Caitlyn Jenner is a mathlete at prom

When Lindsay Lohan is declared homecoming queen in Tina Fey’s Mean Girls – a film about how beauty standards, inter alia, tear women down – she uses her speech to tell all her classmates they look nice. Jessica Lopez, who uses a wheelchair, has an amazing dress; plus-size Emma Gerber must have spent hours on her hair; Regina George, queen bee before a bus hit her, is wearing her neck brace like a rock star.

If complimenting women’s looks on dressed-up occasions is sexism, a patronising well done for being acceptable, Fey suggests it can also be a gesture of solidarity, acknowledging the girls’ efforts to navigate beauty-policing’s impossible demands. (The ‘plastics’, it turns out, are more afraid than anyone.) When Lohan tells her peers they all look like royalty, breaking her tiara and dividing the pieces equally, it’s a statement of affirmation and sorority. I see you, big girls, butch girls, girls on meds. I see the best-and-worst-dressed culture and the pressure and the fear and how you’ve handled them. Here’s to us all for surviving.

000Not unlike Lohan’s character, Caitlyn Jenner is a mathlete at prom, negotiating for the first time the fraught terrain of acceptable public femaleness. Prior to her profile in Vanity Fair, featuring Annie Leibovitz’s photographs, Jenner was called an unconvincing imitation of womanhood. Post-bustier, having presumably sped through the goldilocks region of femininity sometime during hair and makeup, she will almost certainly be called an offensive parody of it. And so my guess would be that when someone at Jezebel wrote ‘You look great, Caitlyn! Can’t wait to see more,’ this – not the adequacy of her attractiveness – was the context.

With all the surgery, beauty treatments and airbrushing her millions can buy, Jenner certainly meets standards of gendered beauty few trans women can; it’s also true that lauding her for being pretty rather than brave displays a wide array of bigotries, and that trans activists may just have better goals than inroads with the GOP. Meeting an expectation, though, doesn’t make it less smothering. If feminist media is complimenting Jenner, my guess is that the aim might be to put someone agonisingly self-aware at ease, letting the anxious nerd at the spring fling know she looks nice when she arrives: not ‘You look great’ as in ‘Well done’, but as in ‘Don’t let them say otherwise.’ [Read more…]

Support Taslima Nasrin and atheist bloggers facing death

In case you haven’t seen it in the press, a string of public atheists have recently been killed in Bangladesh. Two years ago, Ahmed Rajib Haider’s body was found outside his house; last November, AKM Shafiul Islam was murdered on his way home. Avijit Roy was stabbed in the head with a machete in February, while the following month, Washiqur Rahman’s murderers were found with meat cleavers. Ananta Bijoy Das, the most recent victim, was hacked to death three weeks ago. Failed attempts on others’ lives have hospitalised them, some sustaining permanent injury, and barely a month now passes without new reports. Islamist groups responsible have by now grown so bold that there exists a Wikipedia page – from which the above information comes – called ‘Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh’. It is a morbid lottery whose name the next update will be.

These ambushes are not random: before their deaths, several victims appeared on a hit list of eighty-four names. One of the biggest, Taslima Nasrin, writes on this blog network; two days ago, she was informed she would be next. Fortunately, several weeks of work between Ed Brayton and CFI to extract her from India were already in place: yesterday Taslima left Delhi for the USA, where she’s now staying out of harm’s way with CFI staff. While in the scheme of things, this is a huge relief, it leaves her facing the same kind of fix anyone does who has to leave their home without warning. In that her work remains unaffected for the most part, Taslima benefits from being an author, but she now has no transport, health plan or permanent abode.

To help with this and meet living costs while she finds her feet, the CFI has established a fund. From their statement:

If we raise more than is needed for Taslima, we will use the remainder to establish an emergency fund to help assist other dissidents in similarly perilous situations. Without going into detail, CFI has already been contacted by other writers on the subcontinent who have received threats against their lives and who have requested assistance. We are withholding their names for their own safety.

Thank you.

Please give generously – or get someone else to if you can’t.

