Over at The New Statesman, the Littlejohn of the Left - aka Laurie Penny - is up in arms about welfare reform. It's at her usual level of hyperbole and melodrama - note the hint at a link between government policy and suicide. But her case, such as it is, can be summed up in the final paragraph:

There used to be a liberal consensus that it was the government's responsibility to provide employment and ensure that those unable to work were entitled to a minimum standard of living. As the Welfare Reform Bill oozes unchallenged through the Commons, the real scandal is not that the government is lying through its teeth in order to justify its evisceration of the welfare state. The scandal is that no one in Westminster is prepared to make a moral case for welfare provision as the honest heart of social democracy.

First up, there is, and has never, been a liberal consensus in this country. Indeed, "liberal" is a word that has been truly stretched beyond its elastic limit. It is largely meaningless now. Besides, there is a strong case that what Penny is alluding to is actually socialism rather than liberalism, and there are many liberals who have argued that socialism is an enemy of liberalism.

Secondly, we have the term thrown in there about a "minimum standard of living". Fine, you might think - until you start to examine what that phrase might actually mean. Then we hit the problem of the fact that there is no consensus on what a minimum standard of living is. It could just be having a roof over your head and food on the table; it could be much more than that. A lot of this boils down to the old debate about whether poverty is absolute or relative, and that's an important distinction for the case that Penny is trying to make. See, if poverty is absolute, then I might agree that we can find and then ensure we deliver a minimum standard of living for all. But if it is about relative poverty, I rapidly lose interest. At that point a minimum standard of living drifts towards the redistribution of wealth as a means of delivering an equality of outcome - an idea I find intolerable, nonsensical and idiotic.

Then we have the accusation that the government is lying - we aren't given any real evidence for that, we just have to take Penny's accusation at face value. Which is a real problem, given her tendency for hyperbole and hysteria. Yeah, the government might well be lying - wouldn't be the first time. However I would like a little more evidence than just the say-so of Ms Penny, though.

And "evisceration of the welfare state" is a class Penny-ism - it can't be welfare reform or harming the welfare state. No, it has to evisceration - only that is melodramatic enough.

Then we move onto the heart of the matter - Penny's assertion that no-one is making the case for social democracy. Note, as an aside, how we've moved from liberalism at the start of the paragraph to social democracy at the end - the two are not synonymous, Laurie, not in any way. But the real point is that Penny seems to think that making the case for welfarism (which is effectively what she's calling for) is not as easy as she makes out. Yeah, you can do as she does and tug on the heartstrings. You can talk about destitution, about suicide and about the long-term sick having to go out to work (which surely isn't a problem if they are able to do that work despite their illness). But you also need to explain at what level welfare provision stops and at what point people should have to go out and work for a living - just as those who are paying the welfare claimants (i.e. the taxpayer) have to do. There is a moral question here, and there is also an economic one - how is any welfare state going to be funded? The money just doesn't appear by magic, you know. It comes from those who pay tax.

And as a final point it is worth noting that this is not an attempt to destroy the welfare state, but rather to reform and improve it. The tone of Penny's article is typical of her general style but also gives away the innate conservatism that she now shares with so many of her Labour/left-wing brethren. There's nothing radical about opposing reform to an imperfect institution such as the welfare state. In fact, it is conservative bordering on the reactionary. Which is perfect, really. Laurie Penny as reactionary conservative. More and more like Littlejohn with every passing day.

Idiot of the Day: Laurie Penny

Laurie Penny, apparently without any sense of irony:

In my final year at a British private school, over 30 kids were handheld through the application process for Oxford or Cambridge, whereas in most state schools a maximum of one or two begin the gruelling process, usually without the considerable staff support that we enjoyed.

Of those 30, about half were successful, and at least four or five of those were -- excuse my French -- thick as congealed slurry on the bridle path. They were dull, unimaginative posh kids who had no real interest in learning , who were just good at passing exams with the right training. What they had was the confidence to shine at interviews, and most importantly, the right kind of swagger to fit in. They had grown up being told they belonged at Oxford or Cambridge. As a consequence, they were deemed Oxbridge material, whereas thousands of state school pupils were not.

And where did Penny go to university, I hear you ask? Why Oxford, of course. Which surely makes her one of those "handheld through the application process". It also makes her as "thick as congealed slurry" and possessing "the right kind of swagger to fit in". Either that, or she's a total fucking hypocrite.

Of course, I do realise she could be all of the above...

