The Ghost of Watt Tyler

Another Christmas

2009-02-06T11:11:00.002Z

I've enrolled on a creative writing course, here is my first effort.

Another Christmas

She clutched his arm as they picked their way up the steps to the house. Her hands were scrawny and ridged with tiny blue veins. But her grip was firm, her fingers digging into his flesh, as though she was hanging on a cliff or a window ledge. He half-guided and half-lifted her up each step, listening closely to the rise and fall of her chest. The air seemed to fall out of her like iron filings; heavy, clunking and painful. He smiled weakly trying to disguise his thoughts. It’s cold isn’t it? In between breaths, she mumbled back to him. Yes. I Just. Can’t seem. To get. Warm. Any more.

At the top, they paused, arm in arm, unsure what to do next. The bright, electric lights on the leafless tree ahead were swaying in the wind. There were figures in the windows of the house holding wine glasses. Slowly she released her hold on his arm and began to hobble down the path. He stood still and watched. You’ll catch you death out here? He didn’t respond and pulled his thick, wool coat around his body.

As she approached the door, she glanced over her shoulder. Come on love, they’ll wonder where we are? I’ll be in a minute; I need some fresh air. If you are sure, she said.

Turning he looked over the man-made landscape of the levels. The narrow waterways rippled like silver ribbons and the muddy green fields stretched off into the darkness. Would she, he wondered, see another Christmas?

Gaza

2009-01-30T13:03:00.002Z

Published in the Guardian last week....

One of the words that did not appear in Barack Obama's speech was "Gaza" (Words of wisdom, 21 January). As he spoke in front of the biggest crowd ever to have gathered to witness a political event, the battered, abused and forgotten masses of Gaza returned to their flattened homes to bury their dead in overflowing graveyards. If the hope and change promised by his presidency is to mean anything, he must tell America's belligerent watchdog in the Middle East, Israel, to "unclench its fist" and lift its barbaric blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Tom Wall
London

I wrote it after seeing photos of white phosphorus landing on a UN building in Gaza.

For more see this from Amnesty, which has investigated the claims.

Supermarkets

2008-11-25T13:45:00.005Z

This week a good friend - who sometimes lets his hatred of green toffs like Prince Charles get in the way of the truth - claimed supermarkets provide cheap food for the masses.

Sadly this is a myth peddled by - yes you guessed it - supermarkets.

In fact consumers pay three times: once in the shop, a second time in taxes through direct subsidies to farmers, and finally indirectly in taxes cleaning up the mess left by reckless industrial agriculture and subsidising the transport infrastructure supermarkets depend on.

It has, for example, cost the government over a billion pounds to install the equipment necessary to remove nitrates and pesticides from rivers and lakes.

The cost to human health is also considerable. Supermarkets like Asda and Tesco oppose the Food Standards Agency’s front of pack traffic light nutrition labels because they make most of the their money from processed food high in sugar fat and salt (there is, after all, only so much you can charge for an apple or a potato).

The myth of cheap food arises from the practice of selling some items like bread and milk below cost price. However it is often cheaper to buy other items from smaller local stores.

My local Turkish shop sells fruit and veg at lower prices than the nearby Morrisons.

Supermarkets exist to make a profit - not to help the masses. Only regulation can ensure consumers (and the environment and wider society) get a good deal.

Obama: false hope?

2008-06-06T11:44:00.003+01:00

They did publish this one.

Barack Obama and John McCain are not as different as Jonathan Freedland suggests (McCain's attack lines against Obama have already been written by Clinton, June 4). They would both be loyal servants of corporate America. The top five contributors to Obama's campaign are registered corporate lobbyists. His backers include Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. Obama claims Iran is a threat and so does McCain. Obama would attack Pakistan in pursuit of terrorists and McCain doesn't disagree. Obama has reserved the right to change his mind on withdrawal from Iraq and says he will listen to the advice of commanders on the ground. Obama has also voted to fund the Iraqi occupation and called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His campaign theme may be "change" but he represents more of the same.

(I should add that I would love to see an African American in the White House and the Republicans defeated because of what it would represent: a rejection of racism and war. But my point is that in reality the Obama would toe the corporate line like every other democratic president.)

Mugabe v US & UK

2008-06-04T10:43:00.004+01:00

This letter was sent to the Guardian yesterday but it was not published.

Robert Mugabe is clearly a despicable, undemocratic leader who will stop at nothing to ensure his odious regime remains in power (‘This is like inviting Pol Pot to a human rights conference’). But it’s hard to take the denouncements of the British and American governments seriously because they stay silent when their friends commit crimes. There will, for instance, be no criticism of Western allies like Egypt which has brutally suppressed food riots and demonstrations in recent months. Or the Israeli government’s blockade of the Gaza Strip which has brought water and sewage systems close to collapse. But then the UK and US are in no position to judge other countries as the Iraq war has killed an estimated 600,000 civilians according to the Lancet.

