Friday, 28 August 2015

Who I Voted for Labour Leader

Like my friend Lawrence, I haven't been terribly inspired by the Labour leadership campaign. Even Corbynmania has failed to stir me, except to the extent of writing many posts trying to understand what it means and how it will effect our party and our movement. So when it came to deciding who to vote for, I found it very difficult.

Now, I have a confession to make. Last month our constituency party met to decide who to nominate. Liz, Yvette, and Jeremy had their speakers - Tristram gave a good account for Liz. Andy, a new comrade, spoke for Jeremy. And I spoke for Yvette. Why? In a frankly terrible speech (so much for applying the 'be prepared' maxim I berate others for failing to employ), I laid down the reasons why I liked Jeremy's policies, but also that a strategy dependent on mobilising non-voters is most unlikely to win. Of Yvette, Andy, and Liz, it was Yvette who had the best chance of winning over those Tory voters we need to capture. Much to my amazement, these incoherent mutterings did the business and the Stoke Central nomination narrowly went to the shadow home secretary. This was before the Welfare Reform debacle saw the party descend into disarray and put a Saturn 5 under Jeremy's campaign. Has my mind changed much since?

I have found choosing incredibly difficult, so let's talk about the easy parts first. There was no way Liz Kendall was getting any of my preferences. I think she comes across as someone who's terribly insincere, and has shown an appalling lack of judgement in the running of her campaign. Berating members for not getting it, and allowing herself to be painted as a continuity Blair figure raises serious questions about whether she could win an election. Matters are not helped by stubbornly defending free schools and invasive private sector penetration of the NHS. If that wasn't enough, like many of her PLP friends and comrades, she doesn't understand the nature of our party. Had things turned out differently and she was a proper contender, I would be seriously worried about the future of the party.

And Andy Burnham. What can you say? Ask me a year ago who I'd be supporting for Labour leader, and I would have said him. Now? Not on your Nelly. The time for examining what has gone so badly wrong for his campaign isn't now - especially when it's a subject this blog will be turning to in the future. But honestly, to have tacked right with his leadership declaration and then opportunistically zigged-zagged here, there, and every-bloody-where as the contest has worn on ... Andy is a nice bloke, can speak with genuine conviction, and does have some good policies to sell. Yet he's like a driver with a faulty SatNav on a cliff's edge - you never know whether he'll follow a dodgy prompt and dash the car on the rocks below, or ignore it convinced that the thin air in front of him is the right road to take. While not as dangerous to the party as a Liz leadership would be, it's well within his range to take Labour in a disastrous direction if he thinks the head winds are favourable.

That leaves Jeremy and Yvette. Yes, I do think Jeremy is less divisive and problematic than Andy and Liz, and that any "chaos" resulting from his winning is overstated. His campaign has not only proven slick and well-run, it has set the political tone for the entire contest. It's telling that the two candidates with roots in the wider party - Andy and Yvette - have moved leftwards to compensate while Camp Liz floats away in a Blairist bubble of their own making. For the first time in a long time, the left have made an appreciable - and I for one hope lasting - impact on mainstream politics.

You know there's a but coming, don't you? I do have some major reservations about Jeremy's candidacy - for all the good it has done - and I don't think these can be ignored as "ephemeral" or "inessential". We've visited the issue of dodgy associations before. Of course, it is absurd to suggest Jeremy in any way shares the politics of some of the unsavoury individuals he's rubbed shoulders with in the past, and so much of the muck-raking by the likes of Louise Mensch is just that. But time and again, it happens. More recently, for instance, Jeremy happily gave an interview to the Australian branch of the LaRouche cult. If you've never heard of them, look Lyndon LaRouche up - anti-semitism is but one of their appalling characteristics. This sort of carelessness is a problem for some on the left, and it worries me that Jeremy and/or his staff are seemingly incapable of Googling background information, or don't deem it to be relevant. If Jeremy wins, this one will come back and come back some more.

The second big issue I have is electoral strategy, namely the seeming indifference much of Jeremy's support has to winning over Tory voters and the emphasis he wishes to place on mobilising non-voters. This approach has been gamed on Ravi's blog under the present boundaries. His best estimate puts us behind the Tories - assuming present Labour and Tory support stays where it is - and he also notes that the 2020 election will be fought on boundaries less favourable to our party. The next election is going to be a tough slog, and I'm sorry, I have very little time for anyone agnostic about us winning. Over the next five years the Tories are going to shaft our funding base and throw obstacles in the way of trade unions. And do we have to talk about what they have in store for our people as well? Can you imagine what could happen again if they win in 2020? I've got a good job and have no reason to believe my health will deteriorate over the next 10 years, but that could easily change. There are, of course, many millions not as fortunate as I and will suffer unless we get back into power at the first available opportunity.

And there is the development and strength of the left itself. Few, if anyone expected a left insurgency of this magnitude. But one should not cheer lead uncritically, like much of the far left outside Labour are doing, but to try and understand it in order to shape it. As far as I'm concerned the new member/supporter wave is not a 'social movement' as such, as per Scotland, but more like a mass affiliation of many ones and twos. It is a tendency attracted by Jeremy's unorthodoxy and amplified by social media. Some of it are former Labour people, but the overwhelming bulk are new to politics - that's if the membership surge we've had in our neck of the woods is anything to go by. If you like it is unrooted, a variegated and individuated group of people in search of a social movement. As such, noting its rootlessness, it would be a huge mistake to take this as evidence of a much wider constituency waiting to gift us local election after European election after general election. The second related point here comes from an opportunity/risk analysis. A Jeremy leadership is likely to attract another wave of new recruits and strengthen the gravity of left politics generally. The problem is I cannot see how, in the absence of a catastrophe, that this will be enough to win an election. Even worse, an electoral defeat will be taken as a defeat for socialist ideas, just at the moment their revival is getting underway. There is, of course, never a right time for the left to make a play, and the opportunity Jeremy's candidacy represents is one that does not come along too often. Nevertheless, that is what I think - an early peak could see us stumble into an equally early trough.