Gitsupportthisblog

GiTwhyinowhaveadonatebutton

GiTfollowthisblogonfacebook

“I feel obliged to never talk about my atheism”: Natalie Reed on science, postmodernism and the left

Someone on Twitter accused me a couple of months back of ‘ridiculous pomo ramblings’. (Given there are days when I’m not ridiculous, this felt unfair.) Because they’re part of the don’t-call-us-TERFs brigade and I’m a troll, a bit of shade proved irresistible.

Natalie Reed, formerly of this blog network, tweeted me back, and we got to talking – on science, philosophy, atheists and the left. In light of recent arguments, our conversation’s been back on my mind, so I’ve transcribed it, lightly edited, below. I’m reminded why Natalie, having been driven out, is such a loss to the secular scene.

* * *

NR: People certainly use it as one. Mostly people who have absolutely no idea what postmodernism actually is or means. I think they think of it as just, like, hyperrelativism and Damien Hirst aesthetics.

AG: It strikes me as a tad ironic how the most radical quotes from people like Irigaray and Harding, totally decontextualised, are used by dudebros to go ‘Stupid mad women! Science! Yurrrr!’

That’s another really odd thing – how ‘postmodern’ has gradually come to be a sort of dog whistle for ‘feminine’ or female intellectual achievement, or the invalidation or belittling thereof – ‘women’s thought’ being dismissed as ‘just pomo’ and so on. And then that gets into how femininity and women and postmodern thought alike are both contextualised as weak, artificial, overly fussy, impractical, unrealistic – in contrast to the ‘natural’ and ‘pragmatic’ and ‘realist’ and ‘scientific’ hard-choices-that-have-to-be-made [image] of men, masculinity and not-pomo.

PZ Myers was booked to speak somewhere and there were comments saying ‘He believes in postmodernist concepts like patriarchy!’

Hahaha – that is epic. Also also: the idea the entirety of the humanities and social sciences are ‘postmodern’. The humanities and social sciences are contextualised as ‘women’s fields’ or feminine courses of study, not as ‘robust’ and ‘strong’ and ‘hard’ and ‘rigorous’ and – well, you see my point – as the hard sciences: the rock hard, thrusting, throbbing sciences, penetrating the dark, moist recesses of empirical truth. And of course the fact that the demographics in the humanities really do have stronger representation of women.

000You’re sailing perilously close to CALLING NEWTON’S PRINCIPIA A RAPE MANUAL!

WESTERN SCIENCE RAPED THE FEMININE DIVINE OF OTHER WAYS OF KNOWING!

Haha.

The thing that really bothers me is how many people think the proper response to the chauvinistic invalidation of that which isn’t ‘hard science’ is to do the whole western-thought-versus-other-ways-of-knowing [shtick], which is just further playing on the same intellectual field – further contextualising women, people of colour, queers and so on as apart from reason and science – and continues contextualising science and reason and thought and truth as the domain of white cishet men. And I’m like, no – fuck that. Human brains are human brains, we all have those same potentials for reason, intuition etc. [Read more…]

Another response to Kris Nelson – guest post by Amber Adamson

000Every so often an article so Lovecraftian wanders across my path that I am inspired to engage. At Everyday Feminism, usually a site I enjoy, blogger Kris Nelson discusses ‘3 Myths That Make Navigating the Radical Left as a Person of Faith Difficult’. I’d like to note upfront here that I emailed Kris about their piece and what I saw as its problems, or at least a few of them. I was actually rather tame. I refrained from even questioning what is arguably the worst aspect of their piece – its deference to pseudo-science – and stuck to questioning its rather absurd binary of the western Christian church versus all other religions – united, one presumes, in some kind of care bear struggle against evil, with the western Christian church the root of it all.

I’m not going to repost my email here, but over-gentle as I tried to be, Kris’s reaction was juvenile in the extreme – I suppose I was too optimistic in thinking they might reconsider some of their stranger assumptions. I am going to mention some quotes from their email, because it shows how narrow and warped their perspective is. Honestly, a part of me can’t help but feel I’m being a bully here – when an author is this clueless, isn’t it a bit unfair to even scrutinize them? But this post has 3.3 thousand shares on Facebook. And it’s typical of a very seedy, apolitical ecumenicalism, which has infested leftist discourse and which I’m sick of. My writing against Kris is also my writing against everything writers like Kris represent. [Read more…]

Marx and the meaning of godlessness: a radical atheist’s response to Kris Nelson

There’s a passage from Marx’s critique of Hegel that antitheists like to quote and defenders of faith like to quotemine. In a piece titled ‘3 Myths That Make Navigating the Radical Left as a Person of Faith Difficult’, Kris Nelson notes Marx calls religion the heart of a heartless world as well as the opium of the people, claiming to ‘open up . . . the full quote, and not just the snapshot used to pick at those who dare let their god(s) lead them’.