The last days of summer

2007-09-12T13:37:00.001+01:00

I went swimming in one of Hampstead Heath’s three ponds yesterday after a long day in a stuffy office. The sun was sinking below the trees and the air was still. It was a truly tranquil scene, a world away from the belching traffic and bad tempers on show in central London.

The water quality is pretty good (it regularly exceeds minimum EU bathing water quality standards) although the swimming guard said there were rats in the area. This may mean a small risk of Weil's disease. As the guard said it probably best not to swallow lots of water.

I didn't see any rodents. They must have all on their way to the Tory party conference or working late in the city.

The Climate Camp

2007-09-10T16:12:00.000+01:00

An article I wrote for my mag after a visit to the climate camp outside Heathrow.

Penny Eastwood shares a joke with a police patrol as she walks around the climate camp she helped set up outside Heathrow Airport. The officers laugh but it was all very different yesterday.

Penny, a co-ordinator at a tree planting project in West Yorkshire, was arrested after she glued her hand to a metal gate on the edge of the camp in protest at ‘heavy-handed’ police tactics.

‘They wandered around the site taking photos of people and made campers walk half a mile down a road with their belongings. At suppertime they came on the camp in large numbers but people escorted them off. The press were off site and they were trying to provoke a ruck,’ she says.

The police insist the operation was necessary to ensure the safety of officers on the site.

However, the protestor’s relationship with the police is ultimately only a sideshow. The real issue is climate change and the expansion of Heathrow. This is why hundreds of people from all over the country – including a large contingent form the local community – have descended on a muddy field in west London close to the perimeters of the airport.

‘We chose Heathrow because building another runway is environmental lunacy,’ she explains as planes roar overhead. ‘The aviation industry likes to claim it is only 3 per cent of UK emissions and 6 per cent globally. But if you unpack the claim a very different picture emerges.’

The figures dates from 1992, she says, and doesn’t take account of the impact of releasing greenhouse gasses high in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates the impact may 2.7 times greater
but other studies indicate it could be up to four times greater.

‘Also, the government measures outward flights and not return flights originating from this country. So if you take into account uplift and return flights it’s actually more like 20 per cent of UK emissions,’ she says.

But industry and people's homes are still responsible for far more emissions, so why pick on the aviation industry?

‘Because it is the fastest-growing source of carbon emissions in the UK and it’s set to grow three fold,’ Penny says. ‘It is absolutely impossible to accommodate that level of emissions at a sustainable level.’

This charge is backed by the Tyndall Centre, the UK's best-known climate think tank, which claims there is no chance of tackling climate change without cutting aviation emissions. It recently calculated that if nothing changed, all other carbon-emitting sectors of the economy would have to stop emitting any carbon by 2050, just to allow for the growth in air travel.

Yet the government seems intent on building a third runway anyway. A recent progress report on the 2003 air transport white paper estimated a third runway is worth £5bn to the UK economy. But Penny claims the cost to the economy of not tacking climate change will be greater than any short-term benefits from increased air travel. The recent floods, she says, have shut countless businesses around the country and are just a taste of things to come.

Another criticism levelled at the camp is that their actions may disrupt ordinary people going on their holidays. Penny stresses their enemies are the air travel industry not passengers. ‘The whole idea is not to attack people because we need to get people on our side,’ she says.

This is reflected in the targets chosen by protestors: private business flights at Biggin Hill and Farnborough, the Department for Transport, BAA offices and an international freight depot.

The camp itself is a model of sustainability. Most of the site's power needs – including a cinema – are met with a combination of wind turbines and solar panels. The camp also provides compost toilets, a grey water system for filtering wastewater and running water.

But will the camp make any difference? Penny draws a parallel with the abolition of the slave trade: ‘Slavery was once legal and profitable. The slave trade was a bit like the oil addiction of our time. The whole economy rested on the slave trade just as now the whole economy rests on oil.’

More reasons not to support England

2006-06-21T14:59:00.000+01:00

Rumour has it that the editor of Prospect, David Goodhart, invited vile New Labour hack John Lloyd and the architect of academy schools Lord Adonis around his Islington pad to watch the first England game. For those who are interested Goodhart has written extensively about the threat posed to western welfare systems by mass immigration and reclaiming the England flag. Anyway apparently the aforementioned ‘progressive’ nationalists (sound’s sinister doesn’t it?) watched En-ger-land beat Paraguay with their shirts tucked into their casual shorts. The Hitler Youth meets Alan Partridge anyone?

Toryograph

2006-05-31T12:39:00.000+01:00

Continuing the health and safety theme. This week the Daily Telegraph reported that a cardboard packaging firm called Clingfoil has been prosecuted for no good reason. Apparently the owners feel a touch put upon because the HSE has for once managed to enforce safety standards rather than doll out advice. Poor little mites.

