I’m not normally in favour of
strikes by my union (UCU) although that is a locally-ethical or tactical stance
rather than a statement of a general principle.
On this occasion, though, I felt that solidarity with other public
sector workers was necessary and important.
More interestingly, perhaps, I
went on the march in York. It was well
attended and it got a lot of support, with many cars pipping their horns in
support and many bystanders applauding the march as it passed. I heard of only one shout of ‘get back to
work’ – I’m not sure who by, clearly someone in one of those hard-pressed
‘going shopping or otherwise wandering about in York town centre’ jobs. There were good supportive speeches from
private sector workers at the end, striking a further blow against the tactics
that the government and its media allies have used. All that was very encouraging. Indeed it confirmed what the polls were
saying about the strength of support for the strike across the country (even in
a Daily Mail poll, amazingly).
All that apart, though, the
overwhelming sensation I had with the debate around the strike was of
disappointment. Obviously I’m not
surprised by the general unpleasantness of the government’s response. They could be predicted to get their media friends
(unelected people on massive wages, by the way, employing nasty people to
intrude into and often wreck people’s lives) to vilify the strikers as lazy and
try to foment a rift between the private and public sectors. It is still disappointing though. Disappointing too to hear Michael Gove coming
out with statements about how this was a time for us all to pull together. Surely all that ‘we’re all in this together’
stuff must ring hollow even in Tory Central Office’s propaganda department by
now, it’s so obviously, transparently untrue – revealed by their blocking of
real bank reform, the snivelling refusal to chase down tax-evasion and
tax-avoidance by big corporations and the super-rich the grumbling about the
50% tax bracket, the blocking of a Robin Hood Tax, the continuing huge bank
bonuses and executive pay-rises, and so on and so forth.
Disappointing, but not
surprising, that so many people appear to have been taken in with this
rhetoric. Yet, as the strike made clear,
this was not merely about protecting allegedly gold-plated public-sector
pensions; it was about protecting fair
pensions for all. Those comparing the
public with the private sector to disparage the former have the telescope the
wrong way round. The issue is not that
the public sector have it so good as much as that the private sector have it so
bad. Why do they have it so bad? Because their bosses have cut back responsible,
fair pension provision at the expense of vast executive pay-rises, shareholder
bonuses etc. Want to complain about the
inadequacy private sector pensions? Then
get with the movement for taxation and banking reform. Don’t try and bring the public sector down
too. That is the Conservative magnate class’
classic divide and rule tactic.
Nonetheless, it was not surprising,
but still disappointing, to hear Jeremy Clarkson making his usual bullying
‘jokes’ about taking the strikers out and shooting them in front of their
families, asking ‘how dare’ they strike with their gilt-edged pensions,
etc.
Let’s get this straight, shall
we? First,
Jeremy Clarkson is NOT just an
ordinary bloke like you; he went to Repton, the expensive public school; mummy
(especially) and daddy bought him his education and his opportunities. Clarkson is no more than one of those deeply
unpleasant public school boys who occasionally make it into the national papers
for their University Conservative Association antics, like burning Obama in effigy or
making anti-semitic, racist, sexist comments/stunts. And who, when confronted about their
behaviour, retreat into mealy-mouthed claims that it was just a joke, a bit of
fun, some banter. At Poppleton
University Department of History we, sadly enough, have more than enough of
this sort. They are rarely very
bright. Here is one of our distinguished
old boys… Clarkson is no different …
except that, on the basis of being an independently wealthy,
better-than-average, moderately witty car-reviewer (and that’s all he is,
remember) he has gained access to an audience of millions. Three million delusionals have even joined a Facebook group saying he should be Prime
Minister. Second, and related to my last comment, let’s remember that – apart
from his inheritance – Clarkson’s wealth comes overwhelmingly from the
opportunities afforded him by the publicly-funded BBC and its
license-payers. Third, how dare he set
himself up as some sort of working man?