In fact, Nelson – ‘a queer trans witch [who] runs an online store . . . where they sell handcrafted wirework jewellery, crystal pendants, handsewn tarot bags and pendulums’ – is the one peddling a misrepresentation. The actually-full quote (translation mine) reads:

The discontent of religion is at once an expression of and protestation against true discontent. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, heart of a heartless world and soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. To overthrow the bogus happiness they find in it is to demand they be allowed true happiness; to demand disillusionment with a condition built on delusion is to demand its end. And so to criticise religion is, in embryo, to criticise the vale of tears of which it is but an apparition.

Such critique has not shredded the imaginary flowers on people’s chains so as to leave them chained without solace or fantasy, but so that they might cast away their chains and gather real flowers. It disillusions people so that they might think, act and shape their own reality, as does anyone brought to their senses – so that their lives might revolve around them, people being their own true suns. Religion is no more than an illusory sun, revolving around people whose lives do not revolve around them.

The point missed on all sides isn’t that religion is either a bad habit or a source of hope – nor is Marx saying it’s one in spite of being the other. The meaning of ‘Opium des Volkes’, a metaphor Nietzsche and Bernard Shaw would later recycle, is that faith is comforting and delusional, easing the pain by clouding the senses: Marx labels it the courage of a heartless world as part of his attack.

There’s a lot I could say about those lines, which never fail to move me. Unlike new atheism’s figureheads, I’ve been a believer – I could say I remember not having enough to eat, going to church with a single mother and meeting other oppressed creatures; remember the cost of the church’s help, belief spinning out of control, abuse and mental illness taking hold; remember the bogus happiness, then finding poetry in the real world.

000I could say that as an apostate on the left, my skepticism serves an instinct that, in Chomsky’s words, ‘the burden of proof for anyone with a position of power and authority lies on them’ – that my atheism will never be separate from the fight for a just society – and that my antitheism will never, ever be divorced from compassion for those on the margins. I could even accept, though I think his argument survives it, that there’s room to criticise Marx – either in that his presumption to dismantle strangers’ beliefs rings paternalistic, or inasmuch as leftists can and do repurpose God for their own ends.

For now though, Nelson’s post.

Calling oneself a person of faith feels like setting light fingers on ‘person of colour’ – a move less tasteful still when apostates whose former religions have a marked ethnic dimension are among the most stigmatised, frequently smeared as race traitors. Mentioning one’s spirituality – ‘We’ve all got one!’ – likewise resembles the language of sexuality. While it’s perfectly true certain religious groups are ostracised, constructing believers in general as an oppressed class is putrescent – if Nelson finds religion a fraught topic on the left, it’s because of its role as oppressor, and it’s hard to see how conflating the ‘struggle’ of Baptists and Anglicans with those of Jews and Muslims in the west does any good. [Read more…]

Mad Max: Fury Road – a masterpiece of male feminism?

Prompted by male tears, I saw Mad Max like any dutiful gender traitor. Overall it’s a blast, and George Miller remains one of the best action directors in the game. (The chase scenes in Mad Max 2, from 1981, feel like Christopher Nolan before his time.) I didn’t love it quite as much as I expected to – the sets, setpieces and effects are more spectacular than previous films’, but correspondingly less effortless. That said, there’s a lot to admire, from Tom Holkenborg’s score to Miller’s frame rate manipulation. It’s when it came to the feminist angle I wasn’t sure what to think.