Tomorrow a firm employing 19 staff that has never had an accident at its workplace and whose bosses held up their hands when one of their staff was spotted doing something stupid will appear in Macclesfield magistrates court, accused by the Health & Safety Executive of breaking the Work at Height regulations.

And what is all this fuss about? Well a HSE inspector spotted an employee balancing on the forks of a forklift truck. The brothers who own Clingfoil admit it was dangerous but claim the action is unnecessary because they have introduced a new training regime and brought new equipment since the incident.

The Telegraph implies that falls from height are trifling little issues but prints the following statistic.

Last year 53 people died from falls and nearly 3,800 people suffered major injury such as broken bones or fractured skulls.

To return to the police analogy in the last post. Imagine if the Telegraph ran stories about the difficulties muggers and murders face from meddling police officers…..

HSE: corporate lapdog?

2006-05-26T13:37:00.000+01:00

On wednesday I sat through a select committee evidence session on the work of the Health and Safety Executive. No I’m not a sadomasochist. And actually it was quite interesting.

In attendance was the mandarin’s mandarin, Geoffrey Podger, the chief executive of the HSE (formerly of the Food Standards Agency). Also in attendance was the head of the Health and Safety Commission (which oversees the work of the HSE) Bill Callaghan.

One particular line of questioning stood out. MPs asked the pair about the falling rate of safety inspections, prosecutions and prohibition notices. Since 2002/03 inspections have fallen by a quarter. Prosecutions have fallen from 960 in 2003/04 to 712 in 2004/05. Convictions from 887 to 673 and prohibition notices from 11,295 to 8,445 in the same period.

Some say this is all part of the HSE turning into a corporate lapdog. The editor of the excellent Hazard’s magazine, Rory O’Neill, has believes it is well on its way. He wrote recently that the HSE is:

The dramatic fall in official safety inspections is the latest piece of evidence revealing how far HSE has moved from its role as the UK’s official health and safety enforcer. Firms are now less likely to be inspected, less likely to be prosecuted, less likely to be convicted and less likely to receive an HSE notice requiring safety improvements.

Anyway Podger and Callaghan didn’t challenge the figures but claimed they didn’t grasp all the other things the HSE does like offering informal advice to employers and securing minor safety improvement. Podger said:

It isn’t the purpose of HSE to create a legal bureaucracy. It’s actually the purpose of the HSE to get improvements done which will benefit workers safety. Our object in life is not to have more recourse to the law than we need.

Underpinning his answer is an assumption that companies need persuasion and advice rather than enforcement action. He thinks that gentle words go further than the threat of prosecution.

Imagine if the poor old Home Office adopted this approach… cut police numbers, reduce patrols and prosecutions. And instead offer advice to career criminals about the folly of their ways.

Part 2 - What does Marx say about morality?

2005-07-22T13:31:00.000+01:00

So, does Marx, as far as we can ascertain from a textual analysis, condemn capitalism and advocate communism on ethical grounds? It would seem, at first glance, that he rejects ethics without reservation. He argues, in various texts, that morality is little more than a bourgeois prejudice; a form of ideology that is social in origin, illusory in content, and serving class interests. In the Communist Manifesto he remarks,

‘Law, morality, religion are… [to the working class - TW] so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests’ (Marx 1991 p44).

The implication is clear enough: morality is neither objective nor universal, it is a product of the particular epoch – capitalism - and particular class –the bourgeois - and therefore it should neither be trusted nor obeyed. He goes on to add, in the same text, that communists do not seek to realise any ideals or principles, but simply express the proletariat struggle for political power (Marx 1991 p46). In the German Ideology he argues that morality is a historically contingent ideology,

‘Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence’ (Marx 1996 p47).

In Capital he compares Proudhon’s appeal to an ideal of justice with a chemist who claims that eternal ideals hold to key to unlocking the secrets of nature, rather than empirical research (Lukes 1985 p7).

The only time he presents the principles of justice, liberty and equality in a favourable light is in the General Rules of the International Working Men’s Association. However, as he later explained in a letter to Engels, he was forced to include these unfortunate phrases, but added they, ‘… are placed in such a way that they can do no harm’ (Marx quoted in Lukes 1985 p7)

Lastly, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx answers the imaginary reproach of the bourgeois critic that communists intend to abolish the law, morality and religion,

‘The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas’ (Marx 1991 p51)

It would seem that morality is a bourgeois ideology destined for the dustbin of history. However, as so often is the case, things are not quite what they appear. Marx’s thought simmers with moral indignation and outrage. From his earliest philosophical scribblings to his mature analysis of capitalism, he rails against the degradation and debasement of humankind and longs for a world fit for human beings. In 1843 he wrote,

‘The criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that for man the supreme being is man, and thus categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, forsaken and despicable being – conditions that are best described in the exclamation of a Frenchman on the occasion of a proposed tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you like human beings!’ (Marx p251 1984).

