(Or: For Solidarity’s sake, comrade, don’t mention Kronstadt)

On a day where the Prime Minister appointed by his party declared himself against a return to the 1970s, a time which the far-left (and perhaps only the far-left) consider with some nostalgia, at least in contrast to the decade which followed who better to see first thing than Tony Benn?

Watching him at Marxism 2008 had a particular joy; in that it was one of the immensely rare occasions during which his audience would leave him substantially to the right. If, even after all these years of attendence, this left him unsettled it did not show an inch. I showed up very mildly late and he was in full swing; clearly in his element while speaker. His speech roamed over a broad number of points and annecdotes, distinctively Bennite in nature, covering everything from his rather surprising advocacy of rationing (the average height of the working class man rose by two inches due to it) to his ethical vegetarianism (his forward-thinking son Hillary told him fifteen years ago that if all the grain fed to animals was fed to people this would end famine).

It was obvious that the SWP presence (heavy) was left bristling by his outright suggestions that Labour was worth struggling to save and although his suggestion that Labour would swing left after a heavy loss to Cameron (something which would effectively require New Labour to end) he did acknowledge that Labour was not socialist but had socialists in it “Just as the Church has Christians in it”.

Speaking of which, he did not adopt an anti-religious tone but was opposed to religious authority. It occured to me later on (as well as the day before, when I was talking about the importance of imams concerning Respect) that Marxism falters when it comes to understanding the power of religious leaders. Its understanding being limited to wealth results in the power of a poor man standing on an upturned box and raving about a being that loves as it condemns being somewhat alien to them. Preachers often lack fortunes but are able to marshall people through belief in matters beyond the material. Although I would challenge the genuine existence of such forces as firmly as would Marxists I fear that their focus upon the tangible leads them to underestimate the might of that which is elsewhere. Even if it is merely steroid-fed speculation it gives copious power to the undeserving.

Regardless, Benn stated that his internet research had led him to the conclusion that all religions taught much the same message; which was that you should treat others as you would expect to be treated. Perhaps a rather simpler formation than the Universal Ethic tirelessly sought by renegade Catholic Hans Kung but the method of his learning struck me as interesting. When he was taken up on this point by an American concerned about the media (worse in his own country than here, he said, but perhaps America is simply more right wing I would suggest) who stated that the internet was inherently “structured” to favour the bourgeois Benn stayed firm, stating that he was sometimes uncertain why he still watched television as he got all the news he wanted from the websites he followed. A man after my own heart, clearly.

(more…)

(Or: SES at Marxism 2008, part 2)

This time around I managed to gather myself from slumbers early enough to show up in time for considerably more sessions than the day before, albeit not nearly as early as the brisk 10.00 start that the meetings began with. I actually underestimated my lateness and ended up ploughing into what I thought was Labour and Alienation soon after starting but which was in fact Historical Materialism about to finish. Consequentially entry was a matter of ease; although in hindsight I probably left a SWP doorperson or two baffled.

I honestly can’t remember a lot about historical materialism, but as far as I can tell there was somehow a conversation about ethics going on, which was topically innappropriate but entertaining all the same, if only for a chap with shoulder-length dirty blonde hair who took to the floor and began talking about Kronsdat.

Now if I was looking for a sharp start to my day here it was: once this world was uttered things seemed to ripple and the effect was as delightful as I had imagined ennounciating such syllables in a room full of Trotskyites would be. Indeed, I merely deemed it a pity that I hadn’t beaten the chap to the bunch.

He was immediately followed by a bleached-blond lass who would later turn out to be somehow important who gave it some typical blather. Safeguarding the Revolution and so on, you know the drill. Never mind that their hero had overseen and executed the crushing of the epitome of the revolution, had to be done to protect a structure that they didn’t even agree with, see? The alternative being a far more popular brand of socialism than the Bolsheviks seeing control of the country and that…Uhm…Anyway…

The room was still left unsettled. The topic moved on and it was about some other stuff, with my recollection failing me over the materialism stuff. What was interesting was that as he was headed out of the room the chap who had asked was verbally hailed by a pair of Marxism “Staff” t-shirt wearers from behind a table, who wanted to give him the Kronsdtat Chat. I stuck around to hear this and the first man was firm and pulled away quickly by duties while the second was softer but spoke to us for longer, accompanying us to the lift and staying with us for a while.

