Bosses' 'Blacklist'

Have a gander at this. It seems that bosses are getting together to conspire to refuse jobs to workers who may have been accused of wrongdoing.

Yes, that's right, accused. Not even found guilty. Even if you were exonerated - even if the accusation was malicious - employers are preparing to have it follow you around forever and ensure that you never darken their morally-superior doorsteps with your demand to work for them and help them make profits.

None of that bloody 'innocent until proven guilty' lark round here, no sirree. You might have to endure that woolly liveral nonsense in a court of law, but when it comes to allowing members of the capitalist class to pick and choose who they exploit, no such standards need apply.

Mind you, while there will hopefully be an outcry against this persecution of the innocent, let me also say that this is outrageious treatment of the guilty too. Someone who has in fact been dishonest or nicked from their boss may well expect a punishment, but they also deserve a second chance. There is such a notion of 'paying your debt' and then being allowed to move on and have a fresh start. In my experience, bosses give themselves and their gopher managers second, third and thousandth chances on a regular basis.

Conspiring to permanently exclude a person from gainful employment for eternity seems to me the most effective way possible to enlist them in a life of crime.

More action on the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill

Just come across this site , the Coalition for Choice :

Coalition For Choice is an online network of concerned individuals who are broadly for choice, equality and women’s rights.
We consist of writers, bloggers, activists, journalists, academics and many more from different fields.
This coalition was put together specifically to support the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, though it will continue afterwards in campaigning for women’s rights.

Sounds well worth supporting .

There is info on events and ways to offer support, including :

White Coat Protest

Second Reading of Human Fertility and Embryology Bill - House of Commons 12th May 2008

Please join our “Scientists, doctors (bring white coats please!) and patients “Show of Support” at 1pm-2pm including media photocall outside Parliament
12th May 2008
Venue: At Old Palace Yard

Followed by drop in meeting with leading scientists, medics, patient representatives and politicians in Committee Room 7 from 2pm-3.30pm

Followed by the opportunity to watch the debate when it starts at 3.30pm live in the public gallery of the Commons chmaber

On 12th May 2008 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons.

Over the past months, there has been intensive lobbying of MPs, particularly from groups who are opposed to embryo research. MPs may not have heard quite so clearly from the patient groups, medics and scientists who strongly support the proposals in the bill and know that it is vitally important that the legislation is not watered down.

On Monday 12th May 2008 outside the Houses of Parliament we will seek to represent the breadth of the support for the Bill just before the debate begins by bringing representatives from the hundreds of patient groups together with scientists who support the Bill.

A YouGov poll in August 2005 showed that 77% of people accept embryo research for life-threatening diseases. But For far too long the only public shows of feeling on this issue have come from those who wish to vote down these much needed and progressive measures permitting carefully regulated embryo research and important and ethical clinical interventions like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. So for the first time science and medicine is going to show its support for the bill.

So please join us to represent this majority and progressive opinion across the UK.
For more information please call Becky Purvis in the office of Dr Evan Harris MP on 0207 219 5128


Check out the site and do support it.

Update Check out Penny Red for 24 reasons to keep the 24 limit.

Sex, drugs and drink;shock new findings

Some researchers were asked to find out about the links between sex, drink , drugs and young people. Hmmm.

They :

They questioned young people in nine cities, one each in the UK, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia - who all routinely went to pubs, bars and nightclubs.

They found out that:

Drunkenness and drug use were found to be strongly associated with an increase in risk taking behaviour and feeling regretful about having sex .

Those who had been drunk in the past four weeks were more likely to have had five or more partners, sex without a condom and to have regretted sex after drink or drugs in the past 12 months.

Cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy use was linked to similar consequences.

Study leader Professor Mark Bellis, director of the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moore's University said: "Millions of young Europeans now take drugs and drink in ways which alter their sexual decisions and increase their chances of unsafe sex or sex that is later regretted.

"Yet despite the negative consequences, we found many are deliberately taking these substances to achieve quite specific sexual effects."

And to save them further research I would suggest that similar results would be found for the not so young as well.

A better class of gun crime under Boris ?

For a more considered response click here.

Emergency Protest on abortion rights

Details received from Abortion Rights:

Emergency Protest – as MPs vote on women’s abortion rights

Tuesday 20 May, 5.30pm Outside Parliament - details to be confirmed
Defend 24 Weeks – no reduction in abortion time limit

Tube: Westminster

Called by Abortion Rights http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/

On Tuesday 20 May Members of Parliament will debate and vote on the anti-abortion amendments to the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill. The key amendments aim to lower the time limit for abortion. This vote is taking place much earlier than expected and with very little notice. In the limited time available, it is vital that everyone who supports a woman’s right to choose does everything they can to show their opposition to any reduction in the time limit. Please attend this crucial protest – and encourage your trade union, women’s group, student union or other organization to send a presence. Please also write to your MP in advance of 20th to urge them to vote against any amendment to reduce the time limit. A model letter is available at http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/

We say:

Women must come first. There is no significant scientific or medical support for any reduction in the time limit. Yet a handful of anti-abortionists are using downright propaganda and misinformation, hoping to intimidate and mislead MPs into attacking women’s rights. An overwhelming majority of the public supports the right to choose: MPs should uphold choice and vote down amendments by Nadine Dorries and any anti-abortion MPs.

Less than two per cent of abortions take place after 20 weeks. If successful, a lowering of the abortion time limit would be devastating for a small number of women in difficult, unforeseeable and individual circumstances and would encourage further anti-abortion attacks. Contrary to anti-abortion hype, research shows there has been no increase in survival rates for births under 24 weeks. There is opposition to any lowering of the time limit from the British Medical Association, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Association of Perinatal Medicine, Royal College of Nursing, TUC and national trade unions, the Department of Health and MPs across all three major parliamentary political parties.

Write to your MP

Please try to write to, email, phone or visit your MP before this vote to urge them not to vote for any lowering of the abortion time limit. If you wish you can use the model letter on Abortion Rights website or the Abortion Rights postcard.

Funds needed

Abortion Rights urgently needs financial support in organizing this protest and in covering the costs of the campaign that has been organized. You can help by making a donation online or by cheque to ‘Abortion Rights’ and encouraging your organization to do so. You can also help by joining and by your organization affiliating to Abortion Rights.

An Oasis In An Electoral Desert

Good news reaches us from the polling stations of Barrow-in-Furness (where, entirely co-incidentally, my uncle used to be the MP). Anti-Academy campaigners stood six candidates and won four seats, and ousted the Tory Leader of the Council. Of the two who did not get elected, one missed out by just one vote.

