Winter in Harrow.

A view of the park near the University of Westminster's Harrow Campus and Northwick Park hospital, as taken from the platform at Northwick Park Tube station.

Labouring The Point About The Tories.

The overall consensus is that the Conservative Party will win the next UK General Election, due to take place some time next year. What puzzles many pundits, however, is what the opinion polls say. The Tories are in the lead but only by a margin of around 10%, which will translate into either a workable Tory majority in parliament, a small majority for them or, possibly, a hung parliament, and this lead will fluctuate ever more as the election draws near.

Political commentator Peter Oborne believes this is because the Tory leader David Cameron is not inspiring enough of the electorate, that Team Cameron is not invoking the sort of passion that Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher did. I believe however that the answer is more prosaic. We are delusional and ghastly, ghastly hypocrites.

Labour survives against the odds because we want it to be something it's not. There is an odd mix of nostalgia for a time that never was and a blind faith in the never-never that explains why Labour hasn't ceased to exist. Lots of its supporters, and indeed the rest of the public, murmur dewy-eyed epithets over Labour achievements: the Welfare State, the NHS, the People's Party, the minimum wage, increased public spending...

The other half to this is a vain, always disappointed belief that all it takes is one good Labour government, Goddammit, and we'll all be living in a paradise free of poverty, waiting lists, despair or fear. This mentality is akin to blighted peasants in the Middle Ages praying for a better life in the next - it all seems much more feasible than facing up to the now and how to remedy it with what we have. Gordon Brown is simply a modern version of the hypocritical, corrupt, whoring local priest that everyone feels sorry for because deep down they really want to believe he's a good man and that at least he means well.

But for some reason, while odious acts like ID Cards, the Iraq War, Labour Sleaze, John Prescott in his many manifestations and - not to mention - the Winter of Discontent, rationing carrying on into the early 50s, political militancy, betrayal of values, shrill lefty dogma, the Orwellian Ministry of Works, student top-up fees, an appalling record in government and punitive taxes all upset people, they don't seem to dominate the public imagination as examples of villainy as the Tories do.

For that matter, while everyone curses the Tories, they don't really factor in things like economic booms, rising home ownership, unions made to behave, higher living standards and so on. True, these are often double edged swords, but so are many of Labour's contributions, and it seems odd that we focus more on the Tories' failings despite benefiting from the good things they have done as well as Labour's own positive contributions.

It all comes down to guilt. We feel that we should be Good, and in a post-war British context that means Left of Centre, redistributive and nice and fluffy (many people seem to think these all go together). Which is what Labour represents, or at least what we'd like it to represent. But on the other hand, we feel like we have to be pragmatic, self-serving, ruthless and money grubbing, all of which the Tories represent in the popular imagination.

Hating the Tories helps us ignore the sneaking suspision that we might need them, that their 'nasty party' vibe is actually how the world works and, let's be honest, reflects a lot of the miserly, small-minded, shallow and vindictive elements of the British character. We're ashamed of this, so vote in or support a party that we believe reflects our less savoury urges and then spend the rest of the time hurling invective at it.

And this is why we remember Tory excesses more than Labour excesses, because they confirm comforting beliefs and prejudices and also let us pretend that that a Blakeian Jerusalem is just round the corner. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair didn't just vote themselves in - the electorate and its own dishonesty has much to answer for, which is probably why screaming 'TORY BASTARDS!!!' makes us feel so much better.

The ultimate example of this cognitive dissonance is how we've remembered the old Liberal Party. Which is to say, we broadly haven't. We've forgotten minor details like the extension of the franchise (without which Labour would be stuffed like a turkey), social reforms, an end to child labour, removal of power from the Crown, the aristocracy and the Church and, lest we forget, the earliest incarnation of the bless'd Welfare State. Why is this? In part, it was a long time ago and our memories are, naturally, self serving. Labour has become the forlorn hope of a 'better' future, as previously mentioned, so another reforming force in British politics just confuses many people, or it rather muddies an easy, convenient political narrative that people can buy into. It also rather gets in the way of the dualism we've come to rely on - evil Tories, goody Labour, but the Liberals..? This is why the Lib Dems will probably remain the 'third party' for the foreseeable future. We don't strictly speaking want a third choice, beyond a handy protest vote or a sop to politics we know will never be realised.

For what it matters, Labour will probably lose simply because enough of the country wants or needs a change and because they've upset just too many of those voters who would normally support them. The next step will be for Labour to elect a leader we can invest our vain hopes in, who can gleam in the purity of opposition and who can let us keep believing that the Promised Land is but an election away... And the Tories? Well, they say electorates get the governments they deserve.

