Archive for May, 2001

Reasons to Vote Labour Despite Everything

May 31st, 2001

I don’t think he has been reading my weblog — I’d be quite surprised if he had — but regular Guardian idiot-columnist Jonathan Freedland might as well have been trying to respond directly to my sceptical question below about why anyone should want to vote for New Labour candidates at the election (except, I am happy to concede, as an anti-Conservative tactical vote). I don’t think anyone’s likely to find his arguments terribly persuasive, but for those in search of Reasons to Vote Labour Despite Everything, they’re here.

ThatcherWeb

May 30th, 2001

I suppose I should have guessed that pages like this existed, but thatcherweb.com still took me a little by surprise.

Bob wrote [31.5.01]: i’m enjoying your blog. But I have only one word for thatcherweb.com: obscene.

The Future of Europe

May 29th, 2001

French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin gave a major speech yesterday on the future of the European Union. What did he say? Let’s look at the newspaper headlines. “Jospin reveals ‘superstate’ plan” says the Daily Telegraph. “Jospin rejects federal Europe” agrees the Guardian. So that’s clear.

Hattersley

May 28th, 2001

Roy Hattersley, writing in today’s Guardian, has this to say:

Properly pursued, the argument about sovereignty is won by European integrationists. For sovereignty is to nations as liberty is to individuals – not a theoretical condition which they possess, but are too weak to use, but the power to act in their own best interests. The more we are integrated with Europe, the greater that power becomes. It would be unreasonable to expect the UK Independence party or their Conservative sympathisers to understand so sophisticated a definition.

A strange view of sovereignty, this one. Does anyone want to defend it?

Student Politics

May 27th, 2001

Kevin Hind, of Pembroke College, has just sent this message around:

Dear all, I had this idea the other day of setting up a Radical Society in Oxford University. Oxford Brookes has a Radical Alliance, but I thought it would be a good idea to set up an anti-Capitalist debating society in Oxford Uni as there are lots of groups who seem interested in coming along. I have been in contact with Amnesty International, Green Party, Drop the Debt and People and Planet. I have sent e-mails to O.G.A., S.W.S.S. and the Labour Club. If you think this is a crap idea please tell me, but I want to encourage high-profile debate on anti-Capitalism. I thought about inviting a famous person at the first meeting which would take place next term. I had in mind Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, George Monbiot or Naomi Klein. Please tell me what you think, yours, Kevin Hind.

I’ve never met Kevin Hind, but thinking about this was more interesting than spending Sunday afternoon marking students’ essays, so I sent him this reply:

I’m not sure we’ve met (have we?) nor am I quite sure how I ended up on this Globalise Resistance list (don’t worry: I’m happy to be here), but I wanted to say hi, and that you should forward this message to your GR list if you think it would be helpful in provoking discussion.

I don’t think yours is a crap idea at all. But there’s historical precedent for thinking that you should proceed with caution, and that a Radical Society or equivalent might not work especially well in this University.

In 1993 a group called the “University Left Forum” — of which I was a part — came into existence. 1993 was a good moment for this kind of thing: leftists were disappointed with the election result the previous year; the events of Autumn 1992 (the pit closures and Black Wednesday, especially) made the Right extremely unpopular, and Tony Blair hadn’t yet become leader of the Labour Party and alienated the support of young people by, e.g., imposing tuition fees. The University Left Forum was supposed to be a non-sectarian group of friendly-minded left people who would get together for occasional “debates” with “high-profile” speakers (sound familiar?). And I don’t think I’m making an especially controversial claim when I say that it didn’t really work, and didn’t last an especially long time.

Its meeting of 21 May 1993 got a decent audience, and was addressed by Paul Boateng (then in opposition, so a more credible left figure than he is now) and Yvonne Roberts (with, I think, Kitty Kelley in attendance!) — but apart from lending the name to “sponsoring” various other things around town, I’m not sure the Left Forum ever did much. Its “steering group” meetings provided an opportunity for a couple of people who might not otherwise have met to hook up and start going out with one another, but in political terms, I don’t think the people who went along to those meetings thought that they ever achieved as much politically as they were meant to.

Why not?

There were personality clashes, and a rather obvious split between what we might call an Old Left and a women’s/rainbow/diversity/new-social-movements crowd. But I think the key problem was this: that genuinely ecumenical umbrella groups require input from several people coming from different groups, but most of the kinds of people who would be interested are already putting their organisational energies into their favourite causes and preferred organisations. At Left Forum meetings, it was clear that A was “the person from OUSU”, B was “the person from the Socialist Workers”, C was “the person from Amazon”, D was “the person from New College JCR”, and so on, and that this remained the focus of their primary loyalty. When everyone was slightly over-committed already, no one much wanted to spend their evenings doing boring University Left Forum work. (And, on the other hand, had anyone in particular volunteered to run the thing and do most of the work, it would have much more quickly become that person’s particular thing, and would have lost the ecumenical and genuinely democratic character to which it aspired.)