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 he protests against the human cost of capitalist production,

‘It is true that labour produces wonderful things for the rich – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty - but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labour by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back to a barbarous type of labour, and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism’ (Marx 1981 p65).

It’s only if we recognise this moral concern with the material and spiritual condition of humankind that his later judgements, evaluations and appraisals make any sense. Although Marx doesn’t admit it, he is addressing an ancient ethical question: what constitutes the good life? How should humans live? What conditions are most conducive to human well-being? And, like Aristotle before him, Marx derives his conception of the good life from an analysis of human nature. But whereas Aristotle thought the good life consisted in theoria, the contemplation of eternal truths by the enlightened few, Marx thought the good life consisted in universal self-actualisation, in all round development. I will leave aside questions of the plausibility and validity of such claims until later, my point is simply that Marx consistently condemns capitalism on ethical grounds.

In Capital he again bitterly condemns the capitalism for its debasement of the working class,

‘Accumulation of wealth at one pole is… at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole…’ (Marx 1992 p299).

This is by no means an isolated incursion into moral territory. Stephen Lukes, in Marxism and Morality, assembles a great deal of textual evidence to demonstrate that Marx consistently reproaches the capitalist system for the terrible human toll it exacts. He argues Marx judgements only make sense against his ideal of the good life,

…‘Hence all the passages in Capital about ‘naked self-interest and callous cash payment’, ‘oppression’, ‘degradation of personal dignity’, ‘accumulation of misery’, ‘physical and mental degradation’, ‘shameless, direct and brutal exploitation’, the ‘modern slavery of capital’, ‘subjugation’, the ‘horrors’… and ‘torture’ and ‘brutality’ of overwork, the ‘murderous’ search for economy in the production process, capital ‘laying waste and squandering’ of labour power and ‘altogether too prodigal with its human material’ and exacting ‘ceaseless human sacrifices.’ (Lukes 1985 p11).

Furthermore Marx’s vision of communism is deeply imbued with his idea of the good life.

‘…in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic’ (Marx 1996 p54).

It may be objected that this is a Utopian vision of pre-industrial pastoral life, not a plausible alternative to capitalism. However Marx shouldn’t be taken so literally. It is more of an allegory than a serious description of how people might live in a communist society. Marx’s point is very simple: human beings should be free to develop all their manifold powers. Hence the varied life activities of this imaginary human. Marx condemned capitalism precisely because it denies workers the resources – the autonomy, community, time and material security - to live such diverse, fulfilling lives

Marx & Morality - my BA dissertation in bite sized chunks (part one)

2005-07-17T12:44:00.000+01:00

Karl Marx’s contempt for all things moral is legendary. It is rumoured that he collapsed in laughter at the mere mention of the word. He heaped abuse on those revolutionists who appealed to ethical ideals like justice, equality and liberty. He dismissed moral discourse as ‘ideological rubbish’ and insisted that communists ‘do not preach morality at all.’ However it is a legend that does a great disservice to Marx. His work is more than just a description of the capitalist mode of production, it is a protest against a barbarous and cruel system, it is a desperate cry for a more humane and just world. Consequently I will argue that despite Marx’s public hostility to morality, he implicitly appealed to moral concepts and categories in the course of his argument. Moreover I will show that the case for international proletarian revolution is stronger, more compelling, and more coherent with an explicitly normative dimension than without. In short Marx condemned capitalism and advocated communism on ethical grounds, and he was right to do so.

I intend to argue, first of all, that this controversy cannot be resolved scholastically. That is to say that we cannot, and should not, determine the answer to this question by simply examining what Marx wrote because he contradicts himself and it is contrary to the spirit of Marxism. We should, therefore, seek the most compelling interpretation. There are two main interpretations: Marx condemned capitalism because it frustrates human self-actualisation and advocated communism because it would allow us to realise all our manifold powers, secondly Marx condemned capitalism and advocated communism according to some standard of justice. I will show that only a synthesis of the two interpretations can provide us with a satisfactory answer. Marx condemns capitalism because it distributes – a question of justice - the resources necessary for human self-actualisation – a question of human nature - in a grossly unequal way, and advocates communism because it aspires to distribute the resources necessary for self-actualisation in an equal way. Marx wants everybody to have an equal chance to realise his/her potential, to live equally worthwhile and meaningful lives. This is the most compelling interpretation because it makes Marx’s critique coherent, strengthens the general Marxist case for socialist revolution, convinces on its own merits, and lastly the textual evidence supporting it is no better or worse than alternative interpretations.