I wouldn't want to leap to any hasty conclusions, as I don't know anything about their broader politics. Maybe they will disappoint. But it does tell us something about fighting neo-liberal attacks at the municipal ballot box. Although some may be tempted to conclude that the lesson is to fight on single issues, I'd say that instead, the key issue is that successful left candidacies must come from genuine mobilisations of local working-class people.

Anyway, here is the campaign's website.

Hat tip: Patrick

Guest post - Following May Day debacle the coffee smells strong

A specially commissioned guest post for Stroppyblog from George Binette Peterson, variously known to some as the cleverest man on the left and the real gorgeous George ...

After weeks (in some cases months) of furious tapping at keyboards by the denizens of the blogosphere spewing vitriol and insight in unequal measures, the results of the English and Welsh local elections are finally in. At a general level it would be difficult to dissent from the mainstream media’s pundits: Thursday’s polls were an undeniable disaster for Gordon Brown and New Labour, while providing the strongest indication yet that David Cameron is the most likely occupant of 10 Downing Street in two years time.

I would, however, suggest two caveats: the Labour Party’s overall performance was only marginally worse than in 2004 (projected national share of the vote at 24% as opposed to 26% in 2004 when the Iraq war admittedly had far greater electoral salience) and in a number of London constituencies there was actually a substantial swing to Labour on an increased turnout that reached 45% London-wide. Still, Gordon Brown’s premiership is in deep trouble as his replacement of Tony Blair has done nothing to revive generally flagging fortunes and even in one-time Welsh fortresses Labour’s vote plummeted with the Tories making gains. Under Brown Labour’s malaise has worsened, as the new administration clings to its neo-liberal fundamentals, while general anxiety about the economy post-credit crunch, compounded by the reality of sharply rising costs for utilities and basic foodstuffs, has exacerbated the erosion of Labour’s electoral base. For some, the axing of the 10p tax rate was simply the final straw.

Of course, for most leftists and consistent social liberals, Friday night had an especially unhappy ending with Boris Johnson’s clear-cut victory in the London mayoral contest and the announcement of the BNP achieving long-standing aim of a seat on the Greater London Assembly (GLA). These developments warrant a separate analysis beyond the available space, but it is clearly the case that among white voters there is a substantial core vote for the fascist right in a ring that stretches from Havering & Redbridge in the north east through Barking & Dagenham, and southwards into Bexley & Bromley and even Greenwich & Lewisham. In the latter the candidate for the National Front (an organisation that today barely registers on the radar of those of us who aren’t deemed anti-fascist anoraks) garnered over 5% of the vote.

For those on the left waging electoral campaigns against Labour the results from Thursday offered a few crumbs of comfort (a council seat for Respect Renewal in Birmingham Sparkbrook, 37% of the vote in one Preston ward for a Left List candidate and 23% in Sheffield’s Burngreave), but it remains to be seen whether they also provide a remedy to self-delusion. The stark reality is that the elections signaled a rightward move within the electorate and a handful of mildly encouraging results cannot disguise this.

In London the fragments of the Respect project, the SWP-dominated Left List and the admittedly indefatigable George Galloway’s Respect Renewal managed a combined total of 3.35% of the list vote, notably below the Respect tally in 2004 and two percentage points behind the BNP’s tally. The Left List contested all 14 of the GLA constituency seats, gaining over 3% in just two of them – North East (3.04%) and Enfield & Haringey (3.48%). Elsewhere, the tallies were frequently below 1% of votes cast.

These Left List results were notably worse than what Respect scored in 2004, while in the one GLA seat where Respect Renewal stood (City & East, comprised of the borough of Tower Hamlets, Newham and Barking & Dagenham, as well as the sparsely populated City of London) it saw a slight increase in its share of the popular vote from last time to 14% and easily eclipsed the vote of Left List candidate, the victimised local trade unionist, Michael Gavan. While Respect Renewal supporters have evidently found solace in that result the organisation’s post-election statement peddled a very distorted picture of the situation in East London: “The local roots Respect has established in East London checked the forward march of the BNP. Without Respect East London could have begun to look like the 1970s with the BNP pushing into third place.Instead, Respect is one of the two major parties along with Labour inparts of Tower Hamlets and Newham, we beat the BNP on the list vote and pushed the Liberal Democrats into fifth place.”

Certainly, Respect Renewal’s Hanif Abdulmuhit did beat the BNP candidate by five percentage points, but this ignores the dramatic demographic changes that have taken place across the boroughs over the last three decades. The reality is that the Galloway-led version of Respect has established a foothold within the Bangladeshi and to a lesser degree other South Asian communities in Tower Hamlets and Newham. It has not progressed beyond those sections of the electorate. Meanwhile, the BNP garnered more than 9% of the vote in the same constituency and given the overall make-up of the electorate across the three boroughs it must have gained more than 20%-25% among white voters in a number of wards, mainly in Barking & Dagenham.Under the election label Socialist Alternative the Socialist Party retained a contested seat in St Michael’s ward in Coventry as voters returned Dave Nellist for still another term, but its lone GLA candidate barely exceeded 1% of the vote in Greenwich & Lewisham, finishing behind even the abysmal tally for the Left List candidate. Thus far, I have not been able to find any other results for Socialist Alternative candidates, but there is precious little evidence to suggest that the Socialist Party or the allied project of the Campaign for a New Workers Party is going from strength to strength.

To me these results demonstrate that a decade or more of attempts, both honest and disingenuous, to construct broad parties to Labour’s left, based on programmes of more or less radical reform, have yielded little or no fruit. Indeed, they have now reached an impasse. Surely, the dreadful drubbing of Rifondazione Comunista in Italy last month should at least give pause for reflection, given the fact it supposedly exemplified the broad party to which many claimed to aspire.

The abject failures in Britain have many causes, not least the frequent and seemingly incurable sectarianism of various tendencies, but more fundamentally there have been consistent underestimations of both the lingering impact on the structure and consciousness of the working class across Britain of nearly two decades of Thatcherism and the quiescent effect of a real if contradictory economic upswing, which has now come to an end. Leaving aside the tragicomedy of the history of the Scottish Socialist Party and then Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity, the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance (to me the most promising in England and Wales), Respect and now the divided halves of it have all shown that there is little to be gained, even in electoral terms, from diluting one’s politics and pretending to be a rebranded party of reform.

None of this is to deny the potential virtues of contesting elections against Labour, but to echo a letter from John Nicholson published in the “Morning Star” on Friday 2 May, there is a need for a new clarity about the purpose of any such candidacies. In the context of a first past the post system that still prevails in almost all English elections, the prospect for any kind of electoral breakthrough seems especially remote. But in the event of a surprise win at the polls what are the mechanisms for holding to account representatives in councils or parliament (the Galloway question, in short)? Alternatively, how important are candidacies in advancing an overarching political (dare I say revolutionary?) programme to a wider audience?

