Never Trust a Hippy

... don't spill any...

(Hat tip: Alacoque)

The Manchester Student rag, Students Direct has been annexed by the SWP. They are a bit like a necrotising agent, aren’t they?

In the late ‘80s, I gained almost the only elected position of my lifetime as the editor of Kingston Polytechnic’s student mag, The Crez (don’t ask - I can't remember why it was called that).

A few RCP members didn’t fully understand representative democracy, and they kept trying to get student union meetings to instruct me to carry their articles.

Finally, I relented.

“I’ll publish anything that you write….” I told them, “…as long as it doesn’t contain any of the words 'Living', 'Marxism', 'Revolutionary', 'Communist', 'Party', 'Furedi', 'Ireland', 'Next', 'Step' or 'Palestine'."

And that was the end of that.

A comment on Shuggy’s post on the environment and the electoral cycle.

I’d normally stick to his comments box, but he seems to be fighting a rearguard action against trolls and he’d probably end up deleting me by mistake.

For some time, the green-left has had to let Labour off the hook on the environment on electoral grounds. No matter how strongly you hold a conviction in democratic politics, if it threatens your ability to retain power, it usually becomes unthinkable. Until this summer, Labour’s only significant dip in the opinion polls came at the time of the fuel protests.

And while the fuel protests were not officially led by the Tories, they were given plenty of tacit support. Indeed, this is a long-standing MO that the Tories have been using.

But with the new Hippy Cameron in charge, Labour have two options:

1. Pull a flanker. Start to pull him all over the place on the subject by raising the stakes. Introduce proposals designed to stretch the Tories to breaking point. In recent years, whenever Labour want to keep a Tory leader awake, all they need to do is loudly consider the Euro again. Every mention causes a new outbreak of fratricide at Central Office. CO2 emissions could provide a new tool in this respect. And Labour could expect plenty of help in this from the clowns as it offers endless scope the kind of sloppy narratives that they love so much.
2. Strike a deal. Allow Cameron to use greening as a way of modernising his party. In exchange, neutralise it as an election issue while allowing Labour to go to the country on a fairly radical platform of emissions limiting measures.

Number two is the principled option, obviously. There are a number of problems with it though. The most obvious one is that you can’t trust the Tories as far as you’d throw them. Alongside this, there is always the worry that some ‘ratepayer’ type alliance (the next version of UKIP?) could emerge in the process.

And all of this assumes that Labour really does want to pursue a greener policy - you know, deep down.

The wider question of how long-termism can be compatible with representative democracy is, of course, a fascinating one that deserves a book to itself – not just a blog-post.

For the record, I think it can be, and I think I know how it can be. Anyone know a publisher that hands out advances rashly?

Now Bond, pay attention. This little beauty is the XP977 Suppository....

In a bind? Need your own Dirty Bomb?

The answer is at hand with new Evacuator™

A good soldier needs to know when to run and when to hide. And has Q gone to work for Viz without telling anyone?

(hat tip, Ben, Charlie and Amanda)

Here, commented on by David.

Paul Anderson’s ‘Orwell in Tribune’ is something of a revelation. I’ve always been quite a fan, but reading this, I realise that I’ve forgotten just how much he (Orwell - not Paul!) has influenced the way I look at the world.

When I was at school, I had all four volumes of his collected essays and journalism out of the library (as the fines mounted, I always ended up just hanging on to them) and I read them lots of times. This new volume has some old friends in it and a fair few samples that I’ve never seen before.

There’s plenty to choose from, but as early as his fourth ‘As I Please’ column, we find the great man on the extraordinary influence of what he calls ‘neo-pessimism’: At the time, it was largely a right-wing phenomenon, but he could be writing about the relentless nihilism and negativism of the fuckwits that call themselves ‘the left’ these days:

“The danger of ignoring the neo-pessimists lies in the fact that up to a point they are right. So long as one things in short periods it is wise not to be hopeful about the future. Plans for human betterment do normally come unstuck, and the pessimist has many more opportunities of saying ‘I told you so’ than the optimist. By and large the prophets of doom have been righter than those who imagined that a real step forward would be achieved by universal education, female suffrage, the League of Nations, or what-not.

