The world is upside down. Tim Montgomerie is gently mocking himself, to appreciative laughter, in a room full of the same left-wing bloggers who daily accuse him of spreading lies on Twitter. Meanwhile, Polly Toynbee and Laurie Penny are being roundly criticised with the same medium for being irrelevant or bourgeois-in-denial respectively. Such is the nature of the new ‘movement’, where irreverence is king and the awful old Politburo structures of the left have collapsed, leaving behind something quite remarkable: pluralism.
How have we got to this point? How have things evolved in the last few months? Allow me to analyse each of the factions present at Netroots UK, the gathering of online ‘progressives’ – an umbrella term encompassing leftists and left-liberals – hosted earlier this week by the TUC.
THE TRIBES
Unions
The TUC are starting to understand how a modern movement that involves the unions might look. Brendan Barber’s best moment was in praising “a unique progressive coalition”. Progressivism was not in the union lexicon until extremely recently, and his speech was well aimed and gave the impression of the unions as partners, not overbearing autocrats.
Labour
Labour are running scared. Unable to condone the protesters due to the violence that occurred, all Labour was able to muster was Stella Creasy MP, elected in May, and Tom Watson MP, who said “vote Labour” and then left. Creasy tried to play the ‘Remember how bad things were under the Tories last time’ card, telling the audience “Thirteen years ago we were part of a manifesto that tried to get rid of outside toilets in schools”. I spotted various staffers and junior politicos, who blended in well with the predominantly young demographic. They were obviously on reconaissance missions for their party, and presumably delivered bad news, as Labour bashing was one of the main themes of the day. One journalist on a national newspaper said to me “Where is Ed Miliband? He ought to be here”. When your own NUS President won’t support you, I suppose His Edship is a little much to expect.
The Americans
Media Matters for America, i3 strategies, Daily Kos and various other consultant types were present, making everyone feel unprofessional and scruffy in comparison. The emphasis was on partnership across the Atlantic, and using models that have been successful in campaigning in the US to fight for causes here, such as opposing Murdoch’s BskyB takeover and the establishment of a UK FoxNews. Ari Rabin-Havt, Executive Vice-President at Media Matters, told the assembled group “Let’s increase this transatlantic trade of ideas”, inviting activists to attend Netroots Nation, the inspiration for Netroots UK, in Milwaukee this summer. When I asked him what struck him most about working with UK activists, he said “What’s been enlightening for me is how Netroots activists in the UK and the US are focussed on the exact same issues and fighting the exact same fights. You guys in Britain are lucky you come from a much more social perspective that we don’t have. You’re fighting to save the NHS as opposed to creating an NHS.”
The conservative
A tribe of one, Tim Montgomerie spoke eloquently on blogs and the wrongheaded approach to hits that many bloggers have. “What I’m interested in is do Conservative MPs read ConservativeHome, do journalists read ConservativeHome and do activists read ConservativeHome? Are we influencing the influencers? Frankly any normal person reading about seat selection is not a normal person… Go for the issues no one else is looking at”.
He also thinks the left is far too polite when it comes to Labour. “[The left] is too partisan… criticising your own party is an important thing. I happen to think that if the blogosphere had been around in the days of Tony Blair, some of the problems that emerged with that project might not have become so embedded”.
Refreshingly focussed, Montgomerie charmed the room, especially when he said that Netroots could be the start of “something special” for the left. I exited feeling a little bit dirty.
The moderates
One of the biggest points of contention at Netroots was the vehicle by which the ‘movement’ wanted to enact change: Parliament or protest? The moderates, embodied here by Sunny Hundal, argued that radicalism equated to sticking your head firmly in the sand. “We need to build a movement here that is outside of Labour and it will be within Labour too… we need to stop saying these guys are too middle-of-the-road for me. OK fine, they don’t represent you, do your own thing, but what are you doing? How are you mobilising people, how are you forcing the right on the defensive? Right now all we’re doing is sitting there and complaining. That’s all we’re doing”.