To state the obvious, there are no easy answers in the short term, but there is a need for a genuine honesty and humility that has also too often been absent in the posturing between tendencies and the unceasing promotion of wildly optimistic perspectives that cannot withstand exposure to objective realities. I hardly expect that many (any?) comrades are about to ditch their current project in the here and now, though reading between the lines of the Left List I drew the conclusion that the SWP leadership now sees its shelf-life as very limited.

Meanwhile, where does the Labour Representation Committee fit in following the disastrous results of 1 May? A number of more or less plausible scenarios emerge, including another leadership challenge by John McDonnell, but for the time being I think that unlikely along with the short-term prospect of the LRC leading a break from Labour itself. While it does have affiliations from a handful of important trade unions, it currently lacks the essential activist base in the unions and communities that the left organisations outside of Labour still possess to a greater or lesser extent.

Perhaps the Convention of the Left in Manchester, coinciding with the Labour Party conference in late September, will start providing some answers or will at least clarify where the “far left” can indeed work effectively together whether in the unions through the National Shop Stewards Network, combating state racism, defending abortion rights or developing serious and sustained initiatives against climate change.

Who's Sorry Now?

The Left List's explanation of the results of Thursday's elections strongly suggests that the SWP is stubbornly refusing to learn the lessons or even face reality. We can only hope that some of its more thoughtful members will notice that their emperors have neither clothes nor answers, and will call them to account and/or join with others in renewing and reorienting socialism.

The Left List's claim that voters punished New Labour for ten years of privatisation and warmongering is not exactly wrong, but certainly simplistic. Of course war and privatisation are two of the main issues that have pushed voters away from Labour, major symptoms of the New Labour project of pushing the working class out of politics. But voting Tory, BNP or not voting at all is not a show of left-wing rebellion but of reaction and confusion. If this is 'punishing' Labour, then it is like punishing your husband for his excessive drinking by running off with George Best. This needs a response based not on soundbites about 'punishing', but on the need to renew working-class representation in politics.

Some things in the article are plainly true, such as New Labour's failure to defend its core working class voters and Livingstone also brought this defeat on himself. But it goes on to explain that Livingstone did this by associating himself too closely with New Labour, by rejoining the Labour Party and having Blair- and Brownites, and members of other parties, on his team. Valid points, but the SWP's criticism of Livingstone is limited to who he links up with, not his politics. So there is no condemnation of East London Line privatisation, the creation of City Hall fat cats, siding with the police over issues such as the Stockwell shooting, or Ken's advice to bosses to sack sick workers. Sure, the Left List made some of these points during the campaign, but omitting them from its post-election analysis seems more than careless. There are other unsavoury aspects of Livingstone's politics, such as his welcoming of al-Qaradawi, that we could not expect the SWP to criticise because they agree with them.

And the Left List's explanation for its own dismal vote? It was too
recent an invention to make its full mark on the electoral process and
many people who voted for Respect did so in error, believing that it was
the old Respect. Why bother with a political explanation when a couple of technical ones will do, eh? Even if every single person who voted for Respect did so thinking it was voting for an SWP front rather than a Galloway front, they would still have got only 3ish% of the vote! And obviously, not every single person did. The fact that the Left List was a 'recent invention' is not simply an issue of 'brand recognition' but a product of the SWP's political zig-zaggery, dumping the Socialist Alliance, lashing up with Galloway, then rebranding itself following the entirely predictable split.

The Left List says: What is necessary now is not a left that runs the line 'Labour at any cost' but a left that stands by working class people and struggles alongside them. That's true enough. But over the last few years, the SWP itself has failed to stand by working-class people, and instead moved away from working-class politics in pursuit of mythical shortcuts based on religious and communal loyalties. If it were now turning back again, then good, but I see little evidence of it.

'The Galloway operation' merits a whole paragraph of criticism, something which would have earned anyone else a denunciation for sectarianism until quite recently. But again, it is devoid of political criticism, and just crunches a few numbers. Nor does it acknowledge any role that the SWP have played in creating the Frankenstein's monster that now upsets them so. There is no attempt to distance themselves from Galloway politically - after all, that would inevitably open the questions as to why they were in bed with him previously - but rather, the SWP leadership is just faintly sneering that it has taken Galloway's footsoldiers away.

And what next? There is a hint of backing away from elections - This will not necessarily be a primarily electoral struggle - but also an indication that candidacies will continue - there will still be an electoral dimension, and claims of a few good votes outside London.

The article claims that The Left List does have serious trade union support. You are having a laugh. The honest version of this statement would be "Lots of SWP members hold posts in trade unions, and a few of them are quite popular". Any notion of the Left List having 'serious trade union support' beyond that is delusion.

And finally ... We must now use this to assist in the rebuilding of an alternative to New Labour that will not be derailed by the surge in Tory and Nazi support at the ballot box. If this meant, "We will admit our gross mistakes and turn towards unity with other socialists in renewing the cause of working-class political representation", then that would be great. But hands up who thinks that it actually does.

Away for a few days

So no blogging from me until monday.

A Nightmare Awaits Us. Who Is To Blame?

The chances are that we will wake up tomorrow morning with Boris Johnson as Mayor of London and the BNP with a seat on the Greater London Assembly. It's a nightmare, and the monsters of the piece are the Tories, their cheerleaders in the Evening Standard, and the Nazi scum.

But Livingstone and the Labour Party will have brought it all on themselves. Which would be a cause for simple sneering if it weren't for the fact that they will have brought it all on working-class Londoners too.

Few of my workmates are persuadable to vote for Livingstone. Hardly surprising, since he has privatised one of their Underground lines, threatened to close their ticket offices, told them to cross their union's picket lines, and allowed - indeed encouraged - their managers to push them around.

Aside from Underground workers, many other people who might in the past have felt inclined to vote Labour are turned off by Livingstone's smooching with big business and his siding with police brutality against its victims. Even on issues where he is supposed to be progressive, such as anti-racism, he is seen to have created a race relations industry which lines a few pockets but does not touch real lives.

Thousands of white working-class Londoners have turned to voting BNP because they feel abandoned. They are vulnerable to the BNP's poisonous lies that the reason their estate is run down or their hopsital waiting list is so long is that immigrants are jumping the queue. Of course that is nonsense, but if their estate was not run down and their hospital waiting list not so long, then they wouldn't be tempted by the racists.

The anti-fascist movement must learn not simply to tell people off for voting BNP, but to tackle the reasons why they do. You can not destroy the nazis' base of support without taking up issues such as jobs, housing and public services. Neither can you win people away from the BNP by telling them that fat cat Alan Sugar says the BNP is bad, as 'Hope Not Hate' does. In the absence of better material, I cringed while dishing out such a leaflet at Hackney Central station the day before yesterday.