Marx, Bragg and Morality

2005-07-14T10:17:00.000+01:00

Karl Marx has been voted the greatest philosopher of all time by listeners to Radio 4’s “In Our Time” much to the consternation of the presenter Melvyn Bragg (Labour life peer and chum of Tony Blair).

In Our Time Greatest Philosopher Vote, chosen from 20 philosophers
nominated by listeners and carried through on an electoral tidal wave of 28% of
our 'first-past-the-post' vote is the communist theoretician, Karl Marx.

It reminded me of my BA dissertation about Marxism and morality. To my great frustration I continue to have arguments with other leftists about morality. Many seem to have little understanding of the profoundly moral nature of Marx’s work. All too often comrades repeat those casual dismissals found in Marx’s writings: morality is bourgeois ideological rubbish ect. However what they forget is that behind Marx’s public denunciation of morality is a burning indignation and longing for a more humane future. This stands in the moral tradition of Aristotle. I will start posting extracts from my dissertation over the next couple of days.

Get off their backs Bill…

2005-07-04T18:36:00.000+01:00

On Saturday I briefly switched on the telly to catch a bit of Live 8 (asking for trouble, I know). To my horror Bill Gates appeared leering before me heralded as the world’s greatest philanthropist. I was immediately reminded of this Leo Tolstoy quote:

I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.

Of course it also applies to all the G8 countries. Read George Monbiot on the G8 debt relief plan.

Mostly sour grapes but…..

2005-05-11T08:59:00.000+01:00

Oona King today on er… Today said she regarded Jeremy Paxman’s now infamous interview with George Galloway on election night as an insult because nobody should be barred from standing against her on the basis of the colour of her skin. Of course she also came out with a load of bullshit about how her Jewish background lost her election. As the letter in last post points out: she was black, female and Jewish in both 1997 and 2001 – what changed was her support for the invasion or Iraq.

0829
Oona King talks about the election campaign for the first time since losing her seat in Bethnal Green and Bow.

Now the struggle for meaning begins…..

2005-05-09T15:58:00.000+01:00

George Galloway’s victory in Bethnal Green and Bow represents a historic victory for the left. Unsurprisingly that’s not how New Labour and its friends in the media see it - they are seeking to present it as victory for communalism and opportunism. Sadly this ‘interpretation’ seems to be gaining ground amongst some sections of society. Middle class liberals seem particularly susceptible. The following letter in the Guardian puts it into perspective:

After Oona King's defeat, I found comments by Tony Banks and others patronising and insulting to us British-Bangladeshis/Muslims. Contrary to the pathetic excuses they were making for her, we did not vote against Ms King because she was a woman, or because she was black, or Jewish. She was all those things when we voted for her in 1997 and 2001. We voted her out because she did not listen to us on Iraq. If she had done her job and represented her constituents (rather than pursue her personal ambitions by following Blair) she would still be our MP. Simple.
Suber Akther
London

Who is trying to destroy Galloway?

2005-05-03T11:01:00.000+01:00

Over the weekend The Sunday Times ran a story about Galloway’s impending divorce. I can’t find the original online – perhaps because they’ve developed a conscience… but I doubt it. Anyway here’s a follow up in the Scotsman:

GEORGE Galloway, the leader of the anti-war party Respect, yesterday claimed that a newspaper was seeking to damage his election chances by publishing a story about his marriage split. His Palestinian-born wife of five years, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, told the Sunday Times that she wants to divorce him over his friendships with other women. She said she would be contacting lawyers this week. A spokesman for Mr Galloway, the former MP for Glasgow Central, said that the timing of the story, with the election only days away, "could not have been worse".
The matter was a "personal tragedy" for both parties, he said, but added: "It was timed obviously to impinge on the election."

It reminds me of the campaign to destroy Arthur Scargill after the miners strike. Eventually it emerged a shady plot had been hatched by the security services. The then editor of the Mirror, Roy Greenslade, was forced to apologise. It is all documented in Seumas Milne’s (the comment editor of the Guardian) excellent book “The Enemy Within.” It would not surprise me if something similar is behind Galloway’s troubles. Who made the phone calls to Galloway’s wife?

Wilby strikes back.....

2005-04-27T10:34:00.000+01:00

The Catholic Herald is trying to silence critics of the pope. They are urging their readers to harass the editor of the New Statesman, Peter Wilby, after he published a mildly unfavourable story about the dead pontiff’s views on condoms (which I refer to in my last post).

But Wilby is not taking it laying down. In the current NS he says:

To maintain the flow of debate, NS readers may wish to comment on John Paul II's newly elected successor, Joseph Ratzinger. Homosexuals - described by the former cardinal Ratzinger as an "intrinsic moral evil" - may have something to say. So may Anglicans ("not a proper church"), devotees of rock music (a "vehicle of anti-religion") and women who aspire to become priests (banned "to protect true doctrine"). Views should in the first instance be addressed directly to Benedict XVI at the Vatican. But if you can't get through, Mr Coppen on 020 7588 3101 would no doubt be happy to pass on your opinions.