Their arguments seemed to consist of a mixture of emphasising the importance of crushing the Kronsdtat threat, claiming that there were none of the original Kronsdtat sailors left owing to attrition from the revolution(s) against the Csar and the heavy losses of the Civil War (concerning this, as with all other matters of detail, you must consult Douglas or some other historian who is of this field rather than early Medieval as I am) , launching ad hominems (those that bring this up are bourgeois or anarchists aiming to discredit Trotsky rather than achieve anything productive) and talking about how the Bolsheviks agonised over the decision.

They also stated that the Kronsdtat make up was Socialist Revolutionary rather than Bolshevik, and this irked me: even I am aware that when Lenin briefly allowed an experiment in democracy the very reason he rejected the outcome was that the SRs won in a landslide, crushing the Bolsheviks electorally and demonstrating a level of support for the militants of an immensely smaller scale than they liked to presume. This considered, that there were plenty of Kronsdtat sailors Social Revolutionaries is hardly surprising at all.

Unfortunately all Bolshevik apologists dislike you bringing up their almost total absence of mandate about as much as Trots do his authoritarian atrocities. So we didn’t get far but the people we spoke to were perfectly friendly and their response seemed more an earnest attempt to explain their position rather than intimidation or anything of the sort. As ever the SWP seemed like a misguided but ultimately lovely bunch.

As we headed outside I encountered a large number of groups that thought otherwise. This was a set of people who’d cleared off before I arrived yesterday and were in some ways who I was there for. The SWP I’d already heard plenty from and now it was time for The Rest of The Left.

(more…)

Due to failure on the part of Douglas to show up (he was collaborating with the bourgeois in the most foul fashion possible by seeking a job) I didn’t bother to turn up for Friday’s sessions of Marxism until late in the day, instead opting to watch Alladin. Quite a good call, I thought.

The main event was based around a series of stalls, but sadly not as diverse a one as those I witnessed when I covered Love Music Hate Racism. No, this had SWP tents and Stop The War tents and Left List tent and a SWP table and…Well, basically all but three of the set-ups were SWP connected. The first seemed to be some climate change group which the SWP had possibly only let in due to being then impressed at the amount of protesters the Climate Camp and so on were able to mobilise. The other were selling subscriptions to an underground socialist video collection group named News Reel which I didn’t have any money to go along with. I told the man that my money was all going on groceries (the truth) and he told me he knew the feeling well.

The third group were the most interesting by far: Turkish socialists. These types are rather penned in on all sides; struggling alongside the moderate Islamists while repulsed by their neo-liberal policies and incapable of doing anything about the more conservative Islamist movement uprising, while having nothing but disdain for the secularist far-right nationalist movement which seems to have the backing of the anti-democratic Turk generals.

On top of this they suffer, as with almost everywhere, due to a fractured left. They, like the SWP, aspire towards a grouping similar to Die Linke in Germany, which has united the left successfully and enjoyed increasing electoral success. But it seems like they have a good deal of work ahead of them if they wish to manage that. Not, perhaps, as much as the British left…

Speaking of which I got to speak to more people from within Respect. This opportunity was presented to me when I stopped by at the Love Music Hate Racism tent and talked a bit about Bexley’s old school racist nationalism amongst other topics and it turned that (as Londoners) these SWPers were Respect activists. Interestingly one fellow (the second I’ve met who fulfills these credentials) actually was not a member of the SWP and never had been, due to filling the rather unpopular position (at Marxism, at least) of being a reformist socialist instead of a revolutionary. Apparently this is the source of constant arguments between him and his Socialist Worker friends, which I can well imagine but am glad has not prevented them getting along.

He still stated that Respect was now called Left List, but apparently the name “Left Alternative” is also being floated. I hope very strongly that this is not the one they run with as it is truly dire. If they haven’t gotten themselves into a position where they can call themselves “The Left Party” and be done with it then that should be their top priority. A party describing itself as the “Alternative” has never won anything.