The Trouble with Jauss

I have studied the works of Hans Rudi Jauss at some depth, I even based a large section of my PhD thesis' arguments on his theories. I probably owe my doctorate in part to him. But I didn't really know what he did during World War Two until recently.

From 1939 to 1945 he was a member of the Waffen SS, declared a criminal organisation at Nuremberg. But what did Jauss have to say for himself in this matter? Just before his death in 1997, he gave an interview to Le Monde - far from an open and unambiguous acknowledgement of responsibility, it seems to be an attempt to blur the lines, and obfuscate or perhaps skip around the issue. This reached almost comical heights, as the following quoted paragraph demonstrates. All footnotes and emphases are mine:

Before I turn to the history of a young German who was seventeen years old when the war started [1], I would like to remind people that there are at least three ways of understanding history [2]: the history that unfolds in the present, in which one finds oneself engaged as an actor; the history into which one finds oneself passively propelled [3], as a witness so to speak; and finally, the history that has taken place and become an object of reflection. When one attempts to examine one’s own past, those three levels may overlap, but recomposition through memory prevails. [4] What persuaded me to enter the Waffen-SS was not really an adherence to Nazi ideology. [5] As the son of a teacher, member of the petty bourgeoisie, I was a young man who wanted to conform with the atmosphere of the time. [6] That said, I had read Spengler’s Decline of the West, written by an author banned by the Nazis, and it had made me skeptical of the Hitlerian empire. [7] But along with other future historians — I’m thinking of my friends Reinhart Koselleck and Arno Borst — what we had in common was the desire not to stand apart from current events. [8] One had to be present in the field, where history was being made, [9] by participating in the war. In our view, to do otherwise would have been to flee, to confine ourselves within an aesthetic attitude, while our comrades of the same age were risking their lives. [10]

[1] Still old enough to know better.
[2] As opposed to what really happened.
[3] Nothing just happens in uniform.
[4] How convenient.
[5] What?
[6] Why didn't you join the Wehrmacht instead?
[7] So skeptical, in fact, that you joined the Waffen SS.
[8] Why not?
[9] And people were being killed.
[10] There's a hell of a difference between a volunteer and a conscript.

Not putting too fine a point about it, the Waffen SS was notable for a whole swathe of war crimes against regular and irregular combatants, in addition to unarmed men, women and children. The blood of millions is on their hands. Not to mention it was home to outfits like the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger, as lead into battle by a paedophile and which included mass rape, mutilation, immolation and throwing and then bayoneting live babies on its list of extra-curricular activities.

Of course, Jauss himself was imprisoned and then subsequently released without charge. But it's telling that only those conscripted into the Waffen SS after 1943 (often literally at the point of a bayonet) recieve standard veterans' pensions and benefits from the German government. Before then, you were more likely than not a volunteer, like Jauss. He was perhaps keen to distance himself both mentally and ethically from this fact:

The letters from my youth, sent from the front— I couldn’t reread them for a long time. When I finally did reread them, I was caught off guard by a young man who had become a stranger, whom I could not recognize as myself.

But he was that young man. They were not strangers because they were the same person. Another thing Jauss said in that interview was "my experience at the time was compartmentalized and my horizons limited", a state of affairs that arguably persisted to his death. It also applied to me, blinded but not absolved by the narrow focus of the doctoral process. Perhaps that is why Jauss found his home in academia so easily - scholarship, after all, is a selective act of remembering.

Language Use That Really Annoys Me #5 - Euphemisms.

The postman was let go after he upset a differently abled person and said rude things to a person of colour, asking if she wanted to discuss Uganda. He subsequently returned, tired and emotional, and proceeded to make his colleagues pass away in a hail of bullets. I immediately spent a penny in my unmentionables as he pointed the weapon of mass destruction at my head and asked me if I was in some distress. I said yes, at which point the local Police Service applied reasonable force by making him pass away via a major head trauma.

'This was an unfortunate incident!' the police officer said as he pondered the collateral damage inflicted in the process. 'To think I was about to request extraordinary rendition on this illegal combatant!' I agreed wholeheartedly.

Returning home, I decided to have a small tipple in the pub to celebrate and let my hair down. Unfortunately, I let my hair down just a tad too much and had a little accident when my car had a frank exchange of views with a brick wall. I then proceeded to discuss the matter further with the paramedics, accusing one of being vertically challenged and good with colours and the other one a big boned fan of comfortable shoes. See you next tuesday, the male parademic said, as the police service arrived. I was then detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure for a period until eventually I had to discuss the matter with the two naughty boys I shared my cell with.

"You need to expand your consciousness with the food of the Gods", one naughty boy said to me, handing over a jazz cigarette. "Yes, and facilitate alternative lifestyles through non-mainstream distribution channels" said the other, pulling some Columbian Marching Powder out of his chocolate starfish.

