorate, political party members, the media - can cope with people getting things out in the open. And it serves to marginalise, confuse and make people feel powerless. Because the people who actually do hold power have an only too pronounced sense of the politics they want. And the issue-dodging that characterises non-political campaigning gives them a clearer run.
People can actually cope with political disagreement. I once had a furious drunken row about Blair with one of my best mates' dad at a New Year party, which culminated in him calling me a dickhead, and me giving almost as good as I got back. Some of the others present, unaccustomed to such robust exchanges of views on public matters, were somewhat taken aback - assuming a boundaries-breaching breakdown of cordial relations - but the next day there wasn't an ounce of recrimination or lost respect between us. We still got on fine, and still do. Funnily enough, while history has absolved me on the arguments I made about Blair that New Year more than a decade ago, only one of us is in the Labour party now - and it ain't him.
In their deeds, of course, Blair-Brownites still do, but the words seem different now. Softer, more asinine, more meaningless. This is largely because so many of the actual policies on which they initially prided themselves have proven not to be popular - and not just among the left. There's no populist enthusiasm in the country for PFI or the foreign policy disasters of the past decade, or even ID cards, so it's best simply not to mention them (while silently acqueiescing in their implementation. Dog-whistling on immigration isn't worth much either (aside from its rank immorality) as the Tories do that sort of ugly stuff with so much more conviction. Always have.
So the tack's been different in the late Blair/early Brown era. If you want to get on politically now, the best tactic is simply not to mention politics at all. This 'politics of anti-politics' was a notable feature of the recent parliamentary candidate selection campaign in my local CLP where, with only the occasional exception, the (many) contenders tended to shy away from airing specific opinions on the government policies they might actually have to vote on if they got the job.
Instead the emphasis was very much on being nice to children and animals, motherhood and applie pie, jumble sales and tea stalls, on a waffly "working for the community". Which is all well and good - you catch more flies with honey and all that, and this "community activism" can indeed be an approachable, imaginative and pleasant way of engaging people in politics and civic life in general. But aspects of how this approach is used trouble me a bit.
For one, there sometimes appears to be an implicit positioning of "community activism" as something separate from "politics". This is a false distinction. The instincts that lead people to set up charities, support local libraries and run family fun days are or should be the same that cause us to protest about wars or go on strike. It's all politics, and the key is striking a balance between the micro and the macro - and making the links between the two.
And I can't help detecting a bit of a New Labour ruse in drawing implicit unfavourable comparisons between this sort of community stuff ("good, worthy, in touch with the community") and wider political - and sometimes, inevitably, oppositional - campaigning ("unrepresentative, nerdy ranters in draughty meeting rooms above pubs") as if they're completely different things. They're not. And we shouldn't fall for it, and let ourselves be portrayed in this light.
But the politics of non-politics reflects something else - an emotionally brittle, infantilised fear of honest discussion and disagreement, the idea that any difference of opinion constitutes "a damaging split", that no one - the electorate, political party members, the media - can cope with people getting things out in the open. And it serves to marginalise, confuse and make people feel powerless. Because the people who actually do hold power have an only too pronounced sense of the politics they want. And the issue-dodging that characterises non-political campaigning gives them a clearer run.
People can actually cope with political disagreement. I once had a furious drunken row about Blair with one of my best mates' dad at a New Year party, which culminated in him calling me a dickhead, and me giving almost as good as I got back. Some of the others present, unaccustomed to such robust exchanges of views on public matters, were somewhat taken aback - assuming a boundaries-breaching breakdown of cordial relations - but the next day there wasn't an ounce of recrimination or lost respect between us. We still got on fine, and still do. Funnily enough, while history has absolved me on the arguments I made about Blair that New Year more than a decade ago, only one of us is in the Labour party now - and it ain't him.
Thursday 2 August 2007
The medium isn't the message
Will people ever calm down about the allegedly world-changing capacity of the internet? Well when I say "people" I really mean members of my own profession, many of whom seem to be gripped by a perpetually childlike wonder at every development in cyber-interactivity, while taking rather less notice of its actual substance. It's time we ditched both the techno-evangelism of the web's cheerleaders and the apocalyptic doom-mongering of those who think 'citizen journalism' will Destroy Our Noble Profession. Both exist in numbers within my own profession and union, and it's time for a sober perspective.