Pope

2005-04-08T14:07:00.000+01:00

Excuse me for being disrespectful but I’m not shedding any tears today. The pope was a reactionary fool. His opposition to the Iraq war in no way excuses his bigotry ( remember some Tories and fascists opposed it for there own reasons). This seems to have been forgotten by some of my comrades. The worst offenders have been the Guardian (although Terry Eagleton had a good comment article) and the Observer - but Alex Callinicos in Socialist Worker could only describe him as contradictory. Look instead at this story by Michela Wrong in the New Statesman:

While Pope John Paul will certainly go down in history as the pontiff who recognised the importance of the Church's third world constituency, his papacy also deserves to be remembered as one that helped keep Africa disease-ridden, famished and disastrously underdeveloped.

And she continues:

When I think of the Vatican's record in Africa, I think of its failure to acknowledge what happened in Rwanda, where priests and nuns not only led the death squads to Tutsi refugees cowering in their churches, but provided the petrol to burn them alive, took part in the shootings and raped survivors. Rwanda was Africa's most devout Catholic nation, and the role the Church played in condoning and fostering the Hutu extremism that climaxed in genocide is as shameful as its collaboration with the Nazis.

Before adding:

Back in the early 1990s there was a moment when, had African leaderships started talking openly about condoms, safe sex and monogamy, they could have weathered the coming Aids storm. Instead - with the exception of Uganda - they opted for silence and denial, not only doing almost nothing to educate the public but actively opposing efforts to prevent HIV infection. In this, they were egged on by the Vatican.

Help the Labour left by not voting Labour…

2005-04-06T16:52:00.000+01:00

The Guardian notes today that the bigger the Labour majority – and lets face it they are going to win – the more likely Blair and his chums in the Labour party will get their way and privatise vast chunks of the public sector.

Tony Blair startled everyone and enraged his chancellor, Gordon Brown, last autumn when he declared he would stay until well into a third term. He will only be able to control when he goes if he pulls off the extraordinary feat of a third landslide. That would embed his pro-choice public service reforms. It would also mean the revolution in the party was virtually irreversible.

A few early morning few thoughts on Gorgeous George….

2005-04-01T08:54:00.000+01:00

Last night it was a joy to watch Galloway embarrass Margaret Hodge on Question Time. Not only did he shut her up mid rant by accusing her of libelling him but he scored a direct hit by reminding the audience of her left wing past. She was reduced to smiling inanely at the camera.

But when asked about the case of Terri Schiavo he made his opposition to the right to die plain insisting she was starved to death. This is no doubt his sincerely held personal position but he was representing Respect which as far as I know has no position on the matter, and most members would probably be favour of the right to die in certain clearly defined circumstances.

I know Respect is a collation and all parts of the collation are free to express there own views – but as I’ve already mentioned he was representing Respect. It does not bode well for the future.

Of course this is not the main thing about his performance which was in other respects spot on.

Why We Fight

2005-03-29T11:56:00.000+01:00

On Sunday I watched the excellent BBC4 documentary Why We Fight (a friend luckily recorded it). Taking as its starting point Eisenhower’s warning in 1961 about the growing power of the military industrial complex it investigates the enormous influence of the defence industry on American public life – with one contributor even suggesting it is now a state of mind. Despite being a bit of a shit in his time, Eisenhower’s warning deserves repeating as it is as relevant as ever:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Interestingly the original draft said the military industrial congressional complex - perhaps more appropriate given the collusion of Congress.

The director, Eugene Jarecki, manages to tell this complex story through a number of personal stories: a former New York cop, a Vietnamese US bomb maker, an eager army recruit and a whole cast of establishment figures who have fallen out with the neo-cons . Jarecki weaves these disparate tales into a devastating depiction of corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels.

Although there have been a whole rash of excellent and not so excellent films about US imperialism – this one really stands head and shoulders above the rest. It is original and distinctive.

Lynton Crosby and dogs....

2005-03-22T11:43:00.000Z

What is it about Lynton Crosby - the evil mastermind behind the Tory election campaign – and dog whistles? Today in the Guardian it is mentioned again:

But, guided by the advice of his Australian election strategist, Lynton Crosby,Mr Howard is recycling populist themes with strong tabloid appeal - "dog whistle issues" - to which certain voters respond in Crosby-speak.

What does it mean? According to Jim Swenson at the Environmental Earth Science Archive:

The only secret about it is that dogs can hear sounds of higher pitch than people can. So we make an ordinary whistle with a very high pitch.