UPDATE: Matt M in the coments section rightly points out that Penny could be classing herself (hell, she probably is) as one of the two thirds of the successful applicants that weren't as thick as congealed slurry. My bad; I meant to re-edit the article before publishing it but didn't. It should have read "it also gives her a circa 33% of being as "thick as congealed slurry".." She's still a fucking hypocrite, though, as she clearly benefitted from the private school hand-holding she now seeks to rebuke.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself...

...and believe me, given the number of posts I've written about Laurie Penny, I've tried. But here is Bella Gerens dismissing Penny in a withering, yet wonderfully concise, way:

She is travelling an extremely well-trodden road bearing the placard of thoroughly-explored philosophies. And the destination, reached so many times before, has benefitted no one except the travellers themselves.

Awesome stuff. You really should read the whole thing.

An Empty Voice Talking to No-one.

A summary of Laurie Penny's new book:

Modern culture is obsessed with controlling women's bodies. Our societies are saturated with images of unreal, idealised female beauty whilst real female bodies and the women who inhabit them are alienated from their own personal and political potential. Under modern capitalism, women are both consumers and consumed: Meat Market offers strategies for resisting this gory cycle of consumption, exposing how the trade in female flesh extends into every part of women's political selfhood. Touching on sexuality, prostitution, hunger, consumption, eating disorders, housework, transsexualism and the global trade in the signs and signifiers of femininity, Meat Market is a thin*, bloody sliver of feminist dialectic, dissecting women's bodies as the fleshy fulcrum of capitalist cannibalism.

I've no doubt that Penny's book is exactly the way it is described above. The problem is that pretty much everything Penny is writing about has been dealt with before. It has been dealt with by populists, by radicals, by academics and, with the best will in the world and basing my opinion on her blog rather than her book, by much better writers than her. There is nothing original or new on offer here.

So let me make a prediction - those who like Laurie Penny will laud this book as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Those who can't stand her will be vitriolic about it. The vast majority of people in this country won't give a fuck; they won't even know the book has been published, let alone engage with it enough to gain an opinion of it based solely on its cover.

No doubt Penny will make a couple of quid from her book, and good luck to her. But the chances of this book ever being influential, important or even widely read are minimal.

*At 79 pages, it is a pretty fucking slim volume. Less of a book, it sounds more a pamphlet in need of an editor.

The Simple World of Laurie Penny

In a nauseatingly self-congratulatory post, Laurie “THE CELEBRITY” Penny writes this:

If I ever lose perspective, or start praising George Osborne, or just turn into a massive wanker, I’m counting on the people whose opinions I’ve always valued to take me to task.

Sorry all, but it is just too easy to say that Penny has never had a sense of perspective, or that she has ever been anything other than a massive wanker. Those cheap shots you should make elsewhere. As, if you are so inclined, no doubt you will.

No, it is the bit about praising George Osborne that gets to me, because it reveals so much about Penny’s mindset. She deals in absolutes, see. And here the absolute is that GEORGE OSBORNE WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING SHE CAN SEE AS GOOD. Which completely ignores one of the most fundamental facets of life – change. Penny might, in future years, move away from the clichéd left (‘growing up’ I believe is the actual term) and realise that people like Osborne can offer valid opinions and policies, even if you disagree with the broad parameters of what they stand for. Furthermore, she also denies the idea that Osborne himself could change; maybe on day, in one area, Osborne will position himself on the tedious left. Doesn’t seem likely, but it is not an impossibility either. Unfortunately, Penny’s naïve worldview is simply too narrow to encompass any such possibilities.

Of course, you could argue that her statement was meant to be tongue in cheek, but anyone who has read Penny’s blog knows that (a) it is exactly how she feels about Osborne and (b) it is typical of the way she looks at the world.

There may be some intelligent statists and socialists out there – those who understand the contingent nature of political identity and political reality. Judging by this and pretty much the rest of her output, we can rest assured that Laurie Penny is not one of them.

On Laurie Penny

The fact that Laurie Penny has managed to make a complete hash of searching for an admin assistant to help with her book should not come as a surprise to anyone who has read her writings on a regular basis; of course she was going to be sexist and hypocritical about it – that’s what she does. I’ve not great desire to rehash the arguments about how idiotic she’s been. I do, however, have two questions:

1. Laurie, if you can’t afford to pay someone a living wage in order to do your grunt work, then why can’t you just do it for yourself?

2. Who the hell would pay good money to get Laurie Penny to put a book together?

Liberalism is not socialism

Laurie Penny asks “Why do liberals hate Margaret Thatcher?” The simple answer is, of course, that they don’t. Some might like her, some might love her, some might despise her. They aren’t the homogenous bunch implied by Penny’s question. But acknowledging that would undermine Penny’s hyperbole, which in turn would destroy her whole writing style.