Who was my alternative then? In the end, it came back to Yvette Cooper. It's only these last couple of weeks her campaign has cranked up. Just like Labour until a year before the general election, she's gone from having no policies to them appearing in abundance. Yes, her platform is pretty dull by the mould-breaking standards of Jeremy's, but interestingly she has moved from austerity lite to anti-austerity lite. There are a couple of things to get excited about, such as universal childcare, and boosting investment in and wages of those in the care industry and those who care for loved ones - Yvette is absolutely right to see this as an infrastructural issue. Yvette has found her voice attacking the government about the refugee crisis in the Med, on FE cuts, on their stupid assault on green industries. Yet I have to say my support doesn't come with much enthusiasm, hence why I'm merely stating my views rather than proselytising. But as the compromise candidate, Yvette has the best chance of keeping the party together and winning a general election in 2020.

Of course, if Jeremy wins politics becomes much more interesting. In that event I will carry on building the party and using this platform to dispense analysis, unsolicited advice, and support. It was a very difficult decision but, unfortunately, I just don't fancy our chances if we go to the country with him at the helm.

Wednesday, 26 August 2015

Rad Racer for the Nintendo Entertainment System

I cannot tell a lie, I do like my racing games. However, while nearly every platform since the days of the humble Spectrum have been spoilt for automobile-related gaming treats, there is one notable omission: the mighty NES. Considering it was the best selling home system ever for a time, this is as baffling as it is disappointing. Off the top of my head and as far as UK/European releases go, there's RC Pro-Am, Turbo Racing, Galaxy 5000, Micro Machines, and that's - apart from the subject of this post - about it. A mystery to be sure, but technical limitations can't be the culprit, as Rad Racer demonstrates.

Rad Racer is an early title for the NES. Published by Square (of Final Fantasy fame) in 1987, it was the first racing game to be released for the system in Western markets and was for a while the only one. And as a first outing, it pretty much nailed it. You race against the clock over eight tracks based on geographical features and locations. Greece, for example, has multiple iterations of The Parthenon decorating the horizon. It's a simple into-the-screen affair of dodging incoming traffic and making it to the checkpoint before the time robs you of acceleration. If you make it you're whisked off to the next level to do much the same. Sounds dull? It's not. Some of the races are very challenging and other cars have the annoying tendency of bending your fender as they position themselves between you and the open road. On later levels they crop up in groups of two or three, and many times a contest has been thwarted as they effectively block the highway. Ramming into the back of them can cause you to crash and flip the motor, but more often than not they knock your speed down. Not so if you come into contact with the roadside furniture. Each crash might set you right back on your wheels (this is Nintendo Land, after all), but it comes with a potentially race-destroying time penalty.

As with games of this character, which became ten-a-penny in late 80s arcades and home systems, there isn't much in the way of variety or depth. So the typical ruses of the time were implemented, such as making the game very tough and supplying no continues. Fine if you're a kid in the 1980s who can only afford a handful of games a year, not if you're an occasional retro gamer with an overweening blogging habit. It also offers a couple of unique ephemeral gaming experiences. The first is the choice between two different cars. One is a Ferrari 328 Twin Turbo bearing a bit of a resemblance to the car in certain other famous game, and the other is a nondescript Formula One motor. The difference between the two is the latter is a touch faster and cars on the road are other kamikaze F1 beasties. There's no other difference, even the end sequence - depicting the Twin Turbo - remains the same. The other is a 3D mode enabled via select. It's probably not a good idea to play this without the glasses because the rapid flashing and blurring is like a bad trip. And, to be honest, the effect isn't that great anyway.

There are a couple of nice cosmetic touches too. One is the inclusion of an in-game radio. Tapping down on the d-pad allows you to cycle through three tunes and the bleepy whirring of the engine. Alas, the music is standard NES fare that doesn't stick in the memory. Another are different day/night or weather cycles in each race. None had no direct impact on gameplay but attempted to convey a sense that you were racing over a lengthy period of time, and not the three minutes(ish) each track took.

Overall, Rad Racer is a slick, well-programmed racer that showed the NES could manage rudimentary three-dimensional games. In fact, what it did manage better than its ilk on other 8-bit systems was a proper sense of speed - there are no lines sitting across the road and landscape simulating kph. And it also managed hills better, giving an approximate sense of undulating terrain - a trick that remained tricky well into the 16-bit era.

Received wisdom has it that Square published Rad Racer as a means of showing off their superlative 3D programming skills, and therefore grabbing some of the home market enraptured by Sega's clutch of mid-late 80s coin-ops (Super Hang-On, OutRun, Space Harrier, Afterburner, Galaxy Force, Power Drift). Others of a more cynical mind noted its similarity - that's one way of putting it - to OutRun. I mean, both feature Ferrari motors and the basic gameplay mechanic is identical. Though done differently, both games can choose between soundtracks, which, again, remained very rare up until the Sega Saturn and Sony PlayStation hit the shelves. Yes, there's truth here, but it was also a manifestation of a publishing culture that flourished when system exclusives were much more common than today. That is me-too-ism. As the Nintendo vs Sega battle got underway, none of the latter's cool coin-ops were going to get released for the NES and its successors (apart from a few sub-licensed to Atari's Tengen label), nor - thanks to the restrictive and long-since illegal licensing practices - would many third party Nintendo games grace Sega's machines. Hence if a game became popular, either Sega or Nintendo or one of their licensees would attempt to provide some kind of competitive response in the form of a cash-in duplicate. RC Pro-Am vs RC Gran Prix, Afterburner vs Top Gun, etc. Sometimes, companies would market nearly-identical games for the same platform.

This is exactly what Rad Racer is. It is pretty much the same game as OutRun for the Master System (though, in an interesting twist, Sega released a specially reprogrammed OutRun 3D for its glasses peripheral in 1988 - the copy becomes the cop-ee). And while it does not sell a lifestyle in the way Sega's premiere racer did, it does probably edge it as the better game. Well worth picking up.

Tuesday, 25 August 2015

Can Jeremy Corbyn Manage the PLP?