In order to try and get my bearings of the place I headed to the entrance of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) where there was a large SWP tent. There I met a lovely middle aged woman who talked to me about the basic socialist stuff. She told me about the local level stuff the SWP get up to, I gave her a rough and weak outline of pragmatic socialism and she told me I should join. I find this an unnervingly frequent (not to mention predictable) occurrence with the SWP, but at least they make you feel wanted.

My response was perhaps not what she had anticipated: I told her that the now century old model of Democratic Centralism left me immensely wary, not only because organising a contemporary party along Leninist structures seemed to be more redolent of an exercise in historical recreationism rather than a serious political project; but also because I was less than keen on being bound in numerous ways by the majority will. She explained how as far as she could the democratic centralist structure was simply a means of getting things done but frankly I consider the continual failure of the SWP to achieve anything much is a testament to the ineffectualness of this argument. I didn’t tell her that, though.

On the upside: they did have free food. This was set up as a picnic in the green, where there was a concentrated crowd of Marxists sitting in circles and a pair of apparently illicit tents. Not a lot of it as I got there pretty late but enough to tide me over until I got home. My gratitude to the Bristol and Manchester SWP branches for the munchables. Much appreciated.

So I headed back through the area to pick up more perspectives. Another Socialist Worker seemed worth a chat so I asked him the time and then struck up conversation. As ever the gregariousness socialism demands of humanity was evident and regardless of their misdeeds as a body upon the left the SWP is characterised by a largely lovely membership. At least offline. This fellow was not from inside London but was the first from the SWP I found who admitted that there was opportunism “On both sides” concerning the Respect debacle. Indeed he went so far as to say that matters were far more complex than a “Left-Right split” and that trying to explain matters in such terms was far too simplistic.

It was now nearing 7 o’clock and I had a decision to make: Tariq Ali or Lenin. The latter was, of course, the blogger Richard Seymour, who was here under that name rather than his provocative nom de plume. The primary factor in my opting for the latter was my total lack of cash. No money to obtain tickets meant that opting for the room with spare seats was unquestionably preferable.

In the event Seymour’s room was pretty packed as well, but there was enough space for me not to be acting as a seat robber. I had a whole spiel planned involving mentioning that I was a victim of sub prime and still seeking employment in this crisis stricken economy (both true) but as it happens I turned up slightly late and the man on the door just waved me through.

Seymour was perhaps not how I’d imagined him but that was largely in the voice, which was a soft Irish one I probably should have anticipated more given he’s mentioned his origins on the blog. I was still expecting something a tad more harsh, firm, clipped and firebrand.

As for content, well it was concerning the pro-war left, who are his targets in “The Liberal Defence of Murder” (although interestingly three of his main subjects, Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and the especially despised Christopher Hitchens are all socialists or social democrats of some sort, although Hitchens seems to have shifted into not calling himself anything yet referencing Marx almost as much as before, if not more).

Both in person and in comments Lenin has described himself as “all over the place” structurally; but if this was truth instead of modesty it certainly didn’t show. There was clearly plenty he’d had planned but couldn’t get in, but this was seemingly because he’d done a vast amount of reading and research and it was to the degree that he couldn’t possibly cram it all in. He’d probably intended to say something about Yugoslavia, I suppose, but I never found that topic immensely interesting anyway so I’m rather glad he failed to. Likewise with Ol*ver K*mm.

As it was he managed to fill forty five minutes and then additional response time with a pleasingly fact dense speech that outlined the nature, power, motivations, methods and follies of the pro-war left. The talk traced how liberal interventionists of the contemporary era had directly borrowed from the colonial tradition (both of the far-right and of thinkers such as Mill and Tocqueville, not to mentioned the much-loathed Reformist Marxist Bernstein) and were now using rhetoric barely adapted from the times when you could get away with phrases such as “Adult race”.

Inbetween these two book-ends there was a discussion point where a surprisingly large number of audience members (including myself) were coaxed on stage to give views or ask questions. This felt pleasingly participative and it’s certainly a tradition I’m glad shows no signs of being abandoned.