But what is startling about Penny’s question is the implication that she is liberal. Anyone who has ever read pretty much any of her work will know that she is a socialist through and through. And even if you think socialism is the best thing in the world ever (and it very clearly isn’t, but that's for another day) you should still be aware that socialism is not liberalism – and the two are often in conflict.

Of course, you could argue that Penny is liberal in the sense that she is towards the liberal side of the liberal/authoritarian spectrum. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work either. Socialism requires an authoritarian side to it in order to function (redistribution, for example, clearly requires coercion in practice). Furthermore, Penny’s awful whining about spending cuts shows that she is a statist through and through; she can't cope with the reduction in the size, scope and influence of the state.

I want to be clear here – I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with a socialist like Penny expressing their opinions. Indeed, she is paid by a largely socialist magazine to write socialist articles. But the word liberal has been much maligned, and it doesn’t need to be further maligned through misuse by socialist types such as Laurie Penny.

Ultimately, her question should have read "why do socialists hate Margaret Thatcher?" Then again, I don't suppose that said question would have had the same capacity to bring about paragraph after paragraph of bile against "Thatcher as an icon". It is pretty obvious why socialists would hate Thatcher, as she did a lot to break down the (failing) consensus politics that had so dominated in this country since the war...

Laurie Penny, Hyperbole, and Remembering the War Dead

Laurie Penny, on what for her constitutes "form" and for most other people hysterical, nonsensical hyperbole:

'Sacrifice' is the word continually used to associate this cynical and relentless carnage with public nostalgia for the glory of past victories. There are, however, two meanings to the word 'sacrifice.' One can sacrifice, in the sense of willingly giving one's for a cause, or one can be a sacrifice, offered up for slaughter by one's betters in the name of god, or greed, or homeland.

And this is news precisely how? Undoubtedly, some people in almost every war there has ever been have been sacrificed for whatever cause was being fought for. That is the nature of war - it is unfair, and it is unpleasant. But then again, it is war - what the hell were you expecting? A walk in the park?

And there are other reasons why people fight and are forced to fight - not just greed, good or homeland. World War Two would be the classic example here - sometimes, people fight for survival. That has nothing to do with being "offered up for slaughter by one's betters" - instead, it has everything to do with not being dominated by a totalitarian nightmare. I'm opposed to war - to some extent I am instinctively a pacifist. But at some point you have to fight, or risk being dominated by those you might abhor.

It is this second understanding of sacrifice that we should bear in mind this Poppy day. Even in the Great War, not all of the men and boys shot by their own side for cowardice or driven out 'like cattle', in Wilfred Owen's words, in front of the German machine guns, died with future generations in mind. Not all of them bled willingly, for king and country; some of them simply bled because they had been seriously injured, because their leaders deemed it appropriate for them to die in pain and terror. A million cardboard flowers, rooted in the dark earth of this country's frantic military self- fashioning, will never be enough to mop up the carnage.

And in this paragraph we see that Laurie has completely missed the point of Remembrance Sunday (not "Poppy day" - let's call it by a more proper name, shall we?) It isn't about political point scoring, it isn't about class strife. It is about remembering all those who died -whether they did so willingly, or under duress in a state of terrified anxiety.

And the Poppy is not meant to to mop up the carnage - it is a symbol, to remind us of that carnage and those who died. And it should also remind us to reflect on why those wars happened, and what we can do right now to prevent future devastating conflicts.

But thus far in her article, Penny has been restrained. She's flirted with the idea of class conflict and its impact on the choice of those who were sent to fight in the First World War. As always, she saves the best - and most offensive - to last:

As we celebrate another memorial Sunday, we should remember that the politicians wearing red flowers in Whitehall have cheerfully authorised the decimation of jobs, welfare and public education in order to defend Britain's military spending and nuclear arsenal and offer tax breaks for business. They have sacrificed the life chances of a generation of young and working-class people whilst making rhetorical sops towards "the national interest", and that is not remembrance, nor is it any way to honour the memory of the Great Generation. That, in fact, is "just show business".

Yes, what we should do is remember, on Remembrance Sunday, not those who died in war but rather the actions of politicians with whom Penny does not agree. Yes, that's the fucking point of Remembrance Sunday, isn't it? To agree with Penny's crass political point scoring. Don't think about the war dead, for God's sake. Think about the fact that a feckless and hopelessly naive young journalist writing for The New Statesman doesn't like spending cuts.