The real answer is to dissociate socialism from Utopianism. Nearly all neo-pessimist apologetics consist in putting up a man of straw and knocking him down again. The man of straw is called Human Perfectibility. Socialists are accused of believing that society can be - and indeed, after the establishment of socialism, will be - completely perfect; also that progress is inevitable. Debunking such beliefs is money for jam, or course.

..... Socialists don’t claim to be able to make the world perfect: they claim to be able to make it better.”

Another feature of the book is it’s footnotes. They’re almost as interesting a read as the articles themselves. It's very good. Ask Santa for it. You never know your luck....

This isn’t intended to be a particularly informative post. More a fishing exercise – I’m looking for a few pointers and a discussion here. I’ve looked around briefly and can’t find anyone who has written about this with any authority – but suggestions are welcome.

A few months ago, I posted on the work of Pierre Bourdieu – his explanation of how the totality of power-relations work in the media, and how it influences the quality, the tone and the content of reportage and public discourse.

In the decade since Bourdieu published this work, the media has begun a process of transformation that is not yet complete. You will point out, of course, the organic processes such as this rarely reach a point of absolute completion, but, again, bear with me here.

For instance, there was a time in which advertising-spend could be roughly correlated with the success or otherwise of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs). This is no longer the case.

There was a time in which the contract between a journalist and a reader was fairly simple – that I would fork over 50p for a newspaper in return for a bit of reportage, a bit of comment and access to a few ‘classified’ noticeboards. It would be more than 50p but for the advertisers who subsidise my reading in return for me agreeing to glance at some of their messages.

Free stuff on the internet has changed all of that. The transactions are a lot more complex now – and many of them are highly speculative. For instance, you can watch The Fall performing Big New Prinz …



… on my blog without being served up with any adverts. How do YouTube monetise that service? Well, the short answer is that I haven’t a clue, and I can’t pretend to understand why someone would invest in a project that doesn’t have a visible revenue stream. I can just about understand how Google is worth as much as it is, but this goes one step further for me.

Advertising is particularly interesting. In the past, people were prepared to pay a newspaper for space in the hope that readers would glance at the ad and be impressed enough to nip down to the shops to buy the product. Having sold ads, I can confirm that being able to guarantee response was always the elusive Holy Grail.

Unless you had the kind of volume that mass media had, you didn’t even have the data to make the case to advertisers – a factor that has – I believe - favoured national over local media. Local papers, as a result, have reduced their investment in local journalism, and the political consequence of this is, of course centralisation. Boo!

But now you can get a measurable volume of response by advertising on a weblog. You can offer ‘payment by results.’

Is it the case, then, that a tide is turning here, and that we have the sunny uplands of decentralisation to look forward to?

It’s not a rhetorical question. I really don’t know the answer. But if anyone can point me to any reading on this, I’d be grateful.

...about Labour's deputy leadership shall we?

Via Hak Mao, who already has comments suggesting that a website called 'Left Foot Forward' has to be a papist conspiracy.

It's the middle of October, and the park near my house had sunbathers in it at lunchtime.

I don't know how far this is a result of global warming, but I do know that it's making it hard to know what to wear in the mornings.

It's not helping me know what newspaper to buy either. The other day, I went on a short tube trip across town. When I went underground, it was sunny. When I arrived in Moorgate (about 20 mins later) the rain was torrential. As I stood at the station entrance, looking out into the storm, I heard the newspaper seller shouting 'Free Umbrella with every Evinstaindid'

I thought he was taking the piss. But he wasn't.

All of this newspaper competition is driving me nuts. A few months ago, I had to endure 'buy the Daily Mail' temptation. Now this.

Reader, this time, I gave in. I arrived at my destination, dry as a bone with a copy of The Evening Standard under my arm. And I can confirm that, after many years separation from the rag, that it is still as full of shit as ever.