Working-class Londoners feel abandoned if not by Livingstone specifically, then by new Labour in power. Attacking the poor, cossetting the rich, waging wars that few supported, dishing out public money in spadeloads to bail out the private sector but begrudging every penny to public services. Mouthing off about crime but maintaining the social inequalities and problems that cause it. Sure, it is ridiculous and reactionary to turn to the Tories or the BNP for solutions to these issues - but don't be surprised when some do. It seems that if you vote Labour, you get Tories in the Cabinet anyway.

The left also shares the blame. The left deluded itself for years that Livingstone was a left-winger, when he had said and done easily enough to prove that the emperor was naked and he was right wing. There is a well-worn trail of 'lefties' entering local government as Labour councillors, promising to defy the law and refuse to make cuts, who ended up, erm, obeying the law and making cuts. Other sections of the left abstained from the fight within the Labour Party when there was still a fight to be had, and therefore made it easier for the right to win. Then when we had half a chance of a viable Socialist Alliance, the SWP and their hangers on spoiled it by going off on a doomed love affair with unprincipled fat cats and communalists.

And this time round? There should have been a socialist list for the GLA, made up of candidates with a genuine base in the trade unions and communities, standing explicitly for working-class political representation. We made moves towards that in the RMT, but although our regional council backed the proposal, the national executive put the kybosh on it. Sure, such a list would not have shaken the foundations of capitalism, but it would have given thousands of working-class people a reason to bother going to the polling station, people who will very likely stay away today and unintentionally let the right wing in.

Other unions not affiliated to Labour seem to have had very little to say about the election. Those that are affiliated have obviously backed Labour, but have campaigned so little that I assume they know there is no enthusiasm for Labour amongst their members. When it comes to today's election, the trade unions have been like rabbits caught in the headlights. In the absence of a genuine working-class, socialist list, we are left with those who helped wreck the prospects of that (Left List, Galloway, ...) begging for our vote. I will go and vote Left List and Livingstone with a heavy heart.

I genuinely hope that my nightmare turns out not to be true, even if that makes this post look premature and bitter. But even if Livingstone scrapes in and the BNP are squeezed out, the fact that the Tories and the BNP came so close is still reason to learn the lessons.

One of those damn meme things

Got tagged by Phil .

Here goes ...

1) What was the last 1980s song you heard?

Listened to Yazoo . Mix of songs.

2) What was the last thing you saw on You tube?

Looked up 'The Trucks' that I found via the F Word.
Not exactly Girls Aloud.

Lyrics such as :

what makes you think we can fuck just because you put your tongue in my mouth and you twisted my titties baby?

and

So why the fuck won’t you go down on me?

and

no i won’t sit nice and be quiet
no i won’t sit nice and be quiet
no i won’t sit nice and be quiet
no i won’t sit nice and be quiet

Review here, describing them as :

...sounds like the musical lovechild of riot grrrls Sleater-Kinney and gay glam-rockers Scissor Sisters. The foursome’s first outing makes the personal political by letting off steam about subjects as varied as emotionally distant lovers, the politics of neighborhood bullies, sexual assault and concepts of beauty.

Though serious subjects its not all worthy and dull. Check out their myspace page .

3) What was the last entry on Wikipedia you viewed?

The Yazoo one to link to in the earlier answer.

4) What was the last computer/video game you completed all the way through?

Haven't played computer games for years when I used to have a Gameboy.
Does face book scrabble count ?

I have though been given a Poker computer game as a birthday present from Dave. So I'll be playing that soon.

5) What did you last pig out on?

Hmmm, food or drink ?

I'm trying to be healthy at the moment with food, but did go for a meal last week with a friend for a birthday treat and had a really nice pudding. Chocolatey!

With drink, well my birthday and the next day. Rather a lot of red wine.

6) What is the last undeleted text message on your mobile phone?

'Cool', from Jim Jay.

7) When did you last have a conversation with someone other than a family member?

None of my conversations are with family as I don't have any. Bumped into the woman who colours my hair and chatted about the pale pinks bits I put in it myself.

8) Aside from where you live, what is the last village/town/city you visited?

London, but not sure that counts as I spend half my time there .

9) What was the last competition you won?

Can't remember .

10) What are the last three blogs you visited?

Shiraz, Susan Press and Dave's .

Right, I'm supposed to tag some more people. Phil tags six, but I'll just do five.
Will , Hakmao, Darren ( as Phil forgot to ), Volty and Tami.

Special May Day Carnival of Socialism

Last minute request for posts. Carnival of Socialism is hosting a special May Day edition :

Just a reminder that the next Carnival will be hosted on this site ON MAY 1ST so please email blog posts about any or all aspects of international workers' day to camusfan@msn.com.

So if you have written one , or planning to, or see any of interest drop them an e-mail.

Hopi weekend school

Info from hopi :

Hopi weekend school

Saturday-Sunday, June 14-15, University of London Union, Malet Street.

We are still finalising the agenda, but topics will include:

1.War, human rights and ‘humanitarian interventions’;
2.Iran, Israel and the Middle East and the nuclear question
3.Sanctions and Iran
4.Can imperialism liberate women in the Middle East?
5.National and religious minorities
6.The working class movements and their response to the economic crisis in Iran
7.The 1979 revolution and its aftermath

If possible, please book your place in advance by paying via Paypal or by sending cheques/postal orders to Hopi, PO Box 54631, London N16 8YE.

Even if you cannot come, maybe you/your organisation/your trade union is able to sponsor this important conference? Any financial help is very much welcome!

Book a stall for £20
£20 waged; £10 unwaged

Info at Hopi

Consumer Interlude

OK, so it's not a great thought-provoking political essay, but if you can't sound off about life's frustrations on your blog, then where can you? I even seem to remember 'serious political blogster' Dave Osler wittering on about toasters during some festive season or other.

Anyway, BT have really quite pissed me off. Here is my email to them which explains the problem ...

I received a leaflet with my BT Vision package telling me that the Brother HL2170W would cost me £134.99 rather than £161.99 if I bought it through www.bt.com/shop/broadbandoffers.

I've just visited that page, but can not find any such reduction.

Can I buy it at the lower price or not? This will probably determine whether I buy it at all.

... to which I received this very helpful (not) reply ...

Thank you for your email.

We aim to price as competitively as possible across our product range, and regularly discount products wherever possible. Sometimes we may not always be able to compete with some on-line retailers, who may be taking short term price action to clear stock for example, and who are not themselves re-investing in research and bringing the best possible products to market to meet our customers needs

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

... forcing me to send this ...