Also in attendance was Naadir, former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and founder of Boris Watch, to which our own Gerry Fenby contributes. I had met him before at the Liberal Conspiracy “Summit” and he kindly bought me a pair of pints while we talked about everything ranging from historical materialism and its importance for Marxists to the Revolutionary Communist Party to Objectivism to the neo-liberal case for a global welfare state.

In all a very pleasing day and one I shall hopefully extend tomorrow by showing up before six o’clock. Given that I’m writing this at nearing half past twelve and haven’t had breakfast yet (let alone got dressed) I suppose that it will not be by all that much…

For those interested Marxism lasts until this Sunday and is held in a variety of venues close to the Goodge Street Nothern line Russell Square Piccadilly line stations. The official website is here.

Barely any coverage beyond the aforelinked on the Respect collapse. No word on the SWP website and only a brief mention for this major disaster on the Respect (SWP/Left List) website. That can be found here and I can’t help but find it more than a little folorn.

Respect/Left List supporters will continue to oppose New Labour and the other establishment parties.

They say, fully in the knowledge that such resistance will be futile.

We know that many in the working class movement look on the decline of the Labour government with mounting concern and desparately want a real left alternative.

They say, knowing that they are not it.

Respect may well be:

A party that struggles against war and the racism it breeds.

But given the ongoing (indeed, in Afghanistan escalating) war and the success of the BNP over the Labour Party in Henley and in the GLA elections earlier this year it looks like this is a struggle which they are increasingly failing.

Respect Renewal, meanwhile, took a chance to jab at the SWP/LL Respect, saying:

The defection of the three Left List councillors ought to sound the death knell of the Left List fiasco and finally lays to rest the lie that the split in Tower Hamlets Respect was between left and right.

Which was also the Left List Respect’s statement, except that they said that they were the ones on the left. Rather like the “No you’re the Neo-Nazi” exchange the BNP had going recently, only in reverse. It seems like either side is desperate to tar themselves as the extremists here.

RR also claim that one of the Respect (SWP, confused yet?) members joined the Tories, not something I have seen claimed anywhere else but certainly interesting and worthy of investigation.

As for Respect, Renewal says that:

They are determined to be more coherent and effective following what we are sure will be the last defection.

Also:

The split away from Respect by the SWP is now well and truly behind us. We look forward to playing our part in furthering the left as a whole, not simply our part of it.

So who knows, perhaps they might even be forced to try unity through sheer desperation? I wouldn’t count on it…

Both articles refer to the Labour Party as “New Labour” and neither seem to display much acceptance of culpability. Same old revolutionary politics, then.

Meanwhile, no word from Lenin’s Tomb. Presumably he’s still awaiting programming from Central Committee, or else they simply want this story buried. Democratic Centralism gets in the way of rapid reporting awfully…

Finally, if you want to see some socialists losing it completely then, as usual check out Socialist Unity, here and here. As ever, the deepest joys are to be found the murky depths of the site’s comment section. Consider this:

SWP members should now be asking themselves why after decades of political engagement, the party is still unable to build long-term and deep roots in communities that should be its natural constituencies.

I’m trying to create some witty addition to that, but “LOL, PWNED” is all that comes to mind, really.

That’s all from the far-left today. If you’re hoping for more I doubt you’ll be dissapointed but if you were under any delusions about them mattering even slightly then I would suggest now would be a good point to move on.

(Or: And lo, the imploded party did implode once more…)

As if the Left wasn’t having as disastrous enough a time as it was yesterday we heard that both the Left List and the Respect Coalition (or was that Respect Renewal? I don’t think anyone really knows any more) seem to have suffered such a substantial defection that the appear to have almost vanished from the political landscape. Worse still the traitors abandoned them not to form some third party {which would at least have been amusing} but instead went to Labour.

{Or “New Labour” as the hard-core socialists would put it. Not that they thought Old Labour was left enough either…}

That article fails to make it entirely clear but those Respect members were three parts Left List/SWP and one part George Galloway/Respect Renewal. This sort of a disaster could well be enough to finish both the Trotskyite party and assorted Galloway-tolerating leftist party and I imagine it may well. How exactly they feel about being deemed less desirable than the Labour Party has yet to be heard but some degree of humiliation is appropriate. Prepare yourselves, however, for some desperate, snarling spinning from the SWP’s Central Committee.