Eventually, however, I became unwell and had a nasty accident with some razor blades. Let off early so I could get some help, I found myself in hospital next to a woman with a fuller figure. "Are you in the family way?" I asked coyly. "Nah, dear, I've got f**king stomach cancer" she replied, somewhat tactlessly.

Language Use That Really Annoys Me #4 - The Definite Article.

Now before I start, let's note one thing: I am no climatologist, nor a climate change believer, nor a denier. I simply do not know enough about the matter and presently do not have the time nor the resources to look into the matter with any degree of thoroughness.* One thing I do believe, however, is that the debate has been tainted by politicisation on both sides, with smears, ad hominems and more effort spent on denouncing the other side than actually arguing for one's own view.

With that in mind though, I still think Jonathon Porritt is a t**t. Why? He is hooked on 'The Definite Article'. Now, the definite article is sometimes useful. 'The Queen' or 'The Prime Minister' or 'The Suspect' or 'The President' or 'The Winner' allows one to emphasise the point because an emphasis is needed. However, when you abuse the definite article, to provide a false emphasis that is not appropriate, then you are abusing language to meet your own ends rather than an objective statement of truth. (Which is a tricky thing at the best of times, as I will mention later on.)

The most egregious example of this is the use of the phrase, 'The Science'. Now, it either is or it isn't science, once one applies the proper scientific method, peer review, falsifiability and so on. Science is science is science unless or until you can demonstrate it's not. But giving it the honorific, 'The Science', is to invest in it a sort of divine writ that has no place in the discussion - unless it is being subordinated to a political end.

Enter Porritt. I once had to sit through a hysterical rant from this awful demagogue as part of an audience of upper middle class university employees and functionaries, who clapped blandly away despite him demanding we all start living like it's World War Two again. (His exact words were 'And we must learn to live under WARTIME conditions!!!') They then left the lecture theatre, drove home in their expensive cars, left all the lights on and didn't even stop to consider minor issues like 'cognitive dissonance'. After all, the real pain would be for poorer, less important people, amirite?

Poritt's eyes blazed and his voice almost shrieked as he mentioned those who dared disagree with him, like a trotskyite denouncing class traitors, or more to the point, a sort of museli-guzzling, ethically sourced Oswald Mosely, elevated to prominence because he talks and thinks like the present sawn-off jobsworth government does.

So no, I was not impressed by Porritt. But I realised how much I couldn't stand him when he started making crazed Tony Blair arm gestures, his eyes now practically leaping out of his sockets, as he proclaimed:

'Al Gore isn't a scientist - BUT HE KNOWS THE SCIENCE!!!'

F**king hell. Where does one begin? It's a bit like declaring that my brother's friend 'isn't a gynaecologist, but by golly, HE KNOWS THE FANNY!!!' It is ultimately meaningless as we all sort of know a bit about climate science, and so the statement is true in a vaguely clumsy and inarticulate way. But again, we see the abuse of the definite article to suggest an authority which is not actually there, except as a sort of implied bien pensant enlightenment.

But there is another danger. If, by using the definite article, you esteem 'the science' as a higher authority then you risk undermining science of any sort when 'the science' is called into question. Writing about the recent e-mail controversy at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, George Monbiot said: "No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science [emphasis mine]. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last."

And here lies 'the problem': science isn't unimpeachable - unless you think that Gallileo, Copernicus and Darwin were right shits for ruining it for everyone. It was never 'impeachable' either. Rather, it is based on what can be observed and the gradual accumulation of knowledge. Put simply, we know more today than we knew yesterday, which doesn't automatically invalidate what we knew before.

Monbiot, to his credit, has always replied to his opponents rather than dismissing them in a torrent of bile, and he has also been direct in facing up to the UEA kerfuffle**. But his abuse of language weakens his cause in the long run. As said, science is a rational process whereby we explore and study our surroundings. It does not equate to 'truth', which is a very subjective and so difficult creature at the best of times. It tells you if something works, how it works and when it works, but it does not explain WHY it works, because you can't scientifically observe an abstract philosophical concept.

If in esteeming 'the science' as the core pillar of your ideology, you then find it compromised or challenged, then you risk not only being on the side of a 'false god' but also undermining science as a concept overall, especially in the eyes of a public that doesn't know the difference between science and 'the science' in the first place. They may be inclined to see the situation, and so any subsequent warning, as that of the environmentalist that cried wolf, regardless of whether you're right or not. The incorrect use of the definite article may therefore, in this case, prove to be very damaging to everyone's health.

* Having looked into it with that aforementioned thoroughness, I find myself fully in agreement with those who are sounding the alarm. Except Porritt and Gore for reasons given in this article which still stand.
** Which, in the long term, was a storm in a teacup whipped up by the usual suspect denialists.