It appears that Clare Short is in trouble for inviting Hamas leader Khaled Meshal to address MPs in Parliament. Meshal, the head of Hamas's political bureau and the target of a bungled Israeli assassination attempt in 1997, is set to speak to a committee of MPs via a video link.
I think, on balance, that Clare Short is right to extend the invitation to Meshal. It is easy to forget that the recent role played by Hamas in securing the release of the BBC journalist Alan Johnston. Hamas cares about how it is perceived abroad which means that countries like the UK really do have potential leverage over the organisation that, legitimately and democratically rules Gaza. Short and others argue that the attempt to weaken Hamas by isolating it has failed; and that this policy seems to have strengthened support for Hamas among Palestinians, while Fatah, its great rival, has suffered from being seen as the West’s favoured friend. Hamas is not perfect - there are still many reasons as to why the US and many European countries are reluctant to enter into dialogue with it, such as its ambition for Islamic rule, its refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, its links to violence and terror, and its numerous rocket attacks on Israelis. There have, however, been some recent conciliatory moves from Hamas - Meshaal, has said publicly that the state of Israel is a "reality" and that “there will remain a state called Israel, this is a matter of fact”.
What is clear is that the policy of boycotting of Hamas contributed to radicalising its members and in provoking Fatah’s overthrow in Gaza. The Gaza economy is in a dire state, largely because Israel closes most of the border crossings most of the time. Britain, the EU and the US should be seeking to encourage the more moderate elements in Hamas with the prospect of recognition and financial assistance, in exchange for good behaviour and the return of a single government for all the Palestinian territories, which is a precondition for the revival of the peace process. In the long term, it is in Israel’s interests that the moderate elements within Hamas – the strongest political entity in Palestine – be strengthened.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Labour heartlands: fertile ground for the far right?
The increase in support for the far right in cities like Stoke-on-Trent over the past decade well illustrates the need for Labour to strengthen its appeal to the white working classes as well as to middle England. Any increase in support for the BNP raises all sorts of questions about how progressive politics deals with the rise of the far right in Britain. The Labour arty has long argued that, as a nation, we should do whatever we can to tackle xenophobia and racial hatred from wherever it surfaces. This, of course, is right but the key question is how is this best achieved?
One way to begin is to stop simply talking about the symptoms of dissatisfaction and address some of the underlying causes that have resulted in traditional Labour supporters taking refuge in the policies of the far right. The BNP is often successful in so-called "forgotten" white areas where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. The BNP often finds support in a context of significant social problems: high unemployment, deprivation, lack of educational achievement, high crime rates, drugs, and people of different ethnic backgrounds living apparently separate lives (which encourages the growth of myths and rumour). A well used BNP tactic is to use this information to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour and in many cases feel neglected by this government. Many of these people feel that they have only two places they can go. One is not to vote, the other is to vote for the far right. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a "safe space" for ordinary working people to air their feelings - they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being thought of or even accused of being a racist. In the likes of Stoke-on-Trent the BNP is developing a network of supporters who are now openly willing to admit to not only voting for a racist and bigoted political party, but are doing so with pride and patriotic fervour.
If Labour is to stage a credible fightback then it must not only focus on the needs of the middle classes. Gordon Brown would send out a powerful message to his party's core supporters if he were to personally throw his weight behind a call for a new "coalition of the willing" that will help to blunt the advance of the far-right in this country by addressing some of the genuine concerns of white working-class voters while at the same time openly challenging those concerns that have no factual or legitimate basis. Brown should back calls for the creation of a multi-racial, multi-faith and cross-party movement that can help unite and lead the great majority of people in Britainwho feel repulsed by the rhetoric and actions of the likes of the BNP. Brown should explain that the reasons for Labour openly taking on the bigots and the bullies of the far right are not purely tactical and strategic. He should make it clear that the values that underpin the Labour movement demand that it be done.
One way to begin is to stop simply talking about the symptoms of dissatisfaction and address some of the underlying causes that have resulted in traditional Labour supporters taking refuge in the policies of the far right. The BNP is often successful in so-called "forgotten" white areas where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. The BNP often finds support in a context of significant social problems: high unemployment, deprivation, lack of educational achievement, high crime rates, drugs, and people of different ethnic backgrounds living apparently