Because full-time misogynists demanded a boycott, Fury Road prompted unexpected discussions about women in film. It’s since won praise for all kinds of reasons, many of which seem compelling. As Donna Dickens notes, this is a Bechdel-acing film with a focus on female characters – some of whom, like one-armed Imperator Furiosa and the grey-haired, gun-toting Vulvalini, are excellent – which deconstructs the lone male hero of action cinema. (In Max’s case, writes Dickens, ‘[this] status just about gets him killed’.) Unlike The Hunger Games or Divergent, Sasha James argues, it does this as ‘an action film that is not targeted specifically toward women – if anything, it’s marketed to men’ – and shows female characters, including rape and abuse victims, using the fact of their gender with agency. Writes James:

Untrained in the art of war, the Wives use their womanhood as tools [sic] for their own survival, weaponizing the stereotypes that would be conventionally used against them in a standard action film. For example, in [a] moment of bravery, Splendid transforms her body – the physical vessel for Immortan Joe’s son – into a shield for Max, Furiosa, and the Wives, recognizing her traditional role as a mother and actively using this to her benefit. . . . As an audience well versed in the often-misogynistic tropes inherent in action films, we expect Splendid to be a ‘damsel in distress’. Miller, however, inverses our expectation, transforming her into an empowered survivor.

The moment succeeds because it taps into something real, capturing the complexity of how people at the bottom of power structures negotiate them – something Hollywood’s tryhard attempts at feminism often miss.

And yet – and yet. [Read more…]

Out of the blue: what now for the Labour Party?

When the wrong Miliband became leader, Tories rubbed their hands gleefully and named Ed M the heir to Michael Foot. Seeing them vindicated hurts, and yet I don’t regret voting for him in 2010. That Britain glanced at Foot and instantly preferred Thatcher is a fiction – before the SPD split the left vote and the Falklands lionised her, Labour had poll leads nearing twenty points, predicted a landslide, and Miliband’s failure was no more inevitable. The tragedy of Labour’s loss last week is that the coalition years were a unique chance for a leftish platform to succeed: but for his lack of confidence and failure to convince voters, Miliband’s strategy of cornering the anti-Tory vote might well have worked. Ed blew a chance that won’t soon come again.

000His leadership wasn’t without its achievements. Miliband unified a bruised party when internal spats threatened to explode, moved perceptions on from the Blair-Brown era’s most loathed missteps (not least Iraq) and saw strong local election performances. His campaign, albeit futile, put living costs on the agenda and exposed, perhaps unwillingly, the extent of media bias in the UK. Nevertheless, he’ll be recalled as the leader who managed to do worse than Gordon Brown – a fate all the crueller because till the eleventh hour, everyone in the game expected him to be PM. Experts are asking where the polls went wrong, but while left and right fight over what cost him victory, neither has longitudinal data: whereas certain events demonstrably harmed Brown’s support, we have no way to know if Miliband’s numbers were ever accurate.

Labour still needs a strategy, and predicting the next election’s trials will do more good than wondering what went wrong. 2015 shows a fractured electoral map, most of whose distinct battlegrounds broke the wrong way for them – red versus yellow in Scotland, red versus purple in the north, red versus blue in the midlands and capital, blue versus purple in the south, blue versus orange in the west country. Scottish losses weren’t offset by new English seats – even if Labour made extraordinary gains north of the border, where full recovery will now take it a decade or more, all their work would still be ahead of them. To win again, Labour must wrestle traditional votes from Ukip and the SNP, plus swing votes from the Tories in the south, fighting on two contradictory fronts.

The pill is as bitter for me as the rest of the left, but there is no sugaring it – this time around, Labour has to court more right-leaning votes. At the same time, it must shore up and recover grassroots support, broadening its left-leaning base – all on redrawn boundaries that extend the Tory advantage from 99 to some 125 seats. With the road back to power all uphill, how can Labour go the distance? [Read more…]

After abject defeat, what comfort for the UK’s left?

000Labour lost yesterday, and lost disastrously. There is no getting round that, and it hurts – not least because unlike last time, no one saw defeat on this scale looming. In a hung parliament, Gordon Brown trailed the Tories by forty-eight MPs; this week Ed Miliband, who just resigned, placed some hundred seats behind a Cameron majority. On that result, it would be more humiliating not to quit.

The shock is all the more pronounced because no one – not even, I believe, Cameron himself – expected this. Arriving in his constituency, the PM’s eyes showed a mix of confusion, disappointment and relief: until twenty-four hours back, every poll pointed to a Miliband minority government. Now as in 1992, a long, confused debate among statisticians will come. While recriminations are taking hold, data before last night was so consistently, completely wrong that nobody can say why Labour lost – we have no way of knowing if polls were ever accurate, and thus what impacted the vote.