What’s his job? Messing about
with expensive cars at the license-payer’s expense. Not that, with his inherited wealth, he needs
to work at all, mind. And yet, although
he thinks it bad form to discuss his own money, he can go on air and state that
he thinks people should be shot for demanding that they get a fair deal. Fourth,
at the front of our march were the reps of the Fire Brigades Union. It is likely that these were from the very
branch that sent the men who cut Clarkson’s friend and coat-holding side-kick
Richard ‘the Hamster’ (he’s not even a real hamster) Hammond out of a tree when
he drove (at the license-payer’s expense) a super-fast car into it. Yet, according to Clarkson, these are the
people who should be taken out and shot in front of their families. They should
indeed - for not leaving Hammond swinging in his tree. Hey!
It’s just a joke, Jeremy! Who looked after Hammond afterwards, in
emergency and later? Oh, that’ll be the
public sector health service for the most part.
I guess they ought to be shot too, eh, Jeremy? For not leaving him brain-damaged. After all, who knew he had a brain to
damage? Just a joke! And who did all the
proceeds from the book sold by Hammond on the back of his heart-warming
near-death-crash-and-recovery-experience go?
That’s right, they went to the public sector workers – oh no, my mistake
– they went to Hammond and his private-sector publishers, Weidenfeld and
Nicholson (as Stewart Lee said; he didn’t even have the decency to publish it
through the BBC).
Well, I don’t think Clarkson
should be taken out and shot in front of his family; I think his family should
be taken out and shot in front of him! Hey!
It’s just a joke, Jeremy.
So, Clarkson’s irresponsible and
unpleasant. Disappointing but not
surprising. Disappointing, but not
surprising, were the responses. Unison’s
predictable threat to sue just plays into his hands. All those people (Cameron included) who played
it down as just a silly joke, or as just ‘winding people up’ – it’s disappointing
but not surprising that they don’t understand the power-relations involved in
this sort of ‘joke’, and not even a very funny one in any case, let’s be
honest. Was it even a joke? When
rich and powerful people with access to an audience of millions make hateful
comments about the people they are exploiting, that is not ‘just the same’ as when members of a Facebook group make equally ill-advised equally (in the abstract)
hateful comments about the super-rich who are exploiting them. When (objectively) the same joke is exchanged
between groups of widely different social, cultural, political and economic
power, that is not reciprocity. When used by a member of a group that has the power
to use jokes to create attitudes on the back of which real prejudice and violence can ensue, to reinforce the status quo,
that is not just the same as when a member of the target of such a jibe
makes the same sort of gag back, as resistance, as a defence, as a means of
creating solidarity. So, when a white
comedian makes jokes about black people that is not just the same as when
a black comedian makes jokes about white people (even if both jokes are
‘objectively’ ill-advised and offensive).
The power of Grey Skull |
Many would say that this gives
Clarkson more space and attention than he deserves, but I think his (and his
like’s) role in British culture and ideology is quite important, and there were
general points that I wanted to make.
Much more importantly, it was disappointing but, once again, not
surprising that the gutless so-called Labour Party was notable by its absence
on 30 November. It failed actively to
support the strike; indeed back in June it even condemned it. That’s right, we have a Labour Party, a Labour Party (in Neil Kinnock accent),
that will condemn public-sector workers for taking action to protect their
futures (and those of generations to come).
This, as far as I am concerned, completes Ed Milliband’s and Labour’s move
into complete political irrelevance. For
the past 15 years under Smith, Blair (unsurprisingly – he was a public school
boy with no stake in the state; no privately-educated person can ever really be a socialist any more) and even
Brown, the Labour Party has become little more than an excrescence, a cluster
of barnacles on the hull of the Tory ideological ship, slowing it down
slightly, impeding its performance possibly, but doing little actually to stop
its progress. When ‘Red Ed’ made what I
thought was a good speech on the day of action against the cuts, which he did
well to support, he was mocked in most of the press (most of the press being
Tory-backers after all) and this seems to have spooked him and his advisers
completely. Now they are all so scared
of media reaction that they have gone back to gutless Blairite triangulation of
policy between what real labour supporters might want, what they think the
media will say and what they think the media-influenced public will let them
get away with (here
is a prime example of this sort of thinking).