Three other structural problems, I think, also lurk in the background for any group of this kind:

First, mostly but not entirely because of the existence of the Union, which distorts the market for political discussion meetings, it is the case that Oxford already gets stackloads of high profile speakers, so they aren’t the lure they are in other contexts and on other campuses.

Second, that there’s no day of the week you can pick to hold meetings on which won’t piss off at least one medium-sized Oxford progressive organisation which holds its meetings on that day. (When we made the decision to hold my Corporate Power and Political Philosophy discussion group on Tuesday, people told me that that meant people from “People and Planet” couldn’t come, and the Labour Club has since started doing weekly canvassing trips on Tuesdays, too).

Third, that people who are Quite Active aren’t necessarily keen to go to more meetings than they already do. If people go to two club-and-society meetings a week, that’s probably because that’s all they are willing to go to, and want to save the rest of their time for drinking, working, pretending to work, having sex, listening to music, wasting time, whatever else they like to do with their evenings. Some people will go to anything at all — but do you want them to be your main audience for a “Radical Society”?

This isn’t meant to be negative criticism: just a warning, to help you think about how to avoid the errors of the past. All you need is a good Plan — but you do need a good plan, which manages to be the product of genuine collective deliberation without running aground on the kinds of problems listed above.

But I’ll end this message, as all leftwing tracts should, on an upbeat – though self-serving – note. One institution survives from this 1993 moment of Oxford Left Unity. The Left Forum never launched the publication it thought it wanted to organise, but Ben Fender of the Oxford University Fabians did begin to produce and circulate around the University a pamphlet series called “The Voice of the Turtle”, which had its first two issues in that same Trinity Term of 1993, with six in all over the period 1993-5. After a period of hibernation following graduation, Raj Patel (also at Oxford 1992-5) and I revived the title in 1998 and launched it onto the worldwide web, where it now lives at voiceoftheturtle.org and operates on a thoroughly global scale, still committed to the same ULF values of ecumenical anti-capitalist radicalism. (An odd twist, perhaps, on the conventional wisdom: we originally thought locally and have ended up acting globally…) And, yes, fresh contributions are always welcome…

Avanti popolo, etc.

Thoughts? Comments? Disagreements?

General Election

May 27th, 2001

From Nick Cohen in today’s Observer:

“I’ve never liked the slogan ‘the personal is political': it implies egotism and a narrowing of horizons and solidarities. But the cop-outs of reluctant Blair supporters – ‘he’ll get better’, ‘he’ll come to respect us’, ‘there is no alternative’ – resemble nothing so much as the excuses battered wives make for their abusers. …

If you vote for Blair you will also be lending your good name to the curtailment of the right to trial by jury, the turning of demonstrators into ‘terrorists’, the persecution of asylum-seekers, the imposition of tuition fees, the incessant manipulation of the media, the rigging of elections, the refusal to renationalise the railways, the abasement before corporate interests. I thought myself pretty cynical on 1 May 1997, but if a stranger had told me that this would be the record New Labour would be defending at the next election, I would have dismissed him as a raving fantasist.”

Does any good reason remain for voting for New Labour candidates at the forthcoming election? It is true — of course it is true — that a Hague government would be worse than a Blair government. It would be much worse. But since there is no possibility of the electorate sending Mr Hague to Downing Street, the “You Must Vote Labour To Stop The Tories Getting In” approach — which still had some bite in 1997 — is entirely unpersuasive. And the more votes Mr Blair’s candidates get, the more he will think he has a “mandate” for his new round of “radical” (i.e. right-wing) reform. If anyone thinks they do have good reason for voting New Labour, do pass it along.

Alec wrote [4.6.01]: Be careful of being too complacent about what is at stake on Thursday.

A lot of Labour Party supporters, perhaps unhappy about the right-wing policies being persued by sucessive Labour Governments, would have thought this about Mrs Thatcher in the second half of the 1970s. The British electorate, let’s face it, does have a record of sending ghastly, xenophobic right-wingers into office – we shouldn’t forget this, despite the mess in which today’s Conservative Party finds itself. Voting for (and campaigning for) the Labour Party still represents the most effective way of fighting against those values, and fighting for: greater tolerance, an end to poverty, rights at work, sustained investment in public services, a sensible apprach to the European Union, protection of the environment, tackling third world debt, etc etc etc

And just think of this: Voting for minor parties instead of Labour in Labour seats helps the Tories. Every seat won by the Tories means one more Tory in Parliament. If the Conservatives do well on election day and take back some Labour seats, isn’t there a danger that this might be seen as a demand by the British public for: even tougher policy on asylum seekers, limiting public spending, and a more isolated position in Europe? In other words, every vote really does count – in view of this risk, the Left should unite behind Labour on June 7th.

I’m sure you’ll disagree, and this is yet another manifestation of my right-wing fervour, as alleged by the Exeter Socialist Alliance. Still, there it is.

Welcome to the Weblog!

May 27th, 2001

After a bit of fiddling with the code I think I’ve just about managed to make it work the way I want it to. Let’s see what happens now. (To see someone do this properly — and far better than I ever will — visit the excellent and thought-provoking bobblog.)

biannual

biannual