Sorry, but could you actually answer my question?!

Can I buy the product at the discounted rate or not?

... to which BT replied ...

It seems that this price has now changed so we can only apologise for this and advise that this is not available at the discounted rate.

What a load of rubbish. Look, I know that capitalism's not fair and everything, but does anyone know whether it is actually illegal to advertise something at a discounted price then charge the full price? I have a thirst for justice.

Richard Barnbrook - News of the World kiss and tell

Now I really don't care what people get up to in bed as long as its consenting adults , but I can't resist posting on Richard Barnbrook getting the kiss and tell treatment in the News of the World today :

BNP boss Richard Barnbrook cheats on Brit with IMMIGRANT
Racist ranter tutu times ballerina

BNP frontman Richard Barnbrook has been cheating on his ballerina fiancée... with a FOREIGN NURSE.
The racist ranter —bidding to be London mayor—was secretly bedding Finn Annika Tavilampi when he proposed to English National Ballet star Simone Clarke.

Barnbrook—who studies Hitler—ADVANCED on Annika, 28, after spotting her on an online dating site, BLITZED her with filthy texts and pictures— and asked her to MARRY him too.

"Richard sent me photos of his private parts before I'd even met him," says the redhead. "I thought this was very odd for a politician."

"He was average in bed. And then there was his drinking—I've only ever seen him properly sober a couple of times. But I still fell for him."

........

He proposed to Simone over a romantic candlelit dinner. But all the time Barnbrook—whose mayoral campaign pledge is to "remove" London's one million immigrants—was planning to remove a particular immigrant's knickers.

"He's not the most skilful or active lover I've had, but I loved him so much it made up for it— even though the only time he took me out was to a Wetherspoon's."

So much for strong family values, though the reality is its all about hypocrisy and pretence much of the time.

The best bit of course is that Annika Tavilampi accuses him of being crap in bed, sending pics of his dick to women he meets on the internet and that his idea of showing a girl a good time is Weatherspoons .

Snigger.

An Appeal to Ken Livingstone and the Left List. Stop putting stuff through my door.

I have decided to vote Lindsey German 1 Ken Livingstone 2 for Mayor, Left List for the GLA. I have no enthusaism for doing so whatsover, and bitterly regret that the left and the labour movement did not get their act together to run a decent, socialist slate standing up for working-class demands. But, you know, I can't be indifferent between Livingstone and Johnson, the only two candidates who can win and between whom every vote counts; and the preference system allows me to vote for a no-hope candidate first and Livingstone second, thus registering in some weak, insipid way that I do actually thing privatisation is bad, striking Tube workers are not the devil incarnate, and it is not OK for the police to bully and kill innocent people. And I can't abstain on the GLA vote because that will help the BNP get elected (amongst other reasons).

Problem is: every time I get a leaflet through my door from either of my two preferred candidates, it makes my decision even harder to stick to.

Ken's card popped through the letterbox yesterday, pleading with me to Imagine Boris in charge of running London. Suddenly he's not so funny. Good point, but a candidate chasing after my vote should really do more than point out that the other geezer is a clown. Ken's card damns Boris for, amongst other things, voting against automatic five-year sentences for people caught illegally carrying guns. In the pamphlet of candidates' election addresses that the Post Office kindly put through my door, Ken boasts of increasing the numbers of London coppers, without so much as suggesting that they should be more accountable or behave a bit better. Strangely, none of his election material that I have yet seen says Vote for Ken - Privatising the East London Line was a stroke of genius.

The Left List's election material appears to have had the words 'socialism' and 'working-class' surgically removed - totally absent from the leaflet they put through my door yesterday. Although Lindsey does manage to mention in her election address that she is a socialist, her vision of the agency to change society is "a new movement of Londoners", rather than the, erm, working class. Need I really go into why this is both unprincipled and counter-productive? Indeed, wasn't it embarrassment at the S word and the W word that marked the start of Labour's swing to the right under Kinnock in the 1980s (not that it had been exactly 'left-wing' before then!)? The Left List's election material is really lukewarm and uninspiring, a list of worthy slogans about housing, transport etc and bland statements about London's wealth.

Independent working-class representation and principled socialism is more important - but, sadly, seems more remote - than ever.

Hillary To 'Obliterate' Iran

Hillary Clinton, plainly not bothering to court any kind of anti-war or even vaguely human vote, has talked of her willingness to "obliterate" Iran.

Yes, last week she told GMA that should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran ... In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Note the use of the word "they". Hillary has presumably not noticed that "they" the regime and "they" the population are not the same thing. If the former "they" attacks Israel (which some on the 'left' might cheer, but not I), then Hillary's US of A will massacre the latter "they".

Nice.

A Fine Day Out

I thought I'd share some of the fun, confidence and determination of yesterday in pictures rather than words, starting on a PCS picket line in Hackney and moving on to the mainly-NUT march.

Delete and Insert

Sometimes, you stumble across something that really neatly sums up the difference between the left and the right of the labour movement. And so it was that last week, thumbing through records of London Labour Party Conferences in the 1920s (I'm writing a book on Poplarism), I found this ...

In 1922, the London Labour Party Executive proposed a report to the conference (almost certainly penned by Herbert Morrison, pictured), the introduction to which stated: Fortified by the valuable experience obtained in practical work the London Labour Party faces the electorate with much greater knowledge and experience than it possessed three years ago; it is better equipped than ever to discharge the responsibilities of municipal statesmanship.

Woolwich Trades Council proposed an amendment: Delete "discharge the responsibilities of municipal statesmanship" and Insert "serve the interests of the Working Class."

Well, quite.

Theory as foreplay...part 3 of the sex survey results

Almost there...note to self, do a shorter survey next time with more tick boxes and less free text !

Right ...

If your life depended on it, which TU General Secretary would you shag ?

I left it up to people to add names or comments :

I'd rather die but I guess at pinch Tony Lennon
Christine Payne
Gemma Tumelty of NUS (Is that allowed - she is a LILF, Labour I'd Like to Fuck)
Norman Willis
Was Brenda Dean a GS? I'd like to shag her for selling out SOGAT in the 80s.
Mark Serwotka(3 votes)
Fred Bramley
OMG - it would have to be Sally Hunt. Are there any other women? (2 votes)
am i allowed Paul Mackney?
Bob Crow (4 votes)
Brendan Barber - but only if John McDonnell was allowed to watch
Urgh. WHoever the Musicians Union Gen Sec is so at least we'd have some good accompaniment
Jeremy Dear is hot!
Francis O'Grady

I'd rather shaft all of them
I'd eat the bullet
IF my life depended on it, any of them.
As a dubious ultraleftist I'm not sure I'd recognise a TU General Secretary
All of them.
i would rather be dead (a number of variations on this , suicide, jump, bullet)
Ugh...