000Whether by starving or deporting them, by depression or untreated disease, this government will kill people just as the previous one did. Already people are taking deep breaths, poised for the onslaught and pledging to keep each other warm, unwilling model citizens of a regime in which empathy is a private enterprise. It’s easy to call Thatcherism sadism, but the truth is magnitudes more grotesque: the Tories starve, evict and jail the vulnerable in the sincere belief it’s best for them – and that they, archshrinkers of government, get to decide what’s best, nurturing generosity with meanness, compassion with state contempt.

Amid all this, with Labour routed and the Lib Dems culled, what cause for hope? The outcome of this election is dire – we have yet to see just how dire, and any pushback must begin by accepting the depth of that failure. It’ll take courage too, mind you, and there are things which give me pause. This parliament will be a nightmare, but might be much harder than the last one for the PM. [Read more…]

Election 2015 Live Blog – rolling comment throughout the night

This post provides rolling election coverage – refresh every few minutes for updates.
I can’t promise I’ll be on top of comments here – find me on Twitter instead!


2.35am – Conservatives hold Castle Point

…against Ukip. This was the seat where Farage launched his party’s campaign – it’s the first target seat of theirs we’ve seen announced. I and any number of other observers expect Ukip to ‘melt away’, in Peter Kellner’s words.


2.23am – Douglas Alexander scalped in Paisley

Sure to be the first of a series of high-profile losses – both in Scotland and elsewhere. All but ten Lib Dems MPs are set to be ousted, while Ed Balls seems to be endangered.


 

2.13am – SNP gain Kilmarnock

First Scottish result we’ve seen so far, and first SNP gain – no doubt of many.


1.58am – Dimbleby suggests a Tory majority is possible

Moments later, Andrew Marr says Miliband’s leadership is on the line.

Not a good night in general, then.


1.51am – Conservatives hold Nuneaton


1.23am – Conservatives hold Battersea

It now seems the exit poll was broadly correct – Labour aren’t generating the swing they need, and so far they’re not making the gains in London they expected.

If this continues, there’ll be a long conversation about why absolutely no polls predicted this. My first guess is that voting intention nationwide – what most opinion polls measure – hasn’t accounted for how regional power battles play out. (For example, the SNP are set to gain about four percent of UK votes but just under a tenth of seats.)

The question for the left will now be how to handle the next parliament. Fixed five year terms are likely to prevent a Conservative government holding a second election – it may be that Labour can capitalise on being in opposition by chipping away at Cameron’s support in by-elections, paralysing the government while it convalesces.


1.13am – Labour holds Tooting

Sadiq Khan, Miliband’s right hand man, has held his seat.


 

1.08am – Labour holds Newcastle upon Tyne East

Another strong showing for Labour in the north east – as Nick Robinson suggested to Dimbleby, what this election seems to be showing are exaggerated regional schisms. The north east is as steadily red as ever; Scotland has gone nationalist; the south east has deepened as a centre of Tory support.

More results to come in ‘thick and fast’ very soon, beginning seemingly with Tooting and Wandsworth.


0.58am – Conservatives hold Putney

Justine Greening retains her seat, the first result in London we’ve had. Worryingly, we’ve yet to see any results that contradict the exit poll.


 

0.50am – Alan Johnson erroneously claims Labour gained Swindon North

Speaking to Dimbleby, Johnson claims ‘the Swindon North result was a Labour gain’ – unless I heard wrong, no it wasn’t.


 

0.40am – Tories hold Swindon North

The BBC’s analysis shows Labour failing to compensate for Scottish losses with gains from the Conservatives – this is a result in England that, while just one seat, seems consistent with that.


0.21am – Greens forecast to take Norwich South

Further to the previous update here, Jeremy Vine’s examination of the exit poll predicts Norwich South will be a Green gain.


 

11.50pm – Could Natalie Bennett be the new Green MP?

I doubt it. I think we’re looking at a Green hold in Brighton Pavilion and a gain in Norwich South or possibly Bristol. Note that this is one area where the exit poll isn’t a turnup – both it and previous polls point to one or two Green seats.