If you are training your dog, any whistle is a good thing. A whistle is simpler for a dog to notice than words. To him it's a distinct, clear, simple, special barking with no words. Like barking, it is either there or it's not. The dog only needs to interpret the occasion of the whistle-blow, not the vowels and consonants and sentences people keep hoping the dog will understand.

Dogs aren't very good at hearing vowels and constants, let alone sentences. It just isn't built into their brains yet.

Truly chilling. Lynton Crosby considers us mere dirty muts to be manipulated. Moreover is Howard about to ditch vowels and consonants and sentences in favour of whistling?

So how many marched on saturday?

2005-03-21T09:06:00.000Z

As usual there is a huge difference between the estimates of the police and the organisers. According to the BBC:

One of the biggest marches of the day was in London.
Organisers say 100,000 people took part, while police put the figure at 45,000.

I don’t know the rationale for either figure but I am naturally suspicious of the police figure. They have historically been on the wrong side of every major social conflict since the first bow street runner er… hit a poor beggar on the head. As far as I can remember the one occasion the police estimate matched the organiser estimate was the Countryside Alliance march.

However can we really trust the organiser estimate? They have an obvious interest in over estimating just like the police have an interest in under-estimating. Now I don’t doubt their sincerity and veracity – but many, many others do. My friends always claim it somewhere inbetween the two figures (which is silly when you think about it). Why don’t Stop the War employ a few crowd specialists to devise a method (or just bloody count people as they leave Hyde Park)? Then at least we could challenge the police figure with more credibility.

This issue has been raised before most notably by John Vidal in the Guardian. He interviews a company who provides a crowd counting service:

So is there an accurate way of counting the numbers at demonstrations? Yes, says Dr Jake de Salis, of the planning consultancy Intelligent Space which specialises in crowd numbers. He was employed by the GLA to put a real figure on how many people went to the Notting Hill carnival where the figure of 2m people was always quoted by both police and organisers.

Using hundreds of people with tally counters and stopwatches, analysing CCTV cameras, sampling head counts, collecting bus and tube figures and evidence from police aerial pictures as well as a tested formula based on how many accidents there are in mass crowds, he found that the figure was more like 1.2m.

What are we waiting for?

Did I imagine it?

2005-03-17T15:53:00.000Z

Did Jeremy Paxman vaporise after a Newsnight report about the new Doctor Who at some point last week? I was half asleep so it could be a dream.

European moaning ….

2005-03-14T16:34:00.000Z

Victor S says:

I don't think I'm going to make friends here, but I have to say that I am seriously leaning towards voting in favour of the European Constitution simply becuase of the failure of the UK far left to mount a serious campaign against it.

Meaders agrees with him apart from the conclusion:

It's not good enough, comrades. Go read Victor S his conclusion isn't correct - but then, I'm expected to say that - but his demand for a little more effort on our part is spot on.

As always we need to ask what is paramount? It’s very easy to come up with a wish list of issues but we have limited (in some cases very limited) resources. There are only so many causes we can meaningful take up. To mention but a few: militarism, international inequality, privatisation, anti-racism and civil liberties.

Of course the proposed neo-liberal European Constitution links many of them - but then so does our economic system which is why we are trying to overthrow it and ‘replace it with something nicer.’ Yet nobody with a brain suggests a general campaign against capitalism at this moment in time?

And anyway do constitutions make a lot of difference. Many of the worst dictatorships have had pretty good constitutions.

The left should take up causes which capture the public imagination and pose the greatest threat to humanity. At present that is US imperial ambitions.

anti-social

2005-03-12T16:33:00.000Z

As I’ve already mentioned I am writing a story about anti-social behaviour. It seems to me that anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) are the domestic counterpart to the recently passed anti-terror legislation. Now Asbos may be less draconian but they are no less mean spirited. Today the Guardian reports a substance abuser addicted to fuel has been imprisoned for breaching his Asbo banning him from petrol stations.

A fuel sniffer has been jailed for breaching an antisocial behaviour order that banned him from petrol station forecourts in north-east England.

Since when did it become an offence to walk onto a petrol station forecourt and breathe in the fumes? Many car manufacturers fight for the right to do exactly that in all our great cities.

I spoke to Harry Fletcher from Napo just after the Guardian did and he told me quite rightly this man needs treatment not prison. They may have tried before but the maxim of probation is: never give up on someone. I wish New Labour had a semblance of a heart somewhere in its cold unfeeling icy body…

ART

2005-03-11T16:19:00.000Z

I’ve been very busy writing about anti-social behaviour so only a short note…. If you live in London go and see Alison Moffett’s first solo exhibition at the MW projects gallery in Hoxton. Moffett is going to very big, very soon. She has already sold some work to Saatchi (who has pretty good taste for a Tory scumbag). She has also been profiled in the press and tipped by lots of art magazines.