Much has been made of Jeremy Corbyn's assumed incapacity to hold the Parliamentary Labour Party together in the event of his Labour leadership victory. His views are out of step with Labour MPs, only a tiny number backed Jeremy's nomination out of genuine conviction, and his hundreds of rebellions against the party whip place him in a weak position when endorsing party discipline. Will chaos necessarily reign?

All this has led Matthew D'Ancona to reflect upon the torrid time Iain Duncan Smith had as Tory leader by way of direct comparison. Unfortunately for Matthew, the comparison doesn't work. Whereas Jeremy is and IDS were serial rebels, there were entirely different dynamics in play. Whatever you think of Jez's politics, I'm sure most would agree that his breaking the party whip rests on deep-seated principles. The same might also have been noted about the execrable IDS under John Major. He might have ideas that belong in the Museum for Social Darwinism, but no one doubts the sincerity of his views, and especially that of his long-standing Europhobia that put the Quiet Man on the wrong side of his leader. But there's where the similarities end. Jeremy is many things, but an organiser/factionaliser he is not. Plots in austere kitchens over value beans on toast and used tea bags are not his thing. IDS on the other hand was one of Major's "bastards" who semi-openly engaged in skulduggery to thwart his government. Jeremy was rebellious. IDS treacherous. Therefore using IDS as a base comparator is, well, mistaken. Instead of looking to the past, as Matthew has done, we should try and understand the schisms and dynamics at work in the PLP afresh.

Some folk like Phil Wilson in Sedgefield have talked tough - "Jeremy Corbyn has shown no loyalty to any Labour’s leadership in all his years as a member of parliament, I don’t know why he should expect any loyalty now" - but can we really look forward to few Labour MPs turning up for Prime Minister's Questions? I don't think so.

Assuming Jeremy wins, he will have an unassailable democratic mandate enhanced by the ludicrous purge of the selectoral roll. Many MPs have been perturbed by the new numbers signing up not because they're "hard left", but because they're an unknown quantity entirely. In most cases, membership secretaries scrutinising the updated lists are finding few if any familiar names from the local activisty/movement scenes. Being reasonably well-versed with what passes as a hard left "scene" in Stoke, none showed up in my constituency membership. Yet really who knows where these new people are coming from unless we talk to them? Some of our newbies were attracted by the contest to vote for Jeremy, but a larger proportion were not. It was about the general election and doing something about the Tories. One told me he was inspired to join thanks to the shower who've taken over Stoke's City Council. However, regardless of their moves and motives, few are likely to be impressed if their MP - assuming they have a Labour member - starts playing silly buggers in the Commons. It's one thing to have principled opposition, quite another to pull an IDS. And MPs have to be very careful. Jeremy has ruled out mandatory reselections, but they're unnecessary anyway. Once the Tories complete their boundary review and fix the shapes and composition of constituencies to their advantage, many Labour MPs will face selection battles in their modified seats. The reward for open skulduggery is likely to be a P45, so they have an incentive to behave - a point not missed by Jez himself.

When it comes down to opportunities to rebel, well, there's not going to be that many. As the opposition, the whip's office is not going to command MPs to troupe through the lobbies in support of People's QE or Nato withdrawal. Already, Jeremy has signalled his intent to have MP working groups dedicated to certain subject areas formulating policy. Some could simply refuse to engage, but that runs the risk of offending the members as per above. When it does come to votes, in the main it will be against legislation. Is anyone really going to rebel over the scrapping of social security provisions when it returns to the house? The attacks on trade unions? More sell offs and privatisations? Of course, the government are looking to make hay by plotting vote traps. That could pose some difficulties, but by sticking a flashing neon sign over their intentions so far in advance they can be planned for and circumvented.

The second point is the impotence of open opposition anyway. This has already taken the form of some leading figures declaring they will not serve in a Jeremy-led shadow cabinet, and talk about establishing 'Labour for the Common Good', which is supposed to be a way of re-elaborating Third Way-ism (remember that?). Or making our values face the future, as a Liz Kendall soundbite might have it. On the latter first, while my ex-boss and Chuka Umunna have a point about their wing of the party lacking intellectual heft (which is surprising, considering their links to think tanks, and the voluminous output of Progress) it's not going to spark a fire under anyone's bushel. Partly because already, despite wanting to reach out to the rest of the right, the centre, and the soft left, I understand only Progress-associated MPs have been asked to join. And because if this leadership contest has demonstrated anything, it's this section of the party is actually very weak. Unlike the old Labour right who are deeply rooted in and whose views and sentiments are expressed by members at all levels of the organisation, Progress is very much an elite project - despite its open membership - that doesn't promote from the grassroots but feeds off the think tank'er/bag carrier/spad nexus. It produces MPs with little in the way of social roots, and privileges a dialogue among the cognoscenti. Little wonder then it was merely brush aside as an irrelevance as the Labour leadership battle was joined. As such, by walking away from the shadow cabinet they make their own position in the PLP much weaker. As they vacate the scene there are plenty of MPs who would never otherwise have had a chance of a front bench role to come forward and will relish it. Two, three years down the line, as politics has moved on and new faces become established, who's going to have any time for the bearers of the Blairist screed when they've marginalised themselves?

If Jeremy does win, it doesn't have to be popcorn time for Labour's enemies. He will be in a strong position vis a vis the PLP, and the pressures bearing down upon it are likely to curb most rebellious enthusiasms. At least for a time.

Monday, 24 August 2015

Cllr Dave Conway's Signs of Idiocy

As the winds of change howl about the Labour Party, it's still politics-as-usual down Stoke-on-Trent's civic centre. It's the summer so not a lot is happening anyway. However, word reaches my ear of yet another example of the City Independents' well-established stupidity.

Long-time readers know that, to put it delicately, the alleged council leader Dave Conway isn't the most hands-on of politicians. In meetings with visitors he will simply up and leave the officers to carry on. If the bureaucracy requires a decision, they circumvent him and approach his deputy instead. Not for nothing is the head of the Tory group known as Acting Council Leader Abi Brown. And at all other times, officers simply get on with things in the absence of political oversight. To think Dave once had the cheek to attack his predecessors for presiding over an "officer-led authority".