 

11.39pm – Ed Balls says if Cameron can’t pass a Queen’s speech, he’s out

Ed Balls is wrong. Based on Fixed Term Parliaments Act from 2011, only an explicit confidence vote – not a failed Queen’s speech – can push a government from office. Should the exit poll prove correct, what we may be looking at is a highly insecure Conservative-led government which could lose parliamentary votes if even one MP rebels.


11.37pm – What happens if Nigel Farage loses?

An unnamed source says via Nick Robinson that Nigel Farage may place third in Thanet South. Based on his past statements, that seems like an almost certain end to his party leadership. If the exit poll’s right, that means a Conservative-led government – the question is, how would the situation with the EU be reshaped?

Nick Clegg seemed to suggest during this election campaign that he’d opposite an EU referendum, meaning that – if the option were there – Cameron might rather work with the DUP. (This is assuming they’d agree to one, and that he insisted on it.) Without Nigel Farage, the biggest voice for a Brexit during the next few years, how would the debate look?


11.30pm – Labour holds Sunderland West

Labour continues to sweep Sunderland. Not much else to add right now.


11.17pm – Labour holds Sunderland Central

As in Sunderland South, a five figure majority with almost five thousand votes again. I’m wondering how the exit poll will tally with the regionality of this election – it might be that of its 20,000 respondents, most voted Tory by a wide margin… but how are those people distributed?


10.55pm – Ukip in second place in Sunderland South

Ukip has kicked the Tories into third place, with the Lib Dems losing their deposit. (Less than a thousand votes!)

My prediction is that in lots of northern seats like this, Ukip will do well – but not well enough to win.


10.51pm – Labour holds Sunderland South

…and it holds it decisively – we’re looking at a majority of something like thirteen thousand for its candidate.

We can’t take only one seat as a bellwether on the accuracy of the exit poll – but Sunderland South does seem a good indicator of sentiment in the north east. This is a very limited sign, but to the extent it spells good news for any party, it’s good for Labour.


10.37pm – Peter Kellner on the exit poll

Speaking to Dimbleby, Peter Kellner of YouGov (who gave Labour a four-seat plurality) gives four interpretations of the exit poll.

  1. The exit poll is right and all the other polls are wrong.
  2. The other polls are right and the exit poll is wrong.
  3. There’s been a seismic shift in the last day. (He discounts this.)
  4. The Tories have done better than predicted, but not by as much as the exit poll says.

I keep saying this because there’s little else to say, but we just have to wait and see.


 

10.30pm – Sunderland result in ten minutes?

Tellers in Sunderland, traditionally first to declare, hope to have a result in ten minutes. This is a seat Labour should hold – if they don’t, or if it’s uncomfortably close, a bad night is ahead.


10.23pm – Harriet Harman is scrambling

The exit poll, she says, shows the Lib-Con majority unworkable. It doesn’t – the fact is, if this poll is correct, Cameron is the clear winner electorally. Our only hope is that it’s not.


 

10.18pm – Paddy Ashdown: ‘I’ll eat my hat’ if the BBC exit poll is right

One can only hope Ashdown goes hungry – it’s a comforting thought that the BBC may have got it wrong. I don’t see how they can be right despite a consensus among all polling companies – but they might be, in which case statisticians will face a long hard, look at themselves they did when John Major won. We simply don’t know at this point. Sit tight, everyone.


10.10pm – Michael Gove says the exit poll shows the Tories will ‘increase their majority’.

He means their plurality, of course.


 

10.08pm – What’s up with that exit poll?

So… how do we process that exit poll?

My first instinct is that if eleven different polling companies with different methods were all equally way out – something is very, very wrong. That might be the case… or the BBC’s forecast might be wrong.

I don’t think we’ll know till we’ve had a certain number of results.


 

10pm – Exit poll: Tories 316, Labour 239

Well here’s a turnout: the BBC’s exit poll predicts a staggeringly larger Tory lead than anyone else has. On these figures, Cameron will walk back into government.

Fuck.


 

9.50pm – Five minutes till the BBC exit poll?

The BBC’s election coverage – Dimbleby’s last stand! – begins in five minutes. I’m expecting we’ll have an exit poll fairly quickly, which will be the last point at which expectations could be upturned – except by actual results.