During the riots I criticised the poverty of political dialogue in the UK
for its condemn:condone manichaeanism.
Here I think it was equally poor, but Milliband should have had the
courage to support the action.
The 2010 election showed that the
power of the old media is over-estimated. In spite of his slick
‘charm’ and well-managed operation, despite the support of almost all the media
and almost complete lack of media support for Labour (even The Guardian supporting the LibDems), despite the bulging Tory election
‘war-chest’, despite Brown’s utter lack of charisma and foolish mistakes, despite
the economic crisis and the mileage made out of the deficit myth, despite all
this Cameron failed to secure a mandate.
The overwhelming support for the strike, in spite of the Tory media
machine’s best efforts, shows that the days of the print media’s dominance of UK
politics are over. Hell, who even buys a
newspaper these days? Newspaper sales
are at a critical low. As a US photo,
targeting a Time Magazine cover, which
went viral on Facebook says: ‘You
know we all have the Internet now, right?’
And yet Labour remain terrified of the 1992 spectre of it being ‘The Sun Wot Won it’ – terrified in spite of
public faith in the Murdocracy being at an all-time low. All of that concern about an over-inflated
influence of old media on the 30% of the 60% and fewer who actually vote. Most non-voters would be Labour voters; they
are mostly from the least advantaged classes.
Why don’t they vote? Because
Labour and its policies are irrelevant to them; they don’t see any difference
between the two. And when Milliband
fails to support the public-sector, when he fails to promise to end tuition
fees – but simply to cut them to a ‘mere’ £6000 a year – when there is
something in all seriousness called ‘Blue Labour’, they are absolutely right. The problem with the calculations of
Dan Hodges and his ilk is that, while they may convert some of the voters of
Middle England, for each Tory-voter in Surrey converted to Blue Labour,
there is another Labour party supporter switched off, who doesn’t turn out to
vote or who makes a protest vote for the Greens or (in the past – I doubt
anyone would be stupid enough to do it again) the LibDems. Each Tunbridge Wells conservative
persuaded to vote for New/Blue Labour is a step further towards a commitment
when in power to pursue policies antithetical to the original ideals of the
Labour Party: policies, in other words, acceptable to conservatives. Another barnacle grown. And, when that is the case, then of course
large numbers of people don’t see a point in making a choice.
This rot goes through Labour from
top to bottom. It was a Labour council
that recently used The Cuts as an excuse to close a local library (opened by
Mark Twain) that it had been trying to close for years. Labour have also been putting forward 19-year-old candidates (still, obviously, at University) for Parliament. Here’s
another, put forward as PPC for York Outer when only two years out of his
degree, and now York council leader. Such
is Labour’s contempt for the electorate, and especially their own electorate,
that people who have never worked are put forward to be the representatives of
the working person. It is symptomatic of
the malaise of British politics that the two sides are now made up of
essentially the same types of people, people like Blair, with no commitment to
a particular political agenda, people who flipped a coin to see which side to
support, which side offered them the best chance of advancement. People barely out of college. This is usually represented as a good thing,
and maybe it is in some ways, but while I can see why an over-privileged Tory
brat fresh out of university can work hard to preserve the privileges of class
and wealth it is more difficult to see how someone who has done nothing except
university politics and maybe an internship or two can really have a stake in
left-wing politics. There was a day when
Labour MPs were ex-Union men and the Tories were land-owners and
businessmen. That was when there was a
difference between the two parties. Now
they are all from the same, homogeneous mass of young, middle class, frequently
Oxbridge-educated interns, PAs and PR-reps.
No wonder no one can tell the difference any more; no wonder that Labour
no longer seems to have any connection with radical politics. All this and Milliband’s statement about fees
(fairer – really? – for parents and students, said he: but what about the
universities and their traditionally Labour-voting staff?) are what made me
recently cancel my Labour Party subs.