Or perhaps I'm being unkind to Dave. It is my understanding there's a small project that has captivated all of his attention and has in fact become a top priority. What could it be? An impact assessment on the Tory cuts to the local government grant? A scheme designed to drum up more investment? How to cut SureStart centres without too many people noticing? Or even a feasibility study on one of the City Independents' manifesto promises, such as the Meir-Tunstall tramway? Something far weightier than that.

We're talking road signs.

As part of their six-town regeneration strategy, whatever that is, Dave wants to turn the clock back. If he gets his way, council workers shall issue forth from depots across the Potteries to replace otherwise perfectly healthy signage. So if you see one signposting 'City Centre' expect it to get torn down in favour of one that reads ... 'Hanley'.

That's right, £15,000 is set to be expended on what can only be described as a stupid indulgence. The fools comprising the City Indies might get a warm glow, thinking that a blow has been for the alleged special identities of each of Stoke's six towns, but not only is it a waste of money, it can cause considerable confusion for people visiting the city. In a very Stokieish defiance of logic, the town from which the city is named is not its commercial centre or key shopping district. Having been bamboozled by this when I first got off the train 20 years ago, I can tell you no end of people from elsewhere have and continue to be as well.

Once again, Dave Conway and his gang of wingbags, closet racists, opportunists, union-bashers, and bearers of unsavoury convictions prove themselves to be small-minded, befuddled incompetents. Unfortunately, there's still four more years of this idiocy to run.

Sunday, 23 August 2015

Making Sense of North Korea

The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea made one of its occasional forays into the international headlines this last week. There were reports of shelling and small arms fire across the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas as tensions rose over a couple of disputed incidents. The South claims two of its soldiers were injured by a mine, allegedly planted surreptitiously by the North, while the North are loudly objecting to the resumption of propaganda broadcasts by the South. When you run a regime as brutal and brittle as the DPRK's Stalinist monarchy, news from outside its heavily fortified frontiers is far more dangerous to it than carpet bombing Kim Il-sung Square. However, time and again, lazy Western observers take the regime's blood-curdling rhetoric, its ludicrous pomp, and the Bond villain-esque disposal of previously trusted adjutants as signs of collective madness, of a nuclear capability nation prepared to sacrifice millions of Koreans because Kim Jong-un got out of the wrong side of bed.

In truth for all its totalitarian exoticism the DPRK is eminently knowable. It does not defy the sociological laws of gravity as fevered media reports pretend, and the basics can be understood with a bit of knowledge of modern Korean history and grasp of the dynamics of Stalinist - for want of a better word - regimes. Beginning with the latter, it's worth revisiting Trotsky's critique and defence of the Soviet Union in The Revolution Betrayed and In Defence of Marxism. His argument was that civil war exigencies, general backwardness, and the devastation wrought on Russia after the Bolshevik seizure of power subverted the world's first successful socialist revolution and turned it into its opposite. Increasingly, the party and the state merged and substituted itself for the classes on whose behalf power was taken. As all areas of social life became bureaucratised, so democracy, accountability, and freedom of criticism disappeared and a caste of office holders (promoted and led by Stalin) took over the running of the country. However, their power rested on their offices, and their offices were tied to the new forms of economic relationships the revolution ushered in. The crucial period, as far as I'm concerned, was the simultaneous launch of the first five year plan and the collectivisation of agriculture. This extended state direction of the economy and rooted out market relationships that were allowed under the post-civil war New Economic Plan. It was a brutal business as millions of peasants were forcibly stripped of their holdings and assets and herded into larger agricultural combines. Famines stalked the land, particularly in Ukraine, and anyone who resisted was dubbed a kulak - rich peasant - and were deported internally, imprisoned, or summarily shot. A tragedy that deserves better commemoration than cheap shot polemics against democratic movements.

Writing in the period of 'high Stalinism', Trotsky argued that while the bureaucracy was anything but socialist, the property relations it rested on were progressive. These were the "gains" of October and were the reason why the USSR needed to be defended by revolutionary leftists everywhere. While a position many Trotskyists still hold today, given how the dictatorial bureaucracy and detailed economic planning were intertwined its "progressiveness" vis a vis capitalism was, in my opinion, overstated. Nevertheless Trotsky was right in viewing Stalin's Russia as a post-capitalist society, and as this being the root of international hostility to it. As an substantial area of the globe sealed off to market penetration, it existed as unrealised opportunity and threat. Opportunity because of untapped markets and profits, which as we have seen since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the opening of China were/are considerable; and threat as the presence of an alternative, and one closely aligned with - at least at the level of rhetoric - the subterranean contradictions of capitalist systems. The rulers of the USSR were aware of this also, and the various twists and turns of their foreign policy during the 1930s make perfect sense as means to prevent non-intervention in internal Soviet affairs, and only secondary as hegemon of the global communist movement.

After the Second World War, the Stalinist system was exported into Central Europe and the Far East. As part of Japan's articles of surrender, the Korean peninsula was split between Soviet and American-administered zones. In the North, the occupying authorities abolished landlordism and nationalised key economic sectors as per the home "model", while in the South peasant uprisings against the land owners and the US-led authority were sporadic but nonetheless popular. The North's invasion of the South in 1950 was partly based on the assumption that they were Korea's "legitimate" government (the South had languished under the US-backed anti-communist dictator, Syngman Rhee, since 1948) and would therefore be welcomed as liberators, and was quietly backed by the USSR. In practice it was about securing the last remaining corner of East Asia with a Soviet land border for a friendly regime.