Their understanding of the split as a right-left schism with the SWP upon the left has, however, been thoroughly punctured. According to the SWP the Labour Party are crypto-rightist Neo-Conservatives interested in dismantling the welfare state via Neo-Liberalism who are entirely committed to neo-colonialism, yet all of their Left Listed councilors have opted to join it? Inexplicable.

There has been numerous references, hints, or allusions to a “Left Party” formed along the lines of the German party of the same name, which has enjoyed increasing success of late. The Campaign for a New Worker’s Party has, of course, always been keen on this idea but an increasing number of individuals have stated an inclination towards something fresh and left, including at least one union leader. This event will give such an suggestion momentum but it is also possible that both groups will continue to hobble onwards.

Hopefully, though, they will realise the futility of this pathetic spectacle and put an end to it. The scale of their failure considered what follows in the aftermath can scarcely be worse.

And about time to.

My own write-up of events is forthcoming although I might not get around to it seeing as I only showed up at about half twelve or so. Notably afterwards there was Buck Foris which led me to believe the Blonde Devil may well have lost the youth, so is most likely worth of an article or a half.

Their article is a fine one and was a front page article in the Times 2. Most pleasing, but a placing that has left many of the old school anonymous fearing that the next shall be flooded with “newfags” apparently convinced that protesting is sexy again. I wouldn’t worry.

Also note the article by Caitlan Moron. One of three in that edition. She started off as a singular tumour located in the Times 2 but her inexplicable popularity has led to her spreading through the newspaper like the cancer she truly is. It may be too late for chemotherapy and Murdoch doubtless considers this part of his lunge for Middle England and the logical next step (although unfortunately far from the conclusion) of his ongoing project to turn The Times into a more expensive Daily Mail so would never authorise it. Perhaps once he’s dead we can purge her, although to do so may require amputation of the T2 and extensive radiotherapy of the rest of our Paper of Record.

Regardless, her rise makes me thoroughly miserable. I do hope that it is followed by a particularly grisly downfall.

We’ve only been doing it for four months but it looks like finally the national press is becoming aware of the anti-Scientology raids, all thanks to the noble sacrifice of Epic Nose Guy. A bad day also, for the City Police who have their high-level corruption and connections of senior policemen with the Cult of Scientology exposed, once again.

I am informed that he has a free lawyer and that it is almost certain that the case will not even reach court, as the CPS are unlikely to act upon it. Even without the joy of seeing this case laughed out of a courtroom is snatched from us the footbulletery thus far has been simply superb: a few hundred anons turned up wanting to carry signs calling the Church of Scientology a cult and since they legally prevented that being permissible now six national newspapers {all save the Indie and Sun} have picked up on the matter and the word “Cult” and “Scientology” are flying around in the same sentence across the airwaves of Britain and beyond as the BBC cover this on the radio and television, not to mention internet.

The last time they got onto Radio 4 was when they attempted to sue WikiLeaks for distributing for free large chunks of confidential church material that the public was either never intended to see or would have to pay tens of thousands to get a look at. It seems like the Hubbard order of attacking and never defending has effectively led to an organisation engaged in the PR equivalent of severe self-harm.

This pleases me greatly and for once I’ll hold back a snide comment about how useless the print media seem for missing out on us for so long. To compensate I should probably say something insulting, slanderous, defamatory and offensives so here goes: It’s really not a religion, it’s a dangerous cult.

As you may have noticed my usual write-up of the now reliably monthly Anonymous protests of Scientology failed to materialise, this owing to a simply massive amount of work I’ve got to deal with. This, however, is beyond my ability to allow pass by.

I was there when the Anon who calls himself Epic Nose Guy but I preferred to refer to as BeakFag got summoned, as was a journalist from the Guardian. The Church of Scientology had, as it has done many times before, seemingly possessed an insidious influence over the police and thus they were taking the hard-line on us. No usage of the word “Cult” was allowed in any sign, but this proscription did not prevent us from yelling it at their UK cult headquarters constantly.