And how offensive is it to compare a generation who may have some of their number adversely affected by the spending cuts with the generation sent to die on the battlefields of the First World War? How crass can one person be? That is no way to honour the memory of those who died. In fact, it too is "just show business" - it is taking an event, and twisting its meaning to back up whatever toss Laurie Penny happens to be thinking at any given time. It takes Remembrance Sunday, and debases it. It turns it into the sort of cheap political point scoring that shows what an ignorant idiot that writer actually is.

Laurie Penny, Spending Cuts and Attempted Suicide

As part on my ongoing habit of being late on just about everything, I see that Laurie Penny is indulging in a jaw-dropping bit of hysteria (that manages to be in pretty bad taste at the same time):

It's 2am, and I'm sitting under a strip light in the emergency unit of my local hospital, waiting for the doctors to finish attending to a young friend of mine who attempted to end her life tonight. When the paramedics arrived, they told us she wasn't the first - for many Londoners, it seems, something about the news or the weather today gave the impression that a crisis point has been reached.

Timmy nicely fillets her assertions here, while DK turns in an excellent piece of splenetic rage against her here. But I'd just like to throw into the maelstrom my own thoughts on young Laurie's work.

First up, she's being pretty fucking assumptive. She doesn't specify why her friend tried to end her life (and in fairness, I don't want to know and nor should she tell us) and she clearly doesn't (and can't) know why other Londoners (all we know is that there is more than one) have attempted to end their lives either. It hardly seems surprising, though, that in a city the size of London that a certain number of people would try to end their lives each day. What would be surprising, though, is if they were doing it (as is strongly implied by Penny's article) because of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In fact, that would be fucking staggering - particularly if they were trying to commit said act over Labour's failure to counter the CSR to Penny's liking.

Given we don't know the motives of those who attempted to end their lives on that evening, I d0 have to say that it is pretty offensive - and an example of rather odious cheap political point scoring - for Penny to link those personal, troubled acts with the particular partisan argument she wishes to make. It is the sort of thing you see The Daily Mail doing all the time (albeit not normally from a leftist perspective) and, as most normal people know, aping that hate rag is not the way for any journalist to go.

But I don't think that Penny is stupid, even given the crass and offensive paragraph reproduced above. She can write well, knows how to frame an article, get the reader bought in to what she's saying and how to structure an argument (no matter how easily the logic of said argument can be refuted). She isn't dumb. Her big problem, rather, is that she is almost hopelessly naive. She is a living embodiment of the Entitlement Culture, and she lives in this strange bubble where the whole country should conform to her own, statist outlook on life. She's a idealist through and through. Don't get me wrong, I'm an idealist too - but it is mixed with both pragmatism and a healthy dose of cynicism. I know governments and political parties will do things of which I do not approve - however, I don't then link my disappointment in them to the attempted suicides of people I've never met.

It's tempting to round this post off with a terse phrase like "grow up", but I don't think that is what Penny actually needs to do. She needs to get a grip on reality, and the nasty world that is politics. The world isn't suddenly going to become compliant with what she wants and feels she is entitled to. Practical reality will always constrain what she demands. And in the case of spending cuts the practical reality is starkly simple - there's no money left, and all the parties (including Labour, deep down) know that cuts have to be made if the state is going to stay afloat.

Blair... sorry, Boris's fare increases.

Penny Red is ranting about increases in travel costs in London, and, of course, levels all of the blame at one Boris Johnson. I don't live in London anymore, but did so for many years under Red Ken. So when someone talks about a rise in tube and/or bus fares, by immediate thought is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

But is was this paragraph that really hit home for me:

For the rest of us, this is what happens when we allow ourselves to get dazzled by cartoon politics: we elect dangerous smiling bastards who don't give a damn about poverty and inequality and who are quite willing to make life exponentially harder for the low-paid majority at the expense of a privileged few.

Absolutely, Penny. Abso-ruddy-lutely. On no account should we be taken in by cartoon politicians with their evil smiles again. In no way should we ever allow ourselves to vote for that grinning, preening homunculus Tony Blair again.

That's who she's talking about, right?

Nu Labour Grudge Match: Penny Against Purnell

There can be few more wonderful things than watching two Labour party members sneering at each other. And when those two happen to be Penny "Would Be Radical" Red and James "Suddenly Socialist" Purnell - neither of whom will be strangers to regular readers of this blog - it is just delightful. And in this case, the exchange between the two perfectly sums up just how fucked the Labour Party is.