Especially as it's leading to a type of journalism that struggles to distinguish between woods and trees. Take this story in today's Guardian, or this one last week about the US and Democrat presidential contest. Yep, the apparently fascinating thing, even to an audience mostly fully conversant with their way around the web, is that it's taking place on the internet. Well fuck me ragged. The world stops on its axis. The fact that the actual content of these online debates offers little evidence that the US's domestic politics, or anywhere else's, is becoming any more representative, any more relevant, any more radical as a result of these technological advances doesn't seem to matter. That establishment politicians are merely trotting out their same old tired old trials and triangulations in an extra medium seems no longer to matter to the besotted technophiles.
The internet is a useful tool - politically, socially and personally (I've learnt a lot from some of the forums listed on this blog, and met some thoroughly decent people), but it's precisely that - a tool. A means, not an end. Sometimes it seems people forget that.
Especially as it's leading to a type of journalism that struggles to distinguish between woods and trees. Take this story in today's Guardian, or this one last week about the US and Democrat presidential contest. Yep, the apparently fascinating thing, even to an audience mostly fully conversant with their way around the web, is that it's taking place on the internet. Well fuck me ragged. The world stops on its axis. The fact that the actual content of these online debates offers little evidence that the US's domestic politics, or anywhere else's, is becoming any more representative, any more relevant, any more radical as a result of these technological advances doesn't seem to matter. That establishment politicians are merely trotting out their same old tired old trials and triangulations in an extra medium seems no longer to matter to the besotted technophiles.
The internet is a useful tool - politically, socially and personally (I've learnt a lot from some of the forums listed on this blog, and met some thoroughly decent people), but it's precisely that - a tool. A means, not an end. Sometimes it seems people forget that.
Wednesday 11 July 2007
Saloon bar socialism in NY
I'm not one for kneejerk anti-Americanism (much overused and misused though that word is) but I never imagined that I'de be out-leftied in a casual pub discussion in the Goddamn United States of America, but in Rocky Sullivan's, a down-at-heel Irish boozer in Central Manhattan, I found possibly the most resolutely leftwing pub I've ever been in while on holiday in New York last week.
It's a belter of a place - sure, it's dark, dingy and the toilets are a bit of a state but the place hums with righteous argument, not in pretentious chin-stroking fashion but in a hearty, engaged and boozy way. When I first got chatting to the barman, Chris, about the Irish peace process I was expecting the standard cartooon republicanism with which Irish-Americans are often, and sometimes unfairly, associated (this is a place with a fair bit of Celtic, Free Derry etc paraphernalia on the wall after all). But no, your man's main criticisms centred on the insufficiently class-based nature of Sinn Fein's politics and how they just weren't leftwing enough.
We moved on, along with assorted other local barflies (including a Bush-ite who was comprehensively blepsed in a row about Iraq), to union rights, the Middle-East and even John McDonnell and the state of the Labour party. It's the sort of amenable yet diverse place you could stay in until 4am without realising it, which is what we did. Rocky Sullivan's also hosts debates, meetings and live music from rollicking good-time pub bands.
Alas, I was told the bar is closing at the end of July, a victim of The Man's high rents and brutal economics, though I'm assured it will be reopening in Brooklyn. Let's hope so.
Fine jukebox too - my selections: It's Gonna Happen - The Undertones; Follow the Leader - Eric B & Rakim; Christmas in Washington - Steve Earle; Novelty - Joy Division; Waiting for the Great Leap Forward - Billy Bragg.
It's a belter of a place - sure, it's dark, dingy and the toilets are a bit of a state but the place hums with righteous argument, not in pretentious chin-stroking fashion but in a hearty, engaged and boozy way. When I first got chatting to the barman, Chris, about the Irish peace process I was expecting the standard cartooon republicanism with which Irish-Americans are often, and sometimes unfairly, associated (this is a place with a fair bit of Celtic, Free Derry etc paraphernalia on the wall after all). But no, your man's main criticisms centred on the insufficiently class-based nature of Sinn Fein's politics and how they just weren't leftwing enough.