After the devastating Korean War which saw no corner of the North untouched, the establishment of the Cold War frontier stabilised the regime. Like is Soviet forebear, setting up a command economy replete with dictatorial bureaucracy saw the country quickly recover from war devastation. Up until the mid-1970s, the North was ahead of the South on most economic indicators. The grotesqueries of Kim the Younger's personality cult were not present at this point under Kim the Elder. However, the basis for what it became was laid. Firstly, in the Sino-Soviet split Kim sided with Mao's China as opposed to Khruschev's USSR, and began pursuing a more independent foreign policy a la an excommunicated Yugoslavia. As a measure of Moscow's displeasure, Soviet military aid was scaled back and a Warsaw Pact-style guarantee of mutual protection rescinded. From North Korea's perspective, this meant plugging the gaps of their own Cold War frontier themselves - somehow their military had to stare unblinkingly across the border at a Southern army backed by Americans armed with nuclear weapons. The distorting dynamic of what the North now calls the military first policy was present back then, but the "modern" North came into being after Mao's death in 1976. Objecting to China's own attempt to seek detente with the US, the North split from them too. This is more or less the period from which the Juche idea - self-reliance - starts affecting all aspects of state propaganda, and not at all coincidentally the cult of personality takes off. After all, if you're thrown onto your own resources it makes sense from a totalitarian point of view to overemphasise the expansive talents of the leader.

Here then we have a regime determined to cling to power, believes its enemies are out to get it (remember George W Bush and the Axis of Evil?), and pursues policies it hopes will ward off an attack. For example, the pursuit of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile technology does not spring from Kim Jong-un's megalomania but are bargaining chips when it comes to negotiations with the South and the Americans. It's also cheaper and less distorting of one's economic development to have nuclear missiles than keep a huge army equipped and fed. Nevertheless, the existence of the frontier also suits its interests, to a degree. For Kim it's a clear and visible threat it can harangue its long-suffering citizens about, helping shore up patriotism and social solidarity while the country copes with market reforms, a consumer boom, and recurrent disasters.

This, however, is only the starting point. One should resist falling into a "poor little DPRK" trap. It may be under external pressure, but none of that excuses the criminal character of the Kim family's regime. Yet the slow marketisation of the North balanced with Kim's steady reforms is opening the country up. It's becoming complex and messy, and in the long-run - however long that may be, one cannot say - the huge state apparatus cannot keep a lid on the forces it's unleashing forever.

Friday, 21 August 2015

Jeremy Corbyn's Proposed Iraq War Apology

It is the moral thing to apologise for the calamity a previous Labour leader visited upon Iraq, but should Jeremy Corbyn win and formally make penance for this awful, unnecessary war; it's the politically sensible thing to do as well. Still, some party members might think this is water that flowed beneath the bridge long ago. It has been over 12 years since Tony Blair made the ill-fated decision to invade Iraq. And as for the political salience of the matter, wasn't that settled in 2005 when Labour were returned with an outright majority? If that wasn't enough, one of Ed Miliband's first act as leader was to put distance between "his" Labour Party and old New Labour, especially on this.

Firstly, Ed didn't apologise for Iraq. He said Blair was wrong and Britain was mistaken to follow America's lead in ignoring international opposition to the invasion. So no, if Jeremy gets the opportunity he will be the only leader to have said sorry for Iraq. As for the 2005 general election, you might say Blair wasn't punished electorally but in the long-term, the party certainly was. Thanks to their initial opposition to the Iraq War before the first bomb dropped, the LibDems surged to 22% of the vote. Six million votes only gave them 62 seats, but those voters stayed put five years later. Other Labour voters dropped out, or drifted to other parties. The only reason why the Tories didn't do better was because Michael Howard's leadership had a touch of nudge, nudge, wink, wink racism about it, and he was a complete has been. Once again, it wasn't Tony's unique talents that won us the general election - it was the disarray and incompetence of his opponents.

More toxic was the effect Iraq had on the party and mainstream politics more generally. Each constituency party suffered dozens of resignations, including hard-to-replace key activists. With the Tories and Labour agreeing that attacking Iraq was necessary, cynicism toward the centre left and centre right of politics was entrenched. This isn't to say anti-politics wasn't a thing before the first cruise missiles slammed into Baghdad, but it was redoubled by the arrogance with which the largest demonstration in modern political history was dismissed. And that's before we even start talking about the dodgy dossier and the tissue of fabricated "facts" cooked up by the State Department and British Intelligence. Whether Blair and other ministers lied to get the outcome they wished is a moot point: it was widely perceived that they had.

Does this matter now? Absolutely. From within the Labour Party, Jeremy is the repository not just of left populism but also anti-establishment politics sentiment. By declaring this now, Jez is making a very clear statement about the kind of party Labour needs to be - one that is engaged with and animated by its members and supporters, not one that treats its support as a "core" to be neglected because it has nowhere else to go. An honest apology can, for some, go a bit of the distance needed to re-win popular trust in politics generally, and our party in particular.

Whether it's a dead cat tactic or not, it's a position his opponents would find it hard to respond to. Before today, it was Yvette Cooper who had made Iraq a campaign issue and was among the first of Labour's big beasts to break cover all the way back in 2007. Andy Burnham has stayed schtum, but back in 2010 he stood by the Iraq decision and thought it was time to move on. And Liz Kendall, who knows? Whether their responses are "it doesn't matter" or "intervention was right", it paints them into a corner normally reserved for unwashed wallflowers and they look even more out of touch - if that was possible. Also, Jeremy (and at a push, Yvette) pre-empts any damaging political fall out from the forever-delayed Chilcott inquiry. No doubt the Tories will be looking to use it to damage Labour, despite their voting along with the war - including messrs Dave and Osborne.

Necessary? Yes. Timely? Yes. Politically smart? Absolutely.

Thursday, 20 August 2015

If You Seek a Revolution ...

Busy at the moment so no time for blogging, which is a touch annoying considering what's happening. Here then is another guest post, this time from Robin Wilde. Robin is from Sheffield and is backing Andy Burnham for leader, but he comes here not to proselytise but to let new members know (warn?) about the traditions they're likely to encounter.

With 300,000 people having just signed up for the Labour Party, I’ve come to wonder if they all know what they’re getting themselves in for. I don’t say that to be unkind or tribal - I want as many people as possible to belong to the Labour Party, to get involved with its campaigns and its culture. But I want them first to understand what it is, and why it might not be what they think it is.