Dirty talk, theory as foreplay...

Marx - The second volume of Capital (9.8%) 5
Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism (7.8%) 4
Weekly Worker (11.8%) 6
A Trade Union rule book ( 7.8%) 4
How many people were on the last anti war demo (7.8%) 4
Was the Soviet Union state cap or degenerated workers state. (35.3%) 18
Swearing al la Will (13.7%) 7
None of the above, that’s too kinky for me. (31.4%) 16

Some of you had your on suggestions for dirty talk :

daniel gluckstein's latest franglais
Marx - 18th Brumaire
Art & Language, Badiou, Stallman.
Pierre Bourdieu
Old issues of Newsline
Bevanism vs. Bennism: The shortest path to the co-operative commonwealth
Sugar production in Cuba

and someone added ...
These questions get weirder and weirder.

So do lefties ever pretend or go along to a political event or join a group for anything other than political motives ? Well...

Have you ever, if you are a straight or bi bloke, ever pretended to be a feminist to get into a woman’s knickers?

Have you ever, if you are a straight or bi bloke, ever pretended to be a feminist to get into a woman’s knickers?

(this was my cynical side coming out about feminist men )

Yes 7.3% 3 (so that's Dave and two others then !)
No 92.7% 38
Other (please specify) 7

Comments ( a few a bit affronted I think ):
Because I am a feminist
I am a feminist, how can I 'pretend'?
I've made a deal about it, but I AM a feminist, so that should be okay.
I *am* a feminist bloke!!!!
I dont get into womens knickers unless im wearing them.
I prefer feminists who are into shagging anyway!

The next one sees aless principled position...

Have you ever bought a paper, trailed along to a meeting, or joined a group, to get into someone’s knickers?

Yes 37.1% 23
No 62.9% 39

one comment :

Yes, but it was the RCP, so I don't think they'll have minded - in fact, I think it was their only recruitment strategy.


Is the personal political?

Yes 86.0% 49
No 14.0% 8

And the final question was "Anything else you would like to tell Stroppy"

Yes, why are lefty men all slightly fucked up, eh!!! Or may be it's just the ones I fancy...

This was quite diverting!

This was quite diverting!

I'm not "left", I'm Green.

Three lefties was too restrictive. There's a lot of nice women on the left! lol

Only in person.

in answering 'there shouldn't be sex-work after the revolution' the answer comes a fortiori from the fact that i don't see there being work after the revolution. and the one member of the tory party with whom i have had sex credits me as part of the reason she is no longer a member of the tory party.

Definitely not.


So there you go, a snapshot of the left and sex. Pretty disturbed but thats why I love em.

oh and thanks again to Jim Jay and Marsha Jane for their suggestions and ideas for questions .

The AWL, dodgy fantasies and lefties you wouldn't kick out of bed..part 2 of the sex survey results

The second part had a number of questions looking at attitudes around sex.

Would a committed relationship for you be:


Marriage, kids and a Labrador (and no, nothing odd with the dog!) (13.6%) 9
Monogamous. (56.1%) 37
Sleep with other people but not tell. ( 9.1% )6
Open relationship, the odd shag with others. ( 24.2% )16
More than one partner. (10.6% )7
Not into commitment . (1.5% )1


Interestingly the majority (56.1) favoured monogamy , though about 34% did see commitment as taking less onventional forms and a few took the well worn path of not telling.

Those who added comments to ‘other’ included :

Different strokes for different folks, but honesty is mandatory.

Emotional commitment, think monogamy is negotiable but irrelevant

I have all the commitment I need for the revolution.

but i find it hard to do (in relation to marriage, kids , Labrador).

I suppose I tend to think its about real choice, not following what society, religion or families expect. Its shouldn’t be about conforming , but I do think the key is honesty and treating people, whether a one nighter or a partner, with respect.

The next two I think highlight that for many lefties sharing at least some politics is important for a partner but not when its just sex.


Would you knowingly sleep with a Tory ?

Yes (33.8%) 23
No (30.9%) 21
Depends how drunk I was (35.3%) 24


Is it important to share similar political views with a partner?
Yes 73.4% 47
No 26.6% 17

Comments :

Helpful, not essential. Share some views, not others

Depends how emotionally committed relationship is! If so yes, if just sex, no

Depends how divergent their view are

It is important that they are not shared.

I don’t think its possible to agree on everything (and that would be dull!), so I suspect for many there will be issues that are more important to share than others.

The next few focus on the leftie variation of work/life balance, yep shagging or selling papers .

How many sexual partners have you had ? And no, let’s not nitpick on the definition like Clinton!
(Though knowing the left, I gave a nit pick option )

1 7.6% 5
2-5 27.3% 18
5-10 4.5 % 3
10-15 19.7% 13
15-25 10.6% 7
25-30 6.1% 4
30-40 1.5% 1
40-50 1.5% 1
50-60 1.5% 1
60-80 1.5% 1
80-100 4.5% 3
100+ 6.1% 4
Can’t remember ! 3.0% 2
Well you see it does all depend what you mean by sex 9.1% 6

Of course this isn’t cross referenced with age, gender or sexuality, so is is just a snapshot. A few ticked more than one, including the “well you see it does all depend” answer as well.

One person added ‘none’.

So far we have lefties busy shagging every day and only a few too busy overthrowing capitalism, so what do they do on Saturday morning ?

Saturday morning , what’s your priority ?

Sex 38.1% 16
Getting down to reading some serious theory 16.7% 7
Writing a blog post 21.4% 9
Leafleting/paper sale/canvas 23.8% 10



Although the highest number said sex, there were quite a few (25) who added their own priorities :

Rowing
First three in order.
Sleeping (8)
I do not get up before noon
Housework
Dealing with the kids/ kids/childcare/Children waking me up when I'd rather stay in bed. (4)
cup of tea
coffee
Walk the dog, buy the Guardian, make breakfast for my lover
Breakfast!
Leafleting outside the local Conservative Club, where their posh yet not that old women's section is having a coffee morning, so I can get invited in
Getting up for work
Writing or producing a magazine/newspaper, or helping out at a food co-op


Now regular readers will remember this blog has been described as all about ‘Fisting, fucking and fishnets .'
I think those less well acquainted with the blog were a tad confused by the question and skipped it. To be honest no idea what the question meant; word association , words beginning with F, stream of leftie consciousness…


This is Stroppyblog, soooo

Fisting 16.0% 8
Fucking 68.0% 34
Fishnets 40.0% 20


Those that people added were :
Sucking the stilletto
Cunnilingus. Giving.
Nah
Eh?
Light S&M
What?
SouthpawPunch
Felines
Fellatio
all 3
Fantasy


Now how sectarian are we in the bedroom (or wherever)?
This wasn’t tick box, people added what they wanted.