We moved on, along with assorted other local barflies (including a Bush-ite who was comprehensively blepsed in a row about Iraq), to union rights, the Middle-East and even John McDonnell and the state of the Labour party. It's the sort of amenable yet diverse place you could stay in until 4am without realising it, which is what we did. Rocky Sullivan's also hosts debates, meetings and live music from rollicking good-time pub bands.
Alas, I was told the bar is closing at the end of July, a victim of The Man's high rents and brutal economics, though I'm assured it will be reopening in Brooklyn. Let's hope so.
Fine jukebox too - my selections: It's Gonna Happen - The Undertones; Follow the Leader - Eric B & Rakim; Christmas in Washington - Steve Earle; Novelty - Joy Division; Waiting for the Great Leap Forward - Billy Bragg.
Thursday 5 July 2007
Alan Johnston - free at last
Nice to return home from a holiday to a piece of uncomplicated good news - the release of BBC Gaza correspondent (and NUJ member) Alan Johnston. There's much to say about this, from a political and journalistic perspective, but in the meantime, great news.
Thursday 14 June 2007
Bald men fight over a comb: the Labour deputy leadership contest
Not the most inspiring of contests this, and one difficult not to approach with a certain grudging bitterness about the cowardice and control freakery that characterised the leadership coronation.
But anyway, Jon Cruddas deserves to win because he's the closest to non-dogmatic yet palpably Labour values (not 'old' or 'new', just Labour) - confronting a smattering of issues that Blairism has either ignored or been on the wrong side of: social housing, poverty and inequality, rights for immigrant workers, opposition to trident replacement. His response to the BNP's presence in his consistuency was also pretty impressive. I don't totally trust him, but he's the best of a poor bunch.
Beyond that, it's all about tactical deployment of votes to prevent Johnson and, particularly, Blears, a woman seemingly incapable of an original thought and whose demeanour of a demented training awayday 'team leader' has a nails-down-the-blackboard effect. That, and her dogmatic, not-for-turning obeissance to the Blair project.
So I went: 1 Cruddas; 2 Harman; 3 Benn; 4 Hain. And that's yer lot
But anyway, Jon Cruddas deserves to win because he's the closest to non-dogmatic yet palpably Labour values (not 'old' or 'new', just Labour) - confronting a smattering of issues that Blairism has either ignored or been on the wrong side of: social housing, poverty and inequality, rights for immigrant workers, opposition to trident replacement. His response to the BNP's presence in his consistuency was also pretty impressive. I don't totally trust him, but he's the best of a poor bunch.
Beyond that, it's all about tactical deployment of votes to prevent Johnson and, particularly, Blears, a woman seemingly incapable of an original thought and whose demeanour of a demented training awayday 'team leader' has a nails-down-the-blackboard effect. That, and her dogmatic, not-for-turning obeissance to the Blair project.
So I went: 1 Cruddas; 2 Harman; 3 Benn; 4 Hain. And that's yer lot
The Short answer
If Gordon Brown wants to eliminate waste in the public sector, perhaps he might want to take a look at how some of the councils most loyal to New Labourism operate, such as Tower Hamlets Council who last month agreed to pay an out-of-court settlement to press officer Eileen Short ahead of a scheduled unfair dismissal employment tribunal.
The damages the council has had to pay aren't likely to burn huge holes in local taxpayers' pockets, but they might nonetheless want to question how their council got itself into this position. The answer lies in a familiar blind ideological faith in outside private consultants, the attendant unaccountable politicking this generates, and a comprehensive contempt for their own staff and trade unions.
Eileen, a press officer specialising in education, was the victim of a ridiculous bogus restructuring of the council's communications department in September 2005, in which she was forced to effectively reapply for her own job, since the reorganisation created various new 'press officer' posts. She duly applied to be assimilated into one of them. No one else did. She didn't get the job. And despite a subsequent dispute involving Unison and the NUJ - including three and a half days of strike action - she lost her job in January 2006.