The story - from Penny rather than Purnell - is that during a meeting with the shifty former Cabinet minister, Penny snapped and told Purnell what was on her mind. It is quite interesting and worth reproducing in full. If only because it shows Penny Red is resolutely part of the Entitled Generation*:

"Look, James. You know and I know that the damage has already been done. There are hundreds of thousands of young people and people with disabilities out there whose lives have been entirely scuppered by a batting team of the recession and your damn stupid benefit policies. Sure, you're trying to guarantee jobs for one in ten of them now - but that's not enough, and we both know that. I'm not here to shout at you or to tell you how angry I am with you, and I'm not here to point out the massive hypocrisy in your personal behaviour over the expenses scandal -there wouldn't be a lot of point in that. I'm here to ask you, please, to listen.

Notice here how there are problems that have affected young people like Penny. The recession (which has presumably not allowed them to get jobs) and the Purnell Benefit reforms (which have presumably limited their earning potential whilst on the dole) are making life miserable for them. Which is understandable; but they are not alone in suffering from the recession or from Nu Labour policies. There is no sense within this of Penny and her friends trying to make the best of a bad situation. They expect the government to give them a job, rather than actually going out to find one. And when the government doesn't do so - and refuses to pay them for doing fuck all - they get angry about it. Which makes me a little angry. Mainly owing to the arrogance of it.

Now, I know it is bad form to post subjective anecdotal evidence to make a case; that said, I'm going to do it anyway. The government has never helped to find me a job. In all bar one case, I have found jobs through personal searches and direct application to companies. As for the one exception, I found that job through the personal contacts I built up through working. Disability isn't a hinderance either. I have worked with people who are disabled yet have worked very effectively in a variety of professions. The difference is between those who would go out and find a job, and those who want the job to come to them. And a job that comes gift-wrapped by the government. If you wait for a job to come to you, then you are going to be disappointed. Because - nine times out of ten - someone more proactive will have taken the role before it ever gets to you.

Oh, and it is positively startling to claim that you are not going to tell someone how angry you are with them at the same time as talking about their "damn stupid policies" and their "massive hypocrisy." Clearly a sense of self-awareness is still lacking in what passes for the Radical Left these days.

But Penny goes on with her odd mix of a plea and a rant:

"People are hurting, right now; people like my partner and my former housemates are in desperate situations and they are hurting. You're a highly ambitious, brilliant politician. There's not a small chance that by the time you're leader of the Labour Party or Prime Minister of Britain [note: neither Purnell nor his aide moved to correct me at this point] we will still be hurting, still be desperate, and some of us might still be unemployed. I want you to remember, please, that you owe us a voice. I want you to remember that our votes count, too, and that we are people just as much as people who are lucky enough to be employed. It's too late for some of us now; but we're good, bright young men and women who just want to earn our way, and our votes count as much as anyone's. So when you're powerful again, please remember us, and remember that you owe us. And that's all I have to say."

All this talk of hurting brings the music of Tears for Fears to mind. Although I do think that politicians - particularly those of the Nu Labour type - are immune to concepts like "hurting". So it is just as well that Penny mentions votes - the only thing the likes of Purnell could ever care about. Yet it is worth noting why so few politicians care about the young and the unemployed; the former often don't vote, and the latter often aren't registered. So Penny's vote is arguably worth less to Purnell than the vote of someone of middle age and the middle class; statistically, Purnell can rely on the middle class to turn out to the ballot box more than he can the unemployed or the young.

And why does he owe Penny a voice? Or even owe her anything? What the hell has she ever done, other than turn up to a meeting and hector him? Again, there is the pervasive sense of entitlement without justification. Penny just expects Purnell to represent her, her friends and her views. She doesn't explain to her readers or to Purnell why she should be listened to. Presumably because she doesn't have a reason.

Still, you have to hand it to Purnell. His response to all this is just gold:

At which point, Purnell said, "Thank you. That seems like a good point on which to end the meeting".

*Throws back head and brays with laughter.*

He doesn't give a fuck. Even in the face of Penny's self-righteous, self-serving indignation and pleading rage, he doesn't give a fuck. And in doing so he sums up perfectly what is wrong with Nu Labour politicians. They are so arrogant, and so self-absorbed, that they are perfectly happy to ignore the views and the arguments of their own party.

Which is how this post perfectly sums up why, for the foreseeable future, the Labour Party is fucked. James "Workhouse" Purnell represents the next generation of Labour leaders, and he doesn't really give a fuck about anyone other than himself. Not even those supporters he should be developing into party loyalists and activists. And the Labour generation after that can't do anything other than whine and tantrum over the grossly unfair government that doesn't deliver a job and/or a benefit cheque on demand.

Fuck 'em. Fuck the lot of 'em. They are on the way out, and good riddance.

*A concept I'll go into detail about in another, still to be written, post.