I thought this was interesting.

David Blunkett says:

"For the rest of my life, I will regret speaking to Stephen Pollard."

(hat tip: Matt T).

I wasn't initially convinced by Chris Dillow's excellent post about the factors that make for effective politians, but the more I think about it, the more I'm sure he's right.

He notes the success of Scottish politicians and offers a persuasive set of reasons for this.

1. Presbytarianism encourages self-restraint - an aversion to impulsive behaviour
2. The ability of minorities to bond.

I'd suggest another factor in this success - or rather an extension on the second reason. That local politics makes people fractious and unconstructive. While the relative quality of Scotish statespersonship is evident in Westminster, it is almost totally lacking in Holyrood. Indeed, Scottish politics is often talked about as a proving house for Westminster. If you can negotiate your way around the nepotism, the backstabbing and the religious sectarianism, it is thought that you will be able to deal with anything that the gentleman amateurs of Westminster can throw at you.

Politicians often depend for their livelihood upon fairly small factions and, as a result, become their delegates. Almost, you could say, their employees. We will get a higher quality of representation from them if we can put some distance between them and their sponsors.

A few years ago, and over a number of years, I used to attend social functions for politicians from Northern Ireland. Always at the Labour Party Conference, always in England. It being a subject that I have a lot of interest in, I got to know a few of the regulars quite well. They included mainstream Unionists, nationalists, Trade Unionists and Loyalist ex-paramilitaries (and one or two who were not entirely 'ex' as it turned out).

In many cases, politicians who were officially 'not talking' to each other could be found socialising and arguing quite affably. With no local gallery to play to, constructive informal negotiations could take place. The events in question were hosted by The Workers Party, and when the Northern Ireland completes it's transition to a liberal democracy, this role played by 'the stickies' in overcoming sectarianism should be acknowledged.

Not only were they able to chew the fat in a suitable setting, they were also able to get a bit of perspective. A few ex-UDA people I spoke to were prepared to acknowledge that they felt more comfortable in the company of Belfast Catholics than they did with English prods. So the ability to put aside petty grievances and to jointly promote the interests of their localities is something that they were practicing at those social events. In addition, they were able to step back from the overarching sectarianism, and in the context of a Workers Party event, were able to contemplate their shared class interests.

This is, of course, only an extrapolation on Chris's point about 'bonding. The conclusion that I'd draw from that is that a country will be better governed if politicians can be removed as far as possible from interest groups. This is fairly widely acknowledged in the case of pressure groups (commercial or otherwise), but not as widely acknowledged in the case of local interests. We have a responsibility to create a constructive stage on which politicians act. On the whole, I think that - on this issue, I'll end on a pessimistic note in saying that we may be heading in the wrong direction.

"It is time to grasp that we are sharing a continent with a very large tyranny, in fact, that we never ceased to do so."

A good perspective on the whole issue is here.

Worth a look:

• Enoch Powell quoted at Progressive Dilemmas - along with an ad for the Sheffield Festival of Politics.
• Pootergeek - a picture speaks a thousand words
  
• Yesterday's Times - Kaletsky on the longest shopping list in history

Is anyone running a spread on when Dave's honeymoon will be over exactly? I fancy a little flutter.

Ivan in the comments thinks I'm on the same page as Simon Jenkins on David Cameron and decentralisation here. Worrying news. Thankfully, a quick squint highlights a difference between us. Jenkins says:

"At the Commons dispatch box will he stop banging on about postcode lotteries and demanding ministers "do something" all the time? Does he really mean to leave people to vote locally rather than whinge nationally? Blair said much the same about devolution when he was in opposition, and did not mean it. Such respect for social responsibility - the empowerment of individuals within their communities - requires politicians to deny what they most crave, power."

Cameron's problem is not that we can question his sincerity in seeking power in order to disperse it. We already know that he doesn't mean it because the real question is not what he does if he's returned as PM, it is about whether it is at all possible to credibly advocate decentralisation when the media's coverage of politics (surely a significant electoral factor?) focusses largely on personality issues, gossip, recycled briefings, leaks and gaffes.