So why was she forced out? Outside of her work, Eileen was active in the Defend Council Housing campaign, and was a strong opponent of the council's crude attempts to railroad tenants into voting to transfer control of their estates to less accountable housing associations. This was denied by the council, who themselves admitted that Eileen's outside campaigning had had no adverse impact on how she was performing at work, but, well, they would say that wouldn't they? And, as Private Eye reported, the fact that the council's then chief executive was Christine Gilbert, wife of former housing minister Tony McNulty, was also an interesting incidental detail.
But the nasty victimisation of a housing campaigner wasn't the whole story either. The saga epitomised the negative and destructive role that private consultants can play in public authorities, bringing not the efficiency and dynamism heralded by their Blairite cheerleaders - but instead unaccountable and politically-motivated chaos. Eileen was dismissed shortly after the council's communications department had been taken over by PR consultancy Verve, whose head honcho Lorraine Langham had managed to move smoothly from contract to contract throughout her many years with Tower Hamlets. A Verve consultant sat in on the interview panel that denied Eileen her job - so the company's protests that the dismissal had nothing to do with it were laughable. And throughout all this, the communications service provided to the media with the public's money inevitably suffered.
The failure of the strike to win Eileen her job back was demoralising for staff, but the payout and cave-in by Tower Hamlets has been some consolation. (She got a job back at the Town Hall last summer anyhow, when Respect's gains in the council elections made them the second party in the borough and thereby entitled to appoint a political adviser; they appointed Eileen.) Happily, the council's press officer posts are now back in-house and Verve and Langham are no longer on the scene. A battle lost, but a war (at least partially) won. And strikers' willingness to stand firm has certainly made the council think twice about picking such a fight again. This should be an example to others. And to union leaders.
The damages the council has had to pay aren't likely to burn huge holes in local taxpayers' pockets, but they might nonetheless want to question how their council got itself into this position. The answer lies in a familiar blind ideological faith in outside private consultants, the attendant unaccountable politicking this generates, and a comprehensive contempt for their own staff and trade unions.
Eileen, a press officer specialising in education, was the victim of a ridiculous bogus restructuring of the council's communications department in September 2005, in which she was forced to effectively reapply for her own job, since the reorganisation created various new 'press officer' posts. She duly applied to be assimilated into one of them. No one else did. She didn't get the job. And despite a subsequent dispute involving Unison and the NUJ - including three and a half days of strike action - she lost her job in January 2006.
So why was she forced out? Outside of her work, Eileen was active in the Defend Council Housing campaign, and was a strong opponent of the council's crude attempts to railroad tenants into voting to transfer control of their estates to less accountable housing associations. This was denied by the council, who themselves admitted that Eileen's outside campaigning had had no adverse impact on how she was performing at work, but, well, they would say that wouldn't they? And, as Private Eye reported, the fact that the council's then chief executive was Christine Gilbert, wife of former housing minister Tony McNulty, was also an interesting incidental detail.
But the nasty victimisation of a housing campaigner wasn't the whole story either. The saga epitomised the negative and destructive role that private consultants can play in public authorities, bringing not the efficiency and dynamism heralded by their Blairite cheerleaders - but instead unaccountable and politically-motivated chaos. Eileen was dismissed shortly after the council's communications department had been taken over by PR consultancy Verve, whose head honcho Lorraine Langham had managed to move smoothly from contract to contract throughout her many years with Tower Hamlets. A Verve consultant sat in on the interview panel that denied Eileen her job - so the company's protests that the dismissal had nothing to do with it were laughable. And throughout all this, the communications service provided to the media with the public's money inevitably suffered.
The failure of the strike to win Eileen her job back was demoralising for staff, but the payout and cave-in by Tower Hamlets has been some consolation. (She got a job back at the Town Hall last summer anyhow, when Respect's gains in the council elections made them the second party in the borough and thereby entitled to appoint a political adviser; they appointed Eileen.) Happily, the council's press officer posts are now back in-house and Verve and Langham are no longer on the scene. A battle lost, but a war (at least partially) won. And strikers' willingness to stand firm has certainly made the council think twice about picking such a fight again. This should be an example to others. And to union leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)