On the continent, the main parties of the centre-left find their history in the revolutions of the 19th century. The Parti Socialiste in France can trace its lineage to the battle lines of the Paris Commune in 1871, and the German SPD hails from Marxist groups in the 1860s. The Partito Democratico in Italy is a descendent of the Italian Communists.

Noble histories, all. The first fighters for liberty, equality and fraternity marching their way through fraught periods of crackdowns, war and dictatorship and emerging on the other side of that treacherous pass to found new post-war nations of economic strength and relative levels of social justice and equality. They made lives better.

But just as it would be wrong to denounce their history, it would be wrong to co-opt their history as part of our own.

In the words of Morgan Phillips, the Welsh mineworker who served as Labour’s General Secretary during the 1950s, Labour “owes more to Methodism than to Marxism.” From our roots in the Liberal-Labour pact of the 1880s onwards, we have never been a revolutionary party, nor sought to become one.

We were always a radical movement, but radical in the sense of wishing to extend opportunity and liberty across the board. We founded working men’s libraries to give education to those denied it. We founded trade unions - fought for them, died for them - but not to flip the country on its head. We did it to extend a hand to management they did not always want to grasp, to work with them, be recognised and respected as equals in our labour - “by hand or by brain”, in the words of the old Clause IV.

Dan Hannan, perhaps the most radical of Conservative Eurosceptics, and a man with which few in my party will find many points of agreement, said this in a 2012 Telegraph article:
The proudest achievements of the British Left, down the years, have involved the dispersal of power from closed elites to the general population. This high-minded ambition led to religious toleration, legal rights for women, the extension of the franchise, universal education.
He is right. Our greatest achievements have been to liberate people from forces which held back their potential. We freed millions from the crippling poverty of old age. The worry and stress of healthcare paid through the nose. The indefensible practice of legal gender pay segregation.

But we didn’t do that by being angry - though anger and radicalism are powerful tools - we did it by being respectably high-minded, by never talking over those who opposed us, but by responding to their arguments with reason and with passion, and not giving way. The best way to get what we wanted wasn’t to smash them out of the way, but to get them to agree.

Labour members have traditionally been, with notable exceptions, a small-c conservative body. They are not wholly devoted to the party or to politics, and that reflects itself in the party’s culture at the lower levels. These are people who’ve got through the last century in a socialist party running raffles, sharing photos of their cats, taking their kids to Scouts meetings and attending impassioned speeches after which nobody takes to the barricades, but everyone goes to the pub.

These are not people without belief or compassion. It is their compassion for the rest of humanity that makes them members, that has them out traipsing through mud and driving rain to deliver immediately-binned leaflets for a by-election to an unwinnable ward on the borough council.

It used to be a source of mockery for the socialist city council in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that they were ‘sewer socialists’, more concerned with their excellent drainage system than fighting the class struggle. We took that attitude, of gradual, understated but meaningful improvements in the living conditions of the majority, and turned it into a virtue. A very British kind of socialism.

We look now like we’re about to take a path never before trodden. It will be only the second time in our history that the most left-wing option has won a leadership election - and the first time, with Michael Foot, put an established cabinet minister and academic into the post. We are in territory unknown, and about to put to the electorate the most radical platform seen in 30 years. Come what may, I know that the members will stand by it.

That program will excite a lot of people. But from a party of kindly schoolteachers with five cats, idealistic students discovering politics for the first time, gruff trade unionists playing darts in the pub, eccentric scientists with bald patches and odd socks, don’t expect it to look like any progressive uprising you’ve seen before. A party of passion and principle and camaraderie, yes. But if you seek a revolution, look elsewhere

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Yvette Cooper Visits Stoke

Only one of the Labour leadership candidates have strayed into North Staffordshire and, of course, Yvette Cooper's pitch to members in Stoke-on-Trent last Sunday means she'll easily win the contest. The "Stoke effect" is real and has catapulted many a politician and celebrity into the stratosphere - just because I've been waiting on the launch pad for 20 years with no sign of ignition is besides the point.

I'm rambling. Yvette Cooper came and she said some interesting things. For readers who've seen her previously at hustings events, her preamble may sound familiar. The anecdote about the woman a thousand pounds in bedroom tax arrears, and not being able to do a thing about it because we're not in power. Being steeped in labour movement campaigning traditions and marching against Thatcher in the 1980s, not that that prevented her from carrying through her programme. Yvette - rightly - pointed out that swallowing the Tory narrative on the economy and the deficit does their job for them. She also argued for a 21st century vision, asking where the jobs of the future are going to come from, while pledging to double national investment in science, ending the culture of quarterly capitalism, ensuring people are paid at least the living wage, and putting more money into social care so the scandal of low pay there can be ended. Parking tanks on the Tory lawn, she set out a vision of Labour as the party of family. This would involve extending SureStart and providing universal childcare on the Scandinavian model. It's here she took her first swipe at Jeremy, whose disembodied presence lay like a persistent itch, comparing the radicalism of this to that of transferring the running of power stations to men in Whitehall. Lastly, the old principles and power meme got an airing.

The meat to the preamble's gravy resided, as always, in answers-to-questions. Here is a selection, summarised:

Q What would you do about banking reform?
A The improper regulation of banks was a global problem. We would have to look at banking reform, but the net needs to be cast wider: government should be looking at corporate governance and thinking in the longer-term. Yvette also chose this answer to critique Corbynomics, singling out his comments about reopening the coal mines, and the problems that come with consistent quantitative easing - particularly currency depreciation and inflation.

Q The 1980s weren't all bad, a huge number of people joined after being enthused by the Labour Party's turn to the left. How do we turn the new wave of radicalised activists into long-term members and activists?
A We've got to make sure their anger is focused on changing the world. We would be doing them a disservice if we gave them false hope.

Q Should I feel aggrieved that as a long-standing activist who's held all lay positions at branch and constituency level, my vote is valued at three pounds?
A The registered supporters have proven good for getting people signed up, but the debate about its rights and wrongs isn't really for now.