For the avoidance of doubt, it isn't possible to sincerely advocate decentralisation and win elections. Because every issue is now served up to us as a national totemic issue requiring a strong populist response, sincere decentralisers can't win elections. Jenkins omits to mention that is own dispicable profession is largely responsible for this state of affairs. And he can't really, because he spends a good deal of his time arguing for more referendums and other populist and demagogic forms of government.

Only a new leader, during a mid-term, can take the kind of steps that would offer the genuine possibility of decentralisation in the current climate. Cometh the hour, cometh The Son of the Manse?

I doubt it.

I missed this article on Islamism by Jason Burke the first time around.

It looks very persuasive, well informed and level headed to me. And the kind of commenters that it attracts tells you all you need to know about the whole 'Comment is Free' project. When large media outlets dip their toe in the blogosphere, they don't create in interactive space that adds any value.

All they do is hold up a mirror to the appalling quality of public discussion that they themselves have fostered with their own plunging standards. They attempt to co-opt us into their quagmire.

Hopefully, after a while, they'll realise that they are paying a fortune to commentators who (with notable exceptions such as Jason Burke) have rivals online doing a better job on personal blogs for no pay.

Maybe they will start re-directing all of that cash into reporting instead. Remember reporters? Reporting events as they see them without any need to soliloquise or provide a little simplified context of their own? No need to go back to Nick in Westminster who is on the line now to tell us what we've just seen or heard for ourselves.

Think about how much valuable information you could pick up for fifty pee every morning if all that cash currently wasted on the twatocracy of Bruce As, Simon Js, Yasmin A-Bs, (…. oh, insert your own pet dingle-berry* in here) were spent on reporters instead?

Don't hold your breath though....


*note to Comrade Rubbish. Dingle-berry = winnit or clagg-nut.

This is quite funny. Whatever you think about him, Boris writes very well.

Stan: "I'll be back." (via Mac).

Still and all, I'd love to see the old dogger in a Forest strip one more time. He was probably the best striker we've ever had.

(Also, see Col on this here)

Gary Younge, that is. Fisked here (via Fisking Central).

Q: What class of numb-nuts section-editor lets this kind of rubbish through? Perhaps it was Seamus Milne's day off?

The social event of the year is going off tonight for anyone who is a short bus-ride from the middle of London. Be there, or be a gefilte fish.

Apparently, anyone wearing a shirt like the one pictured will have their drinks bought all night for them by the host.

The great and good Mick Hartley has found a good set of links on The Battle of Cable Street - seventy years ago today.

Comment on this post for a change, whydoncha?

My old china Enda has e-mailed me a list of the top-twenty songs played at funerals as compiled by The Bereavement Register - an outfit that apparently monitors junk mail that has been sent to dead people.

1. Goodbye my lover: James Blunt
2. Angels: Robbie Williams
3. I’ve had the time of my life - Jennifer Warnes & Bill Medley
4. Wind beneath my wings - Bette Midler
5. Pie Jesu - Requiem
6. Candle in the wind - Elton John
7. With or without you - U2
8. Tears from heaven - Eric Clapton
9. Every breath you take - The Police
10. Unchained Melody - Righteous Brothers
11. Danny boy - Daniel O’ Donnell
12. Time to say goodbye - Sarah Brightman
13. What a wonderful world - Louis Armstrong
14. Knocking on heavens door - Bob Dylan
15. I don’t want to miss a thing - Areosmith
16. Bright eyes - Simon & Garfunkel
17. Eternal flame - The Bangles
18. I’ll sleep when I am dead - Bon Jovi
19. I want to live for ever - Fame
20. Reach for the stars - S Club 7

Lovely, I think you'll agree. Col speaks for all decent people about the top choice. No 10 will be popular among Forest fans - it's our equivalent of 'You'll Never Walk Alone*' or 'I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles.'