The underage ENG, however, refused to submit to this apparent splash of theocracy and the first I knew of this was when a sudden surge of motion occurred towards part of the balcony which most of the anons were to be found on. It was first assumed that the “Swastiget” planned by 711Chan was taking place, but thankfully we were spared such idiocy although it was widely assumed that the chap getting his details taken was an /i/nsurgent, for a time.

It quickly became apparent, however, that instead we had an innocent young anon being cornered. The entire process was watched over by a former Scientologist who I mentioned during my last write-up, in addition to the journalist who I mentioned above. Both of them seemed perfectly friendly and the bravery of the underage protester was considerable.

I found the conduct of the police highly disturbing at this stage of the protest. No insults were made towards any followers and the word “Cult” has been used by a judge in reference to the cult during his summary on a case concerning them. The free expression of the protesters was blatantly disregarded and it seems concerning that the police would be willing to act as the lackeys of the Co$ legal department. It was somehow made even worse by the total tolerance displayed by the Metropolitan Police during the second part of the protest at Tottenham Court Road. There they were friendly and charming as ever, not minding our cult signs a jot.

At Queen Victoria, meanwhile, the tone was serious and concerning. An attempt to lighten the mood was made by changing a massive sign draped over the ramparts from “SCIENTOLOGY = CULT” to “SCIENTOLOGY = BAD?” but really to me the affair was rendered slightly grim by the police faggotry. This was a disturbing breach of free expression and it heartens me to see that Liberty have involved themselves.

For those of you interesting in learning new memes this entire affair is what is known as a “Footbullet”. As in “Shot yourself in the foot”. The Church of Scientology seems to specialise in these and this is no exception. Their efforts to crush the truth and prevent criticisms being aired outside its doors resulted in a lengthy article {which may well be published in tomorrow’s print edition} being placed upon the website of a national newspaper’s website.

Furthermore I fully expect the case to be thrown out of the courts, giving us a perfect mandate to use the word at our discretion come the next protest. This, however, is less of a win as it might seen given that this was pretty much what we had prior to all of the oppressive nonsense kicked in…

Despite these conditions influencing it the day was one filled with joy and victory. The scientologists seemed more depressed than ever and Angry Woman was, once again, angry.

Although our numbers were roughly the same as in April’s reduced showing this was almost certainly due to exams the protesting was vigorous and half the street at TCR got blocked off again. On this occasion I was doing some duties beyond leafleteering, assisting in the purchase and distribution of “Delicious lollies” to the anons, which took a surprisingly short amount of time thanks to high demand. I gave out 60 but by the end of the day a total of 206 had been bought and given out, largely funded by a single veiled anon who also brought along hand-fans.

There was also, of course, a truly epic amount of cake and music and lulz. A high-point was delivering the call of “Anonymous, what is your profession?” from the top of an escalator and hear the standard reply from a horde ascending it behind and beneath me. I also could not fail to notice that while the Scientologists handed out under a dozen leaflets, most of which were immediately ripped up to delight the crowd of anons, my vast wad of warning pamphlets about the cult left my hand in about ten minutes or so.

(All pictures belong to a variety of Flickr accounts, all courtesy of Anonymous, none belonging to Mr. Fenby. Aim the OSA attack dogs elsewhere, kay? Thanks to Anonymous and Anonymous for the pics.)

It seems unlikely now that the prosecution will be dealt with before the next protest and at present it seems not to matter much. The Church of Scientology is bleeding member and money and seems increasingly more of a laughingstock than a threat. It remains a wealthy organisation {just consider its recent “Sponsorship” of YouTube, which must at least have cost it millions} and one that has a startling lack of ethical standards. But increasingly it is diminishing as a source of fear.

Given that it has been less than half a year since the declaration of hostilities began this seems like a sterling achievement, although there is much work still to be done. I would hope that a considerable part of this is those that matter asking exactly how a police force allowed itself to become quite so cuddly with a criminal organisation, and would urge them strongly to do so loudly.

Michelle Malkin is left bitter. LOL.

Now, prepare to be confused.