Q What do you say about land banking for tax avoidance purposes?
A There are double standards around benefits and tax collection. We can tackle Tory hypocrisy, and Labour in government will close the loopholes and support a 50p tax rate for those earning in excess of £150,000/year.

Q How does Labour regain its reputation for economic competence?
A We need to make an argument for a mixed economy. This means addressing power, but also helping other types of enterprise - such as co-ops. We also need to talk confidently about public services and attack the notion that they exist to encourage dependency on the state. In fact, they enable people to be independent.

Q If education helps poorer people out of poverty, why saddle young people with huge debt arising from tuition fees?
A Fees generate debt, and it's a bonkers policy. It puts people off going to university, and the present funding arrangements do not work. A graduate tax is fairer. We can't say students shouldn't make a contribution, they should. It also has the virtue of not narrowing entry. But we have to ask where the money is going to come from if HE is made free?

Q How to engage younger people?
A Young people are the hardest hit by Osborne's austerity. There are a number of things the party can do. First, there needs to be a shadow cabinet member with responsibility for young people. Second, youth engagement has to be the property of and led by young members. And lastly we need to focus on the FE colleges as they're bearing the brunt of the cuts.

Q Do you support a rent cap?
A There needs to be much more regulation of private rents. We have to also think about tenancies - the lack of long-term tenancies can and are an acute source of insecurity. But neither regulation or reform will work unless we build more houses - we should be aiming for 300,000 a year.

Winding things up, Yvette talked about having the right values, radical visions, and determination to take them (the Tories) on. She finished by emphasising the need for unity. If we rip ourselves apart after the leadership election, we're not so much as letting ourselves down but the people who need a Labour government.

Thought this account probably doesn't convey it, Yvette's performance was stronger than the West Midlands hustings a couple of months back. She didn't come across as slick in that smarmy Blairite way New Labour ministers of old excelled at, but knowledgeable, humorous, relaxed, and warm. But did she need to do what she needed in terms of winning people over? As Stoke and North Staffs tends to be forgotten when it comes to "celebrity" politician visits, her visit would have won some support among the 120 or so present. There were no loaded Corbynite questions as such, though it's worth noting a point about how to win back Scotland went unanswered in the final round of questioning.

In all, it was a competent performance. I was pleased to see more is getting added to a pitch that hasn't really said much until recently, but is this too little too late? We will find out in less than a month's time.

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

An Open Letter to Tristram Hunt

Another guest post, this time from Lawrence Shaw who's another good comrade of mine. Whatever your views regarding the Labour leadership contest, Lawrence's analysis skewers the complacency of much of the Labour right.

Dear Tristram,

Thanks for your email and publicised statement informing us of your voting preferences in the Labour leadership and your numerous issues with Jeremy Corbyn’s politics. I felt I should also respond openly as you have done to articulate my views as a local member in Stoke Central.

I share some of your concerns about Corbyn’s wider appeal to the electorate. I have been disturbed also by the personality cult which now surrounds him. I know he is not organising this hysteria himself, but regardless I am inherently suspicious of any bandwagon surrounding an individual person. It is why I never fell in love with the stage managed euphoria of New Labour around Tony Blair.

However, I have to say that the rest of the leadership field has failed to impress me at all. It would be easy to blame the media for this, but having carefully watched hustings and other events streamed online, neither Kendall, Burnham or Cooper have sparked any inspiration in me as an ordinary member of the party. Sure, they are all competent and polished and very nice people. But politically speaking, I simply don’t really believe a word any of them says.

What I think that many within the Labour Party hierarchy fail to understand, and sadly given your email today I must include you in that number, that this distrust many of us have with many senior figures in the party is precisely one of the factors driving Corbyn’s appeal.

There are many people within the Labour Party for many years who have felt completely powerless. There is a feeling that we are used at election time, and then told what to think and to keep quiet the rest of the time. That’s not true in our CLP where I think we have a decent debate, albeit limited, but there is still a general sense that beyond elections our ability to affect any real change in the Party or outside it is very limited indeed.

Take the position on the renationalisation of the railways as a case in point. Like it or not (and I have some misgivings about how much nationalisation could achieve without the necessary increase in investment) the Labour Party Conference has voted year after year for this policy to be adopted, only for this to be completely ignored by successive Labour leaderships, as if the member’s democratic decision means nothing. Given we know there is widespread public support for such a move, and a serious pressing need to sort out the transport infrastructure in our country, I simply cannot understand why the party leadership could not bring itself around to adopt this policy.

This willful ignoring of the will of the members breeds resentment of authority within the party. It is that resentment is what today is driving ordinary members to look for a candidate who comes from the outside.

So when you, on the day of the election papers landing on our doormats, give members the message to vote for ALL the other candidates but Corbyn, you are actually reinforcing the belief in members that there is no fundamental political difference between the other candidates. When Liz Kendall urges her supporters to use their preferences for other candidates, you are all sending out a clear message that the differences in the politics between those candidates are slight and meaningless. Indeed, you yourself pass no judgement at all on Cooper or Burnham’s actual political differences with Liz Kendall … only Jeremy Corbyn’s.

When senior Labour Party figures like yourself send out messages like this, you confirm the belief of ordinary Labour members that the entire party front bench is largely indistinguishable from one another politically speaking. And therefore you make many of us want to do the opposite from what you tell us to do.

I’ll let you and the other leadership candidates into a little secret: We don’t like being told how to think or what to do. It’s what makes us union reps to challenge dictatorial employers. It’s what makes us residents group campaigners to challenge blundering council officers. It’s what makes us want to challenge vicious and calculated central government attacks on the most vulnerable in our community.

And that’s also why when Tony Blair is wheeled out to demand we elect anyone but Corbyn, and dismisses most of the union movement in this country as “in the grip of the far left”, we take exception.

It is precisely because of the party hierarchy’s hysterical reaction to Corbyn, that has led me to think we must support his leadership bid. The party badly needs democratising as part of a wider push away from the awful top down, managerial politics that has alienated so many people in this country. And if we can inspire people new to politics in the bargain, so much the better.