Here are some highlights !
1)What groups/parties/sects have you shagged members of?

You name it, I've shagged it
"Apolitical, mostly... "
"SWP, AWL, CPGB "
"Tory, Labour, Lib.Dem. Trotskyite, Marxist, CND, Maoist, Quaker, Catholic, CofE, many others"
"labour, green, tory, lib dem, swp, awl, sparts, various more or less organised anarchist groups
ISG, Workers Power, IS, SWP, Workers Fight, Militant, WRP, the other WRP, Labour Party NEC "
"SWP, Socialist Labour (crap), SA, Green Party (REALLY don't go there!), Labour (but only as an act of class warfare), CBGP "
"Fond memories of RCP chicks in the early 1980s; hit on 'em and their knickers were as good as off. "
"SWP, Respect, Left List "

2)Which was the best ?

Libertarian leftie women
SWP
Anarchist Federation and (tragically) the RCP
The best was undoubtedly the Maoist.
Greens
definitely the anarchists, both on average and individually (and collectively :-) )
Militant, as it was soooo forbidden by the church of Grant and Woods
I haven't kept notes... but, there were these two Lib Dems...
AWL
Most quite crap, though I do have fond memories of a Millie

3)Is there a group, that no matter how much you fancied someone, their membership of it would mean you wouldn’t shag them?

None
BNP (any fascist basically) ( a few on this theme, though I was really meaning leftie groups)
Tories and rightwards, pro-Stalinists
Respect Renewal
NO!
SWP And, historically speaking and more so, WRP. And Furedisti
Shag, yes. Have a relationship, no.
Sparts
Nauseating yuppie liberals
I would only have highly abusive anonymous sex with a neoconservative or libertarian.
AWL
Hackney Constituency Labour Party
English bit of Lutte Ouvriere,
SWP CC
SWP/RCP/WRP
WRP - I don't fuck apologists for rape
Respect
Can't imagine shagging anyone in Socialist Action.
CPGB-ML (wouldn't shag under any circumstance)

What came across from the survey was that the AWL are sort of leftie marmite, people either seem to love em or hate em. They figured highly in who someone wouldn’t shag , but as you will see later they figure quite highly in lefties you wouldn’t kick out of bed or as part of role play fantasy…and Jim is their most popular member !

Which three lefties wouldn’t you kick out of bed ?

I have just listed all the names people put in the survey. Quite a mixed bunch. Some are not that 'left' and one person said they don't 'do' lefties!

Most got one vote, those that got more were :

(some just said one person three times, counts as one)

3 votes

Marsha-Jane

2 votes

Jim Denham
Jim Jepps
Catriona Grant
Stroppy (no I did not vote for myself !)

1 vote

Mary Partington
Sofie Buckland
Gregor Gysi
Hind Hassan
Hannah Sell
Salma Yaqoob
Sian Berry
David Miliband
Segolene Royal
Beauvoir
Luxembourg
Daniel Randall
David Broder
Jeremy Browne
Nick Clegg
Jackie Grunsall,
Lucy Adler,

Bob Browne (Australian)

“Margaret Thatcher, Mussolini's granddaughter, Segoline Royal, Sargosy's bird (I don't do "bed with lefties").”

Carolyn Leckie
Houzan Mahmoud
Barak Obama
Katja Kipping
Owen James
Jeremy Dear
Caroline Lucas
Gail Sheridan
Jon Rogers
Will
Mark Fischer
China Mieville
Angela Eagle
Matt Wrack,
Dave Osler
George Binette

comments...

Er...my girlfriend and all the girls I've slept with?,
ALL OF THEM.
Three persons known to me.
Errrr.
Can't name third
None.
Um, I'm shit with names.
Really not sure, those dead Russians had some sexy beards though
Not telling you!!!
there aren't that many lefties i would kick out of bed.
“If there were three lefties in the same bed they'd be so busy arguing they wouldn't have time for the sex!”
my partner
Oh god. NEXT!
I daren't comment about anyone associated with this blog...
Too embarrassing to say - even anonymously
Silent ones

Lefties and fantasy…

Can I just say all these role play.fantasies were new to me. I mean i'm as vanilla as they come and any fantasy would be very right on and equal and probably involve gambolling through meadows being very respectful. These were all Jim Jepp's idea .
Hmmm, not convincing am I ;-)


Anyway, gave me some new ideas …


Have you ever fantasised (or role played )about :

Melanie Phillips, spank me baby! 7.0% 3
Nuns, with or without guns 34.9% 15
Women in burquas 23.3% 10
Margaret Thatcher 7.0% 3
Jim Denham 9.3% 4
Yvonne Ridley 4.7% 2
John Mcdonnell 11.6% 5
John Rees and young enthusiastic cadre 2.3% 1
Policemen or women 34.9% 15
Tory business women in French underwear 32.6% 14
Nazi orgies with hookers 14.0% 6
Ruth Kelly in bondage gear 11.6% 5
Harriet Harman, in full riot, telling you what a very naughty boy/girl you had been … 7.0% 3
Lefties in uniform – firefighters, nurses, rail workers… 60.5% 26
Or anything else you want to share ? 16.3% 7


And quite a few did indeed share ...

are you trying to put me off sex for life?
I don't go for authority figures. I like the unconstrained play of equals.
Sex in riots.
dom/mes, /bondage
SPP here again, I forgot to mention fantasising about armed workers in struggle, e.g. the IRA, RIRA, Provo IRA, Batasuna, the Welsh Firebombing Nationalists, the UCK/KLA, FSLN, SDLP, Gadaffi's women bodyguard troupe, South American guerrila movements, and the French Tories Womens Institute (Armed Section). Hang on, not the SDLP.
that famous picture of uniformed Maoist girls,
East German fashion chic
Waterfalls au natural
S&M
I am the only true revolutionary, I am SouthPawPunch, spell it properly,!
My girlfriend can't get enough of John McDonnell, if that counts
Pirates
soldiers, obviously.


And a few that said No!!
And
Good grief, none of the above.

Next up...theory as foreplay, lefties talk dirty and threesomes with TU general secretaries...

What lefties do in bed...Sex survey results part 1 !

Yep, the results of the sex survey. Almost as eagerly awaited, and slow, as those in Zimbabwe. No rigging though, honest.

It’s my first blog survey, so it was a bit hit and miss, but hopefully learnt from it for the next. I tried transferring tables over to blogger and it went all wonky, so hope its readable.