My unease at all this was sadly
underlined by the speeches that followed the march, which, while quite good and
occasionally quite rousing (actually the one made by ‘Isaac’ from ‘York
Students Against the Cuts’ was one of the best, which was one of the most
encouraging aspects of the day), were disappointing overall. The UCU rep (from York college) was an
embarrassment, reminding me to some extent why I voted against the AUT-NATHE
merger. He had some good points but
generally he was one of those lecturers trying to be ‘down with the kids’,
discourse peppered with expletives. As
you know, I’m hardly against swearing tout court – far from it – and my
weariness of this character wasn’t because there were a lot of small kids in
the audience (though that made me uneasy).
It was because, in a public-speaking context with a limited amount of
time, a representative of the Universities
and Colleges Union ought to be a mite more articulate than that. Tactically what good does it do when people
can point ironically at this as a representative of what the country’s so-called
intelligentsia are like? Or is that just
me?
Apart from that, the speeches all
too often drifted back into old-fashioned ‘class war’ cliché. Of course the Tories have unleashed a war on the poor, while protecting their rich
friends. But it’s not just the working
class who are suffering; this, as OWS have put it, is a war of the 1% against
the 99% and no old-style class analysis will work on that basis. More to the point many people who (to sound
briefly like a Stalinist) are ‘objectively’ working class (like some of my own
family) do not self-identify as such; sometimes (like some of my own family)
they even vote Tory as a means of convincing themselves and others of the fact. Talk of the working-class ‘class war’ alienates
them. This tired old Marxist rhetoric is
a tactical mistake for two reasons. First, it alienates all those people
who aren’t, or who don’t think they are, working class and who have been
frightened off by years of press scaremongering about this sort of rhetoric. Second,
it allows the right-wing popular media to keep up that scaremongering and
present a movement for fairness as another load of out-of-touch (here the press
and the Tories will harp back to Arthur Scargill, the Soviet Union etc. etc.) hard-left
extremists who want to strip you of your hard-earned cash. And they will be able to do this at just the
point when it is the ideology of capitalism that should be under attack as –
obviously – failing. For years the Left
had the examples of the allegedly left-wing regimes of the USSR and Eastern
Europe thrown at them as examples of ‘how socialism doesn’t work’; now we can
see, from the evidence of our own eyes, not by pointing to bogey-men on the
other side of an ideological fence, that ideologically-driven, greed-is-good, neo-liberal
capitalism doesn’t work either. This is
when their position must be under
attack. This is when their ludicrous
defence that the market fails because it wasn’t neo-liberal enough must be exposed
for what it is. What it is the structurally
identical argument to that made, back in the day, by those who said that the
USSR failed for not being communist enough.
Disappointing …
It is time for a different sort
of radical politics with a different vocabulary. The old party politics of Westminster are out
of touch with what we might loosely call real politics – real politics of
whatever political tint. Take the Occupy
movement, sure, and take the anti-war and anti-Cuts protests: these showed
people on the streets together whose ‘party politics’ were diverse. The same is true, in a different part of the
political landscape, with the Countryside Alliance marches from back in the day
and even, I suspect, the EDL and their opponents. Part of the attraction of the EDL to some
people (who would I suspect otherwise be Labour supporters) is the fact that,
in a confusing time of economic and social uncertainty, there seems to be no
party representing them, reassuring them, redirecting their anger towards the
people it ought to be directed towards rather than at the Muslim
scapegoat. We return to Labour’s
political irrelevance but it is clear from their failure to win a majority in
spite of the best situation for their party in years, that the Conservative
Party is viewed as almost as irrelevant.
Its subservience to people whose wealth lies beyond the imagination of
most people cannot help but make it so, now.
A new radical politics, a new
alternative to neo-liberal conservatism, does not mean either a return to
old-style class-war rhetoric or continuing subservience to principle-lite
Blairite power-seeking calculation and triangulation. It ought to make use of the one universal
that can bring people together, their shared humanity. Avoiding confrontational polarities of the
old sort, such a vocabulary can be contingent, ethical and politically committed. Not ‘Us’ against ‘You’ or ‘Us’ against ‘Them’,
but ‘why don’t YOU want to be with US?’
Because the ultimate ‘human’, ethical demand, the ultimate demand of the
Strike, and of the Public Sector workers last Wednesday, is a simple
universalising tautology: FAIR IS FAIR.