So I would ask you openly to respect the democratic decision of members, whatever it may be. I have been very disturbed about reports the newspapers about your role in the setting up of a secret new grouping apparently to challenge a Corbyn leadership before it has even begun. Imagine if the left had done something similar when Blair was elected? Where would Labour be now?

In solidarity,

Lawrence Shaw
Stoke Central CLP member

Sunday, 16 August 2015

Gordon Brown and Power

Has Gordon Brown reached down from heaven and, like the vengeful Presbyterian God, smited Jeremy Corbyn with his great clunking fist? Well, no. The much-trailed Power with a Purpose speech wasn't the knock out some were hoping for, as if a talk could derail the Jeremy juggernaut anyway. Instead we had a thoughtful, nuanced and lengthy tour of the policy and ethics of the Labour Party. He asked the questions about what Labour is, its purpose, its direction of travel. In a way, it was less an attack on Corbyn - though one can easily be found in the historical vistas Gordon directs us to. In fact, the nearest he comes to explicitly doing so is in the following:

In the spirit of I've read it so you don't have to, these concluding lines sum it up:
First our principles demand of us that we seek power to help people in need.

Second we have to always listen to and learn from the public, always look outwards talking to them and never looking inwards just talking to ourselves, and that the Labour party is at its best when it speaks for the whole country.

Third we don’t win if we just work out our anger against the global change happening around us. It is not enough to be anti-globalisation: we have to show how global forces can be controlled in the interests of working families, work out our answers and the alternatives and, as John Prescott once said so powerfully, apply modern values in a new setting.

Fourth the Labour Party must give people realistic hope – that it can form a government to bring about the change. I repeat: making what we want – the desirable – possible means making the desirable popular and electable.
A couple of points. The first has Gordon at his most philosophical. He doesn't come close to elaborating a theory of social power. Here, it's understood conventionally in the Westminster sense. You have it when you're in office, and you don't when you don't. More on this in a moment. What Gordon is doing here - or at least nodding toward - is acknowledging the Labour Party as the political component of a movement, and that movements are articulations and condensations of interests related to occupational groups, types of property ownership, and so on. As I've argued many times before, the labour movement and Labour Party is a particularly messy aggregation of interests because as an organisation founded to represent all workers (by hand or by brain, by wage or by salary) that traverses, on paper, an immense proportion of the population. This encompasses all variations in income, types of work, industry, levels of autonomy and power, and divisions outside of work that takes in status as well as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disability. The organisations of workers tend to point in certain directions around shared interests, and these work against differences becoming divisions, but they also take in the prejudices and antipathies present. Hence when the Labour Party, for example, takes awful positions on immigration and social security, it isn't just because the leaders are opportunists and/or don't wish to take received wisdom on. As an organisation that represents a class of people as a whole progressive positions mix with those that are anything but.

In a mode far removed from the unspun language of class and class interests, what Gordon is evoking is Labour's economistic side, that part of our politics that deals with wage bargaining, the working day, health and safety at work, security, how far wages can stretch, and housing and rent. These are the bread and butter issues around which our forebears combined and formed nascent trade unions to tackle. He's right to mention this because economistic matters have been treated as a private matter for the unions to take up with various employers, and only feature in party programmes haphazardly. Ed Miliband had his cost of living crisis, he championed the living wage, but was much weaker when it came to matters related to social security. Under Tony and Gordon child and pensioner poverty rates came down, while employers took an axe to future pensioners by butchering their schemes - sometimes with government connivance. This unevenness cannot be resolved by using power to be nicer to more (poorer) people, which Gordon implies, but actually understanding that playing off one section of our constituency against another because of perceived political expedience harms our party as well as those who lose out. Those not in the Jeremy camp would be rise to note he became Stormin' Corbyn only after Harriet Harman's welfare debacle. Therefore, while Gordon's panglossian language about power is indicative of where our movement's sympathies lie, leaving it at this level presents a barrier to understanding how power can be deployed in the best interests of the constituency we represent.

The second point comes down to Gordon's (implied) understanding of power. As Ed Miliband once put it, opposition is "crap" because you can't do too much with it. Though, to his credit, in terms of setting the political weather the supposedly useless Ed proved effective as an opposition leader. Well, as good one can be without winning an election. But power is something you wield, something that is enacted, something that can change things. Of course, the operation of power throughout the social body is much more complex, but that is how it can appear if you're in the business of competing for elected office. Hence you can understand why the power vs protest, or power vs principle distinctions - replicated in Gordon's speech - have had a great deal of traction since Jeremy's emergence as the front runner. The problem is it's not a question of either/or. If principle and power must go together, the party also has to stop being shy about the huge but power potentials outside of Parliament. Yvette Cooper has often noted her participation on the March for Jobs/Right to Work demonstrations of the 1980s, but highlights them to emphasise how protest is ineffective. She is right, but only to a point. The huge anti-Iraq war demonstration didn't dissuade Tony Blair - or her - from taking the wrong course. But 13 years earlier the huge anti-Poll Tax mass non-payment campaign did. From 1997 to today, the rights of lesbians and gays have advanced uninterruptedly, but this was only possible because of collective action taken in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. As a protest movement, the various anti-cuts campaigns haven't chalked up many successes, but were it not for the networks forged in the heat of battle Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't have an impressive machine behind him.

In reality, at least where Labour is concerned, power and protest can be complementary. Being in opposition is frustrating, but a strong labour movement need not be powerless. Parliament may well be sovereign, but our traditions, our organisation, and our party wouldn't be here if the early movement had not used its own power to establish itself in the face of official, sovereign authority. This is more than building up redoubts in local governments and devolved administrations, a point recognised by the bulk of active party members involved in a number of causes and campaigns. If, to use Tony Blair's words, Labour is serious about using "the power of the community to advance the cause of the individual", a sentiment Gordon also endorses, we should start thinking about power in terms of empowerment - of empowering community groups, cooperatives, groups of workers, of knitting together the political fabric of civil society into something that can help us form governments and enable our constituents to better defend themselves from Tory attacks. Gaining power is important and you can't change the world without it. But you also need to effectively recognise and use the not inconsiderable power we already have too.