As it stands, all eleven major pollsters show either an explicit Labour-Tory tie or a one or two point difference:

BNG: Tie
TNS: One point Tory lead
Opinium: One point Tory lead
ICM: One point Labour lead
Panelbase:
Two point Labour lead
YouGov:
Tie
Survation:
Tie
ComRes:
One point Tory lead
Ashcroft:
Tie
Ipsos MORI:
One point Tory lead
Populus: 
Tie

We’re looking at a convergence of many different polling methods around a tie – if an exit poll shows something else, I’d be inclined to question it, but we’ll have to see.


 

9.40pm – Which seats will be a challenge for the SNP?

A friend tells me Kirkcaldy, Gordon Brown’s old seat, will be a key battleground in Scotland – one wonders (hopes) they’ll manage to unseat Scotland’s one Tory, at the least. (Further insight into this year’s regional conflicts from YouGov’s Anthony Wells is here.)

I’d love to say I want to see the SNP take all Scotland because they deserve to – but the truth is that I’m neurotic. If they end up with fifty seats out of the fifty-nine I’ll deal with it; if they win fifty-eight, hair will be pulled out.


 

9.33pm – It’s not overtly political, but…

…since Channel 4 are advertising it, I’m excited for George Miller’s new Mad Max film.


 

9.26pm – Television is giving me royal baby jokes.

The biggest and worst joke is naming a royal Charlotte (Elizabeth) Diana. It’s one thing being named after a divorce; it’s another being named after a constitutional scandal.


9.21pm – Channel’s 4 ‘alternative’ coverage…

It’s all a bit – ahem – laboured, isn’t it?

Sit tight – we’ll switch over to the BBC at ten when the exit poll arrives.


 

9.15pm – What are each party’s goals tonight?

We come down to it then – realistically, in light of what predictions and projections we’ve already seen, what is each party’s best hope in this vote?

Labour is the insurgent party, poised to overtake on the inside. Neither its leaders nor the Tories seem capable of winning outright, but Labour’s odds of assembling a majority with other parties are preferable – how their desire to keep the SNP at arm’s length survives that need, we’ll have to see. The party’s best hope is to inch a precious few more seats than the Tories win, lending them public legitimacy; short of being locked out of power, being the smaller English party and dependent on the SNP is their worst case scenario.

Cameron’s Conservatives have a tough ride ahead. The PM is said to have owned up privately to being unconvinced he can win – the likelihood is that to stay in power, he’ll either need another pact with endangered Lib Dems or find himself daring Labour and the Scots to vote down a minority Queen’s Speech. That’ll be a question of who blinks first, and not one I see him being keen to ask.

The Lib Dem campaign has focused on damage reduction. For Clegg and co, the good news is a seemingly quite healthy vote in Lib Dem/Tory marginals – if he can maintain half his current seats, not least his own, the annihilation pundits predicted won’t come to be, and like Ed Miliband some weeks ago, his tribe will benefit from exceeding expectations. Another coalition looks unlikely based on the maths, but Lib Dem votes might help either Cameron or Miliband (who might prefer them to SNP ones).

The SNP has little to worry about electorally. North of the border, its landslide is all but guaranteed – the question is whether Sturgeon’s party win all Scotland’s seats or just most of them. Their challenge lies instead in parliament – whatever the result, a game of chicken with Labour is probable, in which each party will dare the other to put the Tories in power and alienate supporters. From a left point of view, one can only hope things don’t escalate too much – for if either party should win that game, progressive politics will lose.

Ukip want a good handful of MPs, five or six, say, from their main target seats. The whole situation’s unreadable, largely because their success in elections is so new – we don’t really have any idea what normal behaviour looks like with Ukip’s vote. That being said, I don’t think they’ll do as well as is hoped and feared: the variables are so many, the Ashcroft polls so consistent, that I’d be surprised if Farage’s lot managed more than three seats.

The Greens, meanwhile, would do well to finish with two seats – and it’s entirely possible (though not what I’d bet) that Caroline Lucas will lose hers. Sadly, the Green Party has zero nous for strategy, substituting Lucas for a far less effective leader and spreading out resource it should concentrate.

Plaid Cymru is now a party people outside Wales know about. They’re probably happy enough with that.


 

9.10pm – Jeremy Paxman thinks I’m a moron…

…because I didn’t vote this year. (Or rather, his joke writers do.)