The radicals
“We’re listening politely whilst appointed arbiters of the centre-left mow the grassroots into a neat, acceptable bourgeois lawn #netrootsuk”. She pulls no punches. Laurie Penny (later mocked for tweeting this from a presumably proletarian iPad) was highly critical of attempts to make the movement ‘respectable’ at the expense of grassroots participation and energy. In the feminism session that took place in the afternoon, one wing of the radicals came together to voice its distaste for parliamentary process, and for the perceived sexism of “shoving us all [women] in one room”. Lisa Ansell in particular seemed intent on arguing that nothing vaguely linked to mainstream politics was acceptable, and that lobbying for change through the law was futile. After all, women were given the right to vote, the right to an abortion, the right to be treated fairly in the workplace and the right to own property when married through – what’s that? Legislation you say? How unspeakably bourgeois!
The actual activists, and miscellaneous others
All the activists present who were there to learn and to educate others on their work were the real stars of the conference, plus representatives from charities, the charming Frenchman from La Tribune, marauding slebs like Johann Hari, the man who shouted to the assembled company, of Tim Montgomerie, “DON’T TRUST THAT MAN, HE SEEMS CHARMING BUT [he was shushed at this point. I would like to speculate he might have said “he is George Osborne in the disguise of a Crew Clothing advert”]. There was a real feeling of, dare I say it, solidarity amongst those who weren’t there simply to give their opinion, but for the purpose of taking something back to their micro-communities and organisations. All the ‘framing the narrative’ in the world won’t make one iota of difference if it isn’t followed up by the hard work done by people like those at 38 Degrees, False Economy, and The F Word.
Jennifer O’Mahony is a writer and journalist, currently working at The Nation magazine in New York. Her articles have been published by The Guardian and Liberal Conspiracy.
All comments are moderated, and should be respectful of other voices in the discussion. Comments may be edited or deleted at the moderator's discretion.
| Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License
Printable version
Share
Contact us
17 Comments on "Netroots UK: Anatomy of a Movement"
By Rowan Davies, on 11 January 2011 - 16:38 |
Interesting piece, thanks. I think there were a few other factions too - greens, feminists, policy wonks (Richard Murphy springs to mind), professional campaigners. Also, to be fair to Tom Watson, he had some useful stuff to say at the workshop on engaging with politicians online. All in all it was an enjoyable and productive day, not least in the less high-profile but well-attended workshops on campaigning against local cuts, which were very useful and involved no inter-factional carping! Roll on next year.
By Jennifer O'Mahony, on 11 January 2011 - 16:57 |
Totally agree. The greens, fems and wonks contributed a lot to this discussion and they do get a mention, if not their own tribe! I was really energised by the whole thing.
By Political Dynamite, on 11 January 2011 - 19:54 |
Would echo the above 2 comments. #UKUNCUT grew out Climate Camp, the Green Party and socialist groups. They may not have been present on the panels but they were th eenergy of the conference.
I think it was positive rather than factional and the first step towards working together as we will inevitably have to do see -
http://politicaldynamite.com/2011/01/lessons-from-the-netroots/
By Gethyn Williams, on 11 January 2011 - 22:49 |
Loved this. Best Netroots piece I’ve read so far.
What was it Tom Watson said in response to a question on why anyone should still bother with Labour? “Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good…” ?
By rooftopjaxx, on 11 January 2011 - 23:19 |
Under pluralism its obvious not everybody belongs to just one single tribe, but the anarchists and the geeks are left out from the list
By Donnacha DeLong, on 11 January 2011 - 23:48 |
How come Barber gets a mention and not me? Anarchist, trade unionist, radical and the one who argued with Montgomerie (and Labour loyalist John Gray)?
By Lisa Ansell, on 12 January 2011 - 08:48 |
So the ‘moderate’ response, to the figt against the cuts is now support of a political party, who have been very clear that their policies will still be the same with regard to me. And so unless I accept that they are the ‘moderate’ response - even though they are committed to ALL the same policies that will leave me homeless- and leaving my community- I am a radica;?