Many of the questions are humorous (I hope), but there was a serious purpose. The left aren’t great on sexual politics and I am curious as to how we live our lives. Do we challenge gender roles; do we buy into bourgeois monogamous family units? Do we live the theory or do we muddle along with contradictions.Personally I think muddling along with the contradictions and trying to challenge the accepted norm is the best we can do in this society where the Labour Party bangs on about hard working families (the new deserving poor), when the media still has double standards about laddish men but slutty women and married monogamous bliss is still seen as the gold standard (which is fine if that's what you want rather than expected). Oh and then there’s the role religion plays in moralising about how we live our lives and the odd leftie bemoaning our godless society (if only).

Right, back to the survey !It seemed that most were genuine, with only one obvious spoof. That was someone who said they were 70+, Queer, Transgendered, AWL and had sex everyday. An ‘expert ‘ on the AWL informed me no such member existed, though I think it is Jim and he is just quite well preserved for his age (in whisky I suspect ).

Right, what did it show.

Well the responses were
Pt 1 87
Pt2 69
Pt3 64

The dropping numbers I think a consequence of being in three parts. It was over three surveys because there is a limit on questions with the free package. That has meant its more anonymous, but harder to make links between gender/sexuality/party etc and answers.

What political party/group/alliance are you a member of, if any?

Although free text, and so the option to say none was there, 35 people did not answer this. I suspect some of those were independent and others reluctant to say for whatever reason.

Those who did specify (and it was up to them how they defined it, It was not tick box) :

The Labour Party 9
New labour 1
Labour/LRC 2
Labour Party – Mcdonnellite 1
Green 8
SWP 3
Scottish Socialist Party 3
antifaschiste linke, Berlin 1
SPPP (TORP) SouthPawPunchParty (TheOnlyRevolutionaryParty) 1
AWL 2
CPGB 1
“Prefer not to say – Trotskyist” 1
Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire 1
Socialist Party 1
Independent Anarchist 1
Respect 1
Libertarian left 1
Workers action 1
Solidarity (US) 1
Lib Dem 1
Independent /None 10
Tory 1

So a fair mix. One Tory seemed to miss the whole point of the survey, as it was for lefties. And of course we could argue about the Lib Dem as well.Oh and Punchie has said it wasn't him from SPPP, so must have been one of his members (so there are two !).

In terms of sexuality :

Straight 67.4% 58
Bisexual 17.4% 15
Gay 3.5% 3
Lesbian 1.2% 1
Queer 5.8% 5
Other 4.7% 4

From what I could tell it was mainly women who defined as bisexual . No one elaborated on ‘other’.

Gender :

Male 62 (72.1% )
Female 20 (23.3%)
Transgendered 4 (4.7%)

Age

16-21 (16.1%) 14
22-30 ( 29.9%) 26
31-40 (20.7% ) 18
41-50 ( 23.0%) 20
51-60 ( 8.0%) 7
61-70 (0.0%) 0
70+ (2.3%) 2


On average, how often do you have sex?

Celibate ( 4.7%) 4
Oooh that was sooo long ago I can't remember (10.6%) 9
Once a year (1.2% ) 1
Twice a year (2.4%) 2
3-6 times a year (2.4%) 2
Once a month ( 17.6% ) 15
Once a week (10.6%) 9
two or three times a week ( 25.9%) 22
Every day ( 3.5%) 3
More than once a day ( 4.7% ) 4
Depends what you mean by sex ! ( 11.8% ) 10
I’m sorry, but I'm much too busy working to overthrow capitalism to bother with all that. ( 8.2%) 7

Now it does all depend what you mean by sex and also it varies from time to time, so I suppose this was just a snapshot. A few people ticked more than one box.

Glad to see some people prioritising the overthrow of capitalism, not like those having sex more than once a day…comrades what about the revolution ;-)

The porn and sex work ones were interesting and I think reflect the complexities that this survey could only touch on.

Around 2/3rd s said they used porn. In terms of whether it degraded women the majority were unsure. Quite a few straight men said they thought it degraded women but they still used it. Quite a few women said they used porn and it was mixed in terms of whether they considered it degrading. Gay men used it and the survey did not cover whether they felt it degraded men. Whether it should exist under socialism had a mixed response and again the question could not really cover the complexities. Is erotica alright but porn not? What really is the difference between erotica and porn, is one more middle class and arty? Is erotica any less stereotyped about gender roles? Would control by women make a difference .Where does that leave lesbian porn (and not the supposed lesbians performing for men )?
The question is quite general, its talking about the present. But does porn, or erotic/sexual material have to be degrading under socialism?

The sex work question again showed the differences in views on this and also that much depended on what was meant by the definition. Again it did not separate out sex work in terms of straight, gay or lesbian.

How often do you use porn?e

Never ( 35.3% )30
Daily ( 8.2% ) 7
Weekly (22.4%) 19
Monthly (7.1%) 6
Only occasionally (21.2% ) 18
Between relationships ( 5.9% ) 5
With my partner ( 8.2%) 7

Quite a few ticked more than one box, such as with a partner and weekly.

Do you think porn degrades women ?

Yes ( 33.3%) 28
No (26.2% ) 22
Hmmm, not sure . (40.5% ) 34
answered question 84

Should porn exist under socialism ?

Yes ( 72.5%) 58
No (27.5%) 22
answered question 80

Should sex work exist under socialism?

Yes (32.1% 27
No (22.6% ) 19
Depends what type (47.6% ) 40
answered question 84

Do you support the existing age of consent?
Yes (56.5% ) 48
No (10.6%) 9
It should be higher (3.5% ) 3
It should be lower (17.6%) 15
Shouldn't be one (17.6%) 15
answered question 85


Right, coming up...the sexual fantasies of the left, lefties you wouldnt kick out of bed and more...

Dear Sir / Miss

Tomorrow, I will be handing in this letter to my kids' school ...

To NUT members at Brook Community Primary School

I am writing on behalf of myself and my partner to express our full support for your strike action on Thursday 24th April.

Over the last six years, many of you have taught one or more of our sons Alex, Joe and Harrison. We want you to know that we really appreciate the work of our kids’ teachers, and we understand that you do that work in very difficult conditions. You are not paid nearly as much as you deserve, with the result that not enough people want to become teachers and of those who do, too many become demoralised and leave. As a consequence, there is a fast turnover of teaching staff and instability for kids.

The government should be offering teachers a hefty pay rise, not a miserly offer that amounts to a pay cut in real terms. Perhaps MPs should vote to pay you as much as they pay themselves!

Thursday’s strike may be an inconvenience for parents (though the kids seem well pleased!) – but it is a minor inconvenience compared to the ongoing damage to our kids’ education caused by under-paying teachers.

Yours in support and solidarity
Janine Booth
(on behalf of myself and John Leach)