Labour's London problem comes into focus

Ken Livingstone is presenting this year's mayoral contest as a dress rehearsal for the next general

Ken Livingstone had a piece in the Guardian yesterday stepping up hostilities in what is certain to be one of the most important domestic political events of 2012 - the London mayoral election.

The poll is of most immediate significance to citizens of the capital, since it is their mayor being chosen. But the battle, coming as it does mid-term for the coalition, is bound to become a proxy for the relative national electoral prospects of the main parties. Livingstone actively encourages that interpretation. He writes about his ambitions to run London as if he envisages heading a pioneer administration for the "new politics" that, he believes, will inevitably emerge from the combination of financial crisis and rising disaffection with the existing political establishment.

"Labour will make this election about a real alternative," the former mayor writes. It should be, in other words, a referendum on the coalition, David Cameron and the whole direction the country is taking. Livingstone is ramping up the national significance of the poll, which is a problem for Labour and Ed Miliband since hardly anyone thinks Boris Johnson, the Tory incumbent, will lose.

Opinion polls (albeit fairly unreliable at this stage since few voters have yet focused on the race) show a significant number of Labour voters preferring Johnson to Livingston. In fact, the decision by Livingstone to try to frame the contest as a kind of referendum on the general state of the economy reflects a realisation that a re-run of the personality-based prize fight of 2008 would almost certainly yield the same result. In a beauty contest (or rather a least-ugly contest) between the two quasi-celebrity candidates, Johnson would walk it.

As I wrote in the magazine last week, very senior Labour party figures are already talking privately as if Livingstone can't win. Miliband aides are rehearsing their defence, which is that the contest is indeed a peculiar celebrity face-off between two old rivals and not necessarily an accurate reflection of the national mood. Labour are confident that local elections and the vote for the London Assembly (one of the least noticed governing institutions in the country) will depict a healthy swing away from the Tories. London usually has a solid Labour vote - an island bastion of red in the south-eastern sea of blue.

But the reality is that failure to unseat Boris will be widely interpreted as a sign that the whole Miliband project is failing to gather momentum. A senior shadow cabinet member recently told me the boss's team is braced for a round of leadership speculation in the wake of Ken's defeat.

Ken might win, of course. Almost anything is possible. But it is hard to overstate how firm the consensus in Westminster is that Boris will prevail. One former member of the Livingstone team in London - and no fan of Johnson - confidently predicts his former boss will be "thrashed and humiliated". That would certainly not be a good outcome for Miliband. Downing Street is intensely focused on securing a Tory win in the capital precisely because of the effect it would have on perceptions of Labour electability. (Besides, if Johnson loses he'll be after a seat in parliament where he could cause no end of mischief for his old rivals Cameron and Osborne.)

MIliband didn't select Livingstone and the old veteran of London politics runs his own operation in the capital, so in theory the Labour leader could distance himself from a defeat. But that gets trickier if Ken's strategy is to advertise the whole thing as a dress rehearsal for the next general election, which his Guardian piece implies. Livingstone seems to think he can present himself as an outsider battling an elite establishment, bearing the flag for a different kind of politics. That is a pretty far-fetched campaign given that he has been around in London politics since the late 1960s and has already done the job of Mayor once before - not so much yesterday's man as the day before yesterday's man.

Miliband also wants to present himself as the outsider, "ripping up the rules", smashing the cosy consensus. That too is a bit far-fetched coming from someone who has never had a job - or, it would seem, much of a life - outside politics. But at least Miliband is young and unknown enough to carve out some new identity for himself. The last thing he needs is a well-known, battle-scarred veteran of old left politics road-testing his campaign lines and driving them into a ditch.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?