So you are using the cuts that affect me- to rejuvenate a so called left wing movement. and now the desire to stay in my community - and understanding that as Labour ARE continuing the policies which push me out—makes me a radical?
Wow.
So I have to pretend that being homeless and deny everything that is happening to me and the people around me- to be considered moderate in YOUR movement? Wow.
By Lisa Ansell, on 12 January 2011 - 09:06 |
So where do we go? If we are losing our houses and careers- ESA, DLA etc? Where do we go to fight the cuts? The New Left have reinvigorated themselves on our hardship- and now we are no longer welcome- or we are radical?
By Kieron Merrett, on 12 January 2011 - 09:56 |
Two main points -
Firstly, pluralism?? At NetrootsUK? I think a pluralist anti-cuts campaign would be a good thing, but I thought Netroots demonstrated we aren’t going to get it. An awful lot of bickering got in the way of actually discussing how best to organise the Left online.
Secondly. the main reason Labour online people were largely absent, was because most of them were at the major Oldham campaign weekend. Far from “running scared,” Labour was actually practising what Netroots was only talking about…
By Jennifer O'Mahony, on 12 January 2011 - 10:15 |
Donnacha - perhaps you were so very much EVERYTHING, just so embodying all these tribes in one way or another that it was impossible to define you.
By Jennifer O'Mahony, on 12 January 2011 - 12:10 |
Kieron - to be honest bickering just might = pluralism.
By Alen Clifford, on 12 January 2011 - 13:44 |
It’s a good piece. What I would say is if indeed not everyone there (who is working) is not a member of a trade union, we face an issue. We will not have a united left if one doesn’t know that integral to being left is being a trade union member.
People in the first sesion were talking ‘to’ the trade unions, but aren’t we all members and therefore, wouldn’t we be talking amongst ourselves?
By John Brougher, on 12 January 2011 - 16:20 |
Jennifer, this is a fantastic piece. I think my ultimate takeaway is to think about who _wasn’t_ there in force this time, and how we can bring them in to Netroots UK 2012 and more regional conferences. With the hundreds of attendees for this inaugural one, I’m so jazzed to imagine the attendance and possibilities for the future.
By BenSix, on 12 January 2011 - 16:28 |
True, true, the right to vote was won through Parliament. One hopes you’re gearing up for many happy decades of campaigning, then. Who knows, we might have solved our oil woes just a few years after the stuff’s run out.
Don’t get me wrong, if you’re just looking for some policy changes you might find Parliament receptive. But citing a fairly basic entitlement that women were only granted after year upon year of campaigning hardly fills one with confidence.
By Lisa Ansell, on 13 January 2011 - 11:31 |
http://lisaansell.posterous.com/jennifer-mahoney There is my response to Ms.Mahony. I know that little old us who are actually affected arent as important as the self appointed ‘new left’- but hey ho. I dont suppose it will be allowed to stay.
By Paul, on 13 January 2011 - 13:22 |
“I spotted various staffers and junior politicos, who blended in well with the predominantly young demographic. They were obviously on reconaissance missions for their party….”
Mmm, or they might be interested in politics and political activism.
By Ellie Mae O'Hagan, on 14 January 2011 - 14:42 |
This is a great article, but I have to admit I agrree with BenSix’s point at 14.
Yes those rights were legislated in parliament, but only after tireless campaigning using direct action on the streets. In fact, the Suffragists, formed before the Suffragettes, favoured the same methods as Jenny seems to, and subsequently failed completely.
I don’t really believe that you need to engage with politicians - I think you only need to elicit their fear: fear of embarrassment, or fear of political failure.
I’ve been involved in a lot of discussions about political protest lately, and there seems to be a misnomer that one method is universally more effective than another. I tend to think that the most effective method is the one that elicits that fear - be it embarrassment in the form of celebrity endorsements (like Bookstart), or anger and civil disobedience (a la UKUncut).
But then, I am a radical - and damn proud of it
Best article on Netroots so far. Really glad you wrote it for us, Jenny.