Comments that Enda had from the other people he e-mailed this to:

"at my cremation... Fire by The Crazy World of Arthur Brown"

You get the idea. Use the comments box please with your suggestion. I think I'd be all serious and pick 'The Parting Glass'. It's a great ballad - fantastic words, and a tune that really suits a rasping bass voice - that is sung in Ireland, but it pisses off a certain brand of Irishfolk who will quickly point out that "it's a northern song - and from the wrong part of the north as well..."

Or I'd have the tune 'Banish Misfortune' (hear it here) played for the same reason. And because I like it as well. Or maybe Paul Robeson's 'Joe Hill' or Luke Kelly's take on 'Raglan Road.'

Another old friend, Kevin the Kitten, says that he'd have the Merry Melodies tune 'Thats all Folks' played as his coffin slides into the oven. He'd have a remote control hand waving from under the lid as well.

*Come the revolution, I will arrange for everyone to be lined up and asked the simple question; Which song do you like the most? 'My Way' or 'You'll Never Walk Alone'

While I know Brian (pbuh) loved 'My Way', anyone still living who choses it will be shot straight away. This is because 'You'll Never Walk Alone' should be the national anthem of any new Socialist Republic that deserves yours truly as it's leader. 'My Way' is this great song's antithesis.

Just seen this on the top of Bloggers4Labour's 'recommended' list.

Good idea, that recommended list, innit? I must confess that I voted for one of my posts completely accidentally - in that 'I wonder what happens if I press that button' ways.

Won't do it again. I promise.

Pay attention.

Here, Hughes illustrates how simplification leads to centralisation.

In this case, he predicts that the Conservative Party will be unable to resist crowing about the 'postcode lottery' at the same time as campaigning for devolved NHS decision-making.

He is, of course, correct. And we, in The Labour Party should be gloating about this, shouldn't we? However, we can't, because we are just as bad as The Stupid Party in this respect.

I knew I'd omitted a few sites when I updated the blogroll. I intended to include some of the more 'NuLab' sites in the 'engaged' subheading. The 'engaged' sites are the ones that I don't always agree with, but that I think are good sites worth a visit.

Luke Akehurst is the best of them. I've met Luke a few times and he's an argumentative git. Natural blogging material, and I'm surpised it took him so long to get cracking online. Luke meet Shuggy. Shuggy, meet Luke. Shuggy, Luke will really get on your tits.

Then there's Adrian McMenamin, an ex-Millbank enforcer, the Idiots4Labour site, and the blog of Progress - the antidote to Compass.

I haven't sidebarred the other Luke Akehurst blog - a blog that has been kindly written for Luke by his enemies. But here's a one-off link.

Elsewhere, I forgot Skuds. Soz Skuds.

• In case you're thinking of updating YOUR blog, Jo Salmon has been comparing notes on Wordpress v Blogger.
• Civilised people
• More guff from the music industry

And, er.... stottie cakes - the full saga.

David asks "Is the government capable of consulting people?"

If not, who can do it? I've argued in the past that we should let Slugger do it. (scroll down to suggestion no3) .

Shuggy on citizenship classes and their alleged failings. I think we need to improve the quality of the public discussion before we should be asking teachers to catch up.

And finally, just a quick thought.

• Most of the huge debts that the two main parties have run up in recent elections (£27m for Labour and - allegedly - £30m for the Tories) is the result of advertising spend
• Traditional ad-spend is largely a waste of money these days
• Any reforms that are made will probably address a problem that has become obsolete.

On the day of the Madrid bombings, a journalist called Simon Jenkins apparently had an article published in The Times denouncing Tony Blair for exagerating the threat from Islamist terrorism. Or so I'm told.

In 1994, another hack of the same name had an article in The Times entitled 'Leave Rwanda Alone'. Were they written by the same person? I don't suppose there are any plans to put The Times archive online?

And would they have been written by the same Simon Jenkins that wrote this about the current situation in Darfur?

"The inhumane folly of our interventionist machismo"