(more…)

From: Gerry Fenby
To: Ali Gledhill, Douglas Johnson, R.E Vamp
C.C: The London Electorate

Subject: The Consequences of a Boris Mayoralty

Gentlemen:

I found myself in an uncomfortable position today. Loitering at a bus stop*, I was ambushed by an enthusiastic, bouncing woman of indetirminate middle age, clad in a Back Boris shirt. Her mouth moved, but no sound came out.

I removed my ear-phones, grudgingly. Tories, especially happy Tories, don’t qualify as important enough to interrupt Portishead under normal circumstances.

However, she seemed insistent.

“What?”
The Boris-bot beams. She remained bizarrely cheerful throughout the episode, given how surly I was.
“Would you like to meet Boris Johnson?”
“Um…”

You appreciate the dilemmna facing me, I’m sure. I loathe Boris. I find his current vacuity worrying; the old politics it covers offensive; and his attempts at humour dully unfunny, reliant more on the reader’s (simple) mindset than his skill. Perhaps he is a charming and sensitive man in private - but his public persona could be charged for inciting me to violence against it.

On the other hand, I could hardly pass up a chance to heckle the Twa Tory - could I? Your blogger fell behind on those stakes a fortnight ago, when Douglas thrust a Green Party leaflet on a bewildered BoJo after a hustings. Another incident - this time, with the possibility of a watchful journalist catching it - would hardly go amiss.

So…

“Yes, why not?”

The woman beamed, again, sickeningly, before skittering off.  I followed - into a calvacade of idiocy.

The clown and jester epithets usually applied to Boris strike me as loosely accurate. It was hard to miss the merry circus, ambling its way down the high street. First came the mindless groupies: vacuous placard wavers screaming in adulation at the approach of their bumbling hero. They thrust leaflets, they wave banners, they cheer. One of them even had a song about stopping Ken, the lyrics of which weren’t worth remembering.

Then the real spectators: the press. Bustling along, walking backwards, cameras going over and over. I half expected one to fall over and damage themselves - which, cruel as it sounds, would have ruined the walkabout spectacularly.

Then came the ringmasters: slick, stressed-looking men in suits. They kept a discrete distance from the main attraction, trailing a few yards behind the shambling main attraction. I do wonder what purpose they actually served here. Walkabouts are one of the few places that managing BoJo must verge on impossible - as demonstrated by the ambush where Boris gave away the real cost of his plans for buses. He’s there to talk to people, and there’s virtually nothing they can do to stop that. Unless they control the crowd, of course…

Strangely, the only figure that actively detracts from the circus metaphor here is BoJo himself. Ambling along, slightly hunched, eyes hazy, arms out in front - he was doing his very best to appear serious. He shook peoples’ hands firmly, earnestly looked them in the eye, nodded his head very seriously. That he looked like a badly stuffed toy with difficulties comprehending the world only served to move him further from his previous, clown like image. A figure of fun, perhaps - but only because he looked so bloody ridiculuous.

My heckle didn’t go to plan. I let loose my first shout - an off-the-cuff jab about the cost of buses - entirely too early. It wasn’t in his face; it was through the back of a few. His minders, loosely grouped around him, performed their only overt role of the walkabout and steered him quietly away to a collection of screaming groupies elsewhere. He found himself assailed with handshakes, not heckles.

I, meanwhile, found myself attacked from all sides.

“You shouted at Boris?  How could you?”
“Look! A Commie!”
“How could you? He’s such a Legernd!”
“Boris!”
“He’s such a Legernd! How could you?”
“Boris!”
“What are you, the only Labour supporter in the borough?”
“BorisBorisBorisBorisBorisBorisBugh…”

Fool that I am, I decided on an argument. Rounding on one of my detractors; a young woman (depressingly) of about my own age in a Back Boris shirt.

“Yes, I heckled Boris. So?”
“He’s Boris, how could you…”
“Why shouldn’t I heckle him?”
“Because…”
“Why should I vote for Boris?”
“Because…”
“Because?”

An awkward, angry pause. I suspect most Boris Backers - especially in an area as upsettingly blue as this - aren’t used to being reminded their candidate has few policies worth speaking of. Forcing them to say:

“…because he’s not Ken!”
“So?”