Spooky

2005-03-09T16:04:00.000Z

According to those clever spooks who labour long and hard to protect us Bin Laden was once after Russell Crowe. Today’s Guardian reports:

“At the time, the Hollywood actor had never heard of al-Qaida or its reclusive leader. But Osama bin Laden, it seems, knew all about Russell Crowe.

In one of the more unlikely terrorist plots, the Oscar winner has revealed that he was a kidnap target for the network, and that the FBI was so concerned about his safety that it gave him protection for four years.”

Funny - but remember the Home Secretary may soon have power - possibly with or without a judge – to put people under house arrest on the basis of intelligence supplied by those same spooks. Still laughing?

Vote Labour (in some places anyway)

2005-03-08T09:51:00.000Z

I went to a Stop the War rally last night in that hotbed of sedition and kebabs… Hackney. It was very good - despite the rain, last minute change of location (a wake was taking place in the original venue) and the constant drone of traffic from Kingsland Road.

The TV sofa loving Hackney north MP Diane Abbott spoke first about the political intrigues leading up to the war votes in parliament. Although she revealed nothing new it was interesting to be reminded that Blair only scrapped through by lying to the ranks of angry (but gullible) MPs opposed to the then looming military action. She said Blair told individuals and small groups of MPs that: “if you had seen the evidence I’ve seen then you would back the war.” And many of them believed him. But now – according to Abbott – Blair struggles to command much support because so many feel betrayed. After all he would have lost the parliamentary vote on terror legislation had the Lib Dems bothered to turn up. Abbot believes, for instance, he would not be able muster enough support to wage war on Syria or Iran. However I fear she may have overestimated her comrades steel.

Anyway that said I think Abbott deserves the left’s support in the forthcoming election. Yes… she sent her son to a private school. Yes… she sits on a sofa with Michael Portillo and Andrew Neal. Yes... she has said some silly things about gun culture. But on the key question of the war she cannot be faulted: she spoke out before it started and now calls for an immediate end to the occupation. Moreover her voting record is principled and progressive. She appears on Defend Council Housing platforms and at countless other progressive meetings. As her BBC profile puts it:

"In the last parliament she was one of the most rebellious Labour MPs, consistently voting against the government on issues like welfare cuts and military action."

To withdraw support - like a teacher at the meeting suggested to me - would above all damage the anti-imperialist left. And what for? To make a point about hypocrisy that she herself acknowledges. Moreover I suspect we are all guilty of hypocrisy at some level - even if it is just buying basil grown in Israel.

Elsewhere in the my favourite east London borough – the ancient Hackney south MP Brian Sedgemoore is retiring. A new Labour apparatchik – Meg Hillier - has been parachuted in and the local party is none too pleased. Reportedly they wanted a black candidate. Meg Hillier promises to be a loyalist with teeth but she has not spoken out against the war in any meaningful way. Meanwhile both the Greens and Respect have selected candidates.

So, in my humble opinion, vote Labour in Hackney north and Respect or the Greens in Hackney south.

Open the gates...

2005-03-07T16:34:00.000Z

I work part-time in an office near HMP Pentonville in North London. Although its sprawling white façade dominates Caledonian Road nobody - including me - seems to pay it much attention. But during my lunch hour today I spotted some families waiting expectantly outside the front gates and it made me think of all the lives caught up in the criminal justice system.

And that’s a lot of people. According to the Prison Reform Trust the number of adult male prisoners is currently 68,479, which is the highest ever recorded total. In the last month the total population has increased by just under 1300, the equivalent of two medium sized jails. The director of the Prison Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon, said:

‘Until Government succeeds in its policy to reserve prison for serious and violent offenders, and unless the courts are prepared to send petty offenders out on community service or drug treatment orders and keep time spent in custody to a necessary minimum, then we are stuck with an overcrowded prison system patently failing to do its job to prevent re-offending.’

But is it government policy? The Home Office predicts the total prison population will rise to 87,500 by the end of the decade.

I wonder how many of Her Majesty’s current guests are innocent….

LA Naylor has just written a book (reviewed in the Guardian on Saturday) about the criminal justice system. He argues the safeguards introduced after all the high profile miscarriages of justice in the 70 and 80s have made little difference as they have been repeatedly flouted.

Access to a solicitor is not automatic – only 14% of arrested people obtained legal advice at police station. I can personally testify this is a very important as suspects – yes, even innocent suspects – can feel under intense pressure to give the police want they want in order to end their ordeal.

Naylor also shows the Crown Prosecution Service routinely colludes with the police. Evidence that might help the defence is often withheld. Meanwhile police brutality and misconduct go unpunished. Not one officer has been successfully prosecuted in relation to any of the miscarriages that have littered the past two decades. Nor has one officer been successfully prosecuted for any of the 1,000 deaths in police custody between1969 and 1999.

Of course one of things Watt Tyler did - like all good revolutionaries - was open the prison gates….