If you’re wondering why – and why I don’t think I’m a moron – you can find my post all about it here.


 

9.08pm – Is this the Isner/Mahut of UK elections?

I was 18 at the last election in 2010 – that night’s worth of kebabs and Coke and still feels fresh. Comparisons between that election and this have been made already and will go on; I want to make one a different kind.

I’m not much of a sports fan, but can enjoy Wimbledon. Five years ago, only weeks after Clegg and Cameron entered Downing Street, John Isner and Nicolas Manut clashed at Wimbledon – a match whose eleven hour duration remains an unbroken record. Neither, at least as far as I’m aware, is a legendary champion like Federer or Nadal, but over those two days (on the second of which I turned nineteen), each played so tightly neither could achieve an advantage. In the end Isner won, but by that point it wasn’t about that – the players hugged because they knew the match would be remembered.

Cameron and Miliband, if anything’s certain, won’t hug, but this election looks set to be the political version of that match. Over a gruelling seven week campaign, neither side made any progress at all – whyever, whatever the plan, the polls remained an almost exact tie.

Over the coming night, perhaps in the week and certainly this month, one leader or the other – neither likely to be mythologised – must outperform their opponent somehow. How that’ll we, we’ve yet to see, and a latent terror in me still whispers Cameron’s name. Whatever happens though, this election will be in school textbooks, and I’m glad to be living through it.


9pm – Let’s get ready to mumble

Hello and welcome, those who are reading. Last night I announced I’d live-blog the UK election, so for the next eight hours, I’m all yours. Buckle up, buckle in and calm your nerves; smoke your cigars. Open your night’s of jelly babies. Now let’s get ready to mumble.

I’ll be watching and reacting to TV coverage all night, starting with Channel 4’s for the coming half hour and sticking, most likely, with the BBC’s from ten. Posts here will include breaking news, commentary and stray thoughts on politics in the slow bits – if there are any.

Gitsupportthisblog

GiTwhyinowhaveadonatebutton

GiTfollowthisblogonfacebook

 

Oxford student Ed Miliband wore compulsory Oxford exam dress while at Oxford

I never went in for the arcane bollocks at Oxford. On three occasions in my four years there – matriculation, prelims and finals – I wore a gown; my college had a canteen rather than Latin-prayer meals, and I had my degree sent in the post rather than formally conferred. The rituals struck me as tiresome, a waste of time and thought, and the Daily Mail seems to agree – the one thing it dislikes more than Oxford’s strange quirks, in fact, is any will to reform them.

In my third year, when exam dress was made gender-nonspecific, the Mail told its readers wistfully:

For centuries, the sight of Oxford students in their distinctive academic gowns has been as familiar  in the city as its dreaming spires. But the ancient university has been forced to rewrite its traditional dress code – to avoid upsetting transgender students. From next month, men will be allowed to wear skirts or stockings to exams while women can choose suits or white bow ties.

Under the old regulations, male students were required to wear a dark suit with dark socks, black shoes, a white bow tie, and a plain white shirt and collar beneath their black gowns when attending formal occasions such as examinations. Female students have to wear a dark skirt or trousers, a white blouse, a black ribbon tied in a bow at the neck, black stockings and shoes.

The dress code is strictly enforced by the university’s authorities, which have the power to punish students deemed in breach of the rules. Punishments range from fines to rustication – the suspension of a student for a period of time – or expulsion, known as ‘sending down’. However, the university’s council, headed by Vice-Chancellor Andrew Hamilton, has dropped any distinction between the sexes by deleting all references to men and women.

For my finals, which followed soon after, I was one of the first to wear an ordinary necktie instead of the white bow – an adjustment that made the whole silly ensemble conventional if not quite normal. (Knowing that were men to wear skirts, Oxford’s very pillars would turn to salt, I stuck to slacks.)

In two weeks’ time students will vote on whether to ditch subfusc outright. Should they scrap it, as I’d have liked, the Mail will no doubt moan cultural Marxist youths have ruined one more tradition they ought to respect, but today’s polling day, and so for now it thinks Oxford students who follow the exam dress code are lackeys of the bourgeoisie – not least Ed Miliband, confusingly the son of a real Marxist. [Read more…]