This one genuinely puzzled her, I think. The frustration in her face morphed into a confused mix of bemusement, fear and loathing. Rather fun to watch…

“Because…because he’s Ken!  Hes a crook!  He’s corrupt!  He hates cars!  He…he…”
“Neither corruption nor theft have been proven. What he’s definitely been accused of - employing a small clique of ex-extremists he knew in his youth - is no different to Cameron’s front bench.”

Note that I didn’t deny Ken hates cars.  There’s certainly no proof to show he likes them - a sentiment I’m inclined to share, if I’m honest…

“He…oppresses poor Venezualans and does deals with dodgy dictators!”

And at that point, the Boris Backer lost the argument. Attacks on Ken and Chavez infuriate me; something I imagine my opponent realised fairly soon…

“Really?  I’m not sure who you’re talking about.”
Splutter.
“Chavez!”
“That’s a strange figure to pick as a dictator and oppressor of the poor. Very few dictators run in elections, or accept the results of referenda that don’t go their way - as he did. Very few prole-haters engage is heavy nationalisation and redistribution of wealth - as he has done. You moan about the cheap oil deal - if it’s so damaging, why is the quality of life in Venezuala for the average individual so much higher than it was before Chavez? Wealth and power have been transferred from a very small rich elite into the hands of the majority. All very funny for a dictator, I’d say…”
“But…”
“And now, contrasted with your dear Boris, who opposed the minimum wage…”

At this point, she gave up, outraged that anyone could think Boris was a bastard. It worries me slightly that she even tried…

What worries me most, though, was how well BoJo went down with the crowd. He simply wasn’t an impressive sight - and yet they loved him. Admittedly, they were a partially picked crowd from a very Tory borough…

But it raised the spectre of Boris winning nonetheless. He might just do it - even if the most recent polls predict otherwise. The possible consequences would, I fear, be disastrous:

1. Anarchy in City Hall: Boris may well be serially incompetent. He’s never run anything but the Spectator (”Actually I think you’ll find it was 50 people, 50, not 20…”) - and there’s no evidence to suggest he did that well. I refer you to Matthew Parris on BoJo’s tenure as editor:

I must challenge Ken Livingstone’s complaint that as former editor of a small right-wing magazine, the only administrative decision Mr Johnson ever took was choosing a restaurant for lunch.

This paints an exaggeratedly hands-on picture of the Boris management style. His secretary did that kind of thing. You were just lucky if Boris came to the lunch.

Given the sheer amount of work involved in being Mayor, I suggest Boris may cock up. Spectacularly. I further suggest this will not be good for London.

And it may well lead to our next, more frightening option:

2. Boris becomes a puppet for the Tories: Boris has allowed himself to be managed all campaign. Except on a few, notable occasions - the public disagreement with Cameron over immigration being the most prominent - he’s done everything his minders have said. Those stressed looking men in suits from CHQ have him on a leash, and they probably aren’t keen to let go - in case Possibility 1 occurs. The GLA becomes a front for national Tory policy, and the electorate gets an early taste of why it shouldn’t vote Cameron.

3. Boris is largely incompetent, but tries anyway - while trying to avoid management by central party: The most likely, I suspect. Boris is a bumbling fool - but that’s not stopped any of them in the past, has it? The likelihood is that he’ll try to implement his policies, come up against unexpected difficulties or opposition, and collapse - as he has done whenever he’s been seriously questioned in public. At the same time, Cameron and the Conservative Party will have realised this, and will be trying to manage Boris as best they can.

Boris, however, is said to resent this management - and claims he’ll stand up to Cameron. If this is the case, a running battle looks to ensue between Boris and his old chums from the Bullingdon. Which may prove something of a distraction…

4. Boris defies all expectations and is competent: By far the most worrying possibility is that Boris is competent, and will go on and implement policies in the vein of his past writings. For the uninitiated, these generally express hardline Thatcherite views wrapped up in bad jokes. The 80s would return, just in time for the Depression…

None of these prospects entice me particularly. As such, in the event of a Boris victory, I suggest international revolution - or at least, fleeing the capital for four years.

Yours in deepest disgust,

Fenby

*I should say waiting here. But, being male and under 20, I’m inherently suspicious and quasi-criminal in the eyes of the population - thus, loitering. Probably with intent.