Can the Staggers return?

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I have had the strange experience of publishing an article in the New Statesman, once a familiar home. It's a reply to Conor Gearty's absurd attack on the Convention on Modern Liberty. Does the Statesman have a future? If the question continues to be asked for as long as it HAS been asked, since the 60s in fact, that gives it another 50 years. I've not met the new editor Jason Cowley. His magazine faces three problems: socialism, the Labour Party and the Guardian. Historically, ie before the 1960s, the NS appealed to a broad liberal as well as left readership as well as enlightened Conservatives. It did so because it was the thinking magazine that opposed colonialism. It thus engaged in a radical argument about the British state while remaining committed to high culture and way of life. When I bid for the editorship in 1986 my argument was that the issue of a democratic British state was the way to rebuild that alliance of readers. Neil Kinnock intervened to ensure that John Lloyd got the job. But this returned the magazine to the position of being a loyal (however critical) part of the Labour movement. Not good for readership. Meanwhile, the Guardian skillfully positioned itself across the territory that NS had occupied, as the UK's educated readership grew. This cast the NS into a more niche position. Then there is socialism which has become increasingly ideal for niches. Unlike capitalism and its showy culture of exhibitionism, socialism tends to be statist and this tends to stifle open debate and surprising changes of perspective, especially when associated either a) with the Labour Party or, b) against it and its never ending betrayals. This also is not good for readership. Now there is a brand new problem, if you will excuse the pun. 'New Labour'. Suzanne Moore's furious denunciation of a casual Alastair (thanks Iain) Campbell guest editoriship which filled the issues with pictures of himself and gave Tony Blair the platform to launch his 'Abrahamic' venture (which with the typical piety of a tart he declares will be open to people of all faiths and none) draws a line. Suzanne's point that it is intolerable to pretend that the Iraq war was 'yesterday' is spot on, deserved by Campbell and welcome to people like me. There needs to be a break from the Blair legacy and its collaboration with Bush both militarily and neoliberally if the magazine is to gain a readership that can enjoy the company of others. The sooner the better if it is to prepare its Labour readership for opposition and give liberals and intelligent Tories a reason to read it. Cleverness and its associated publicity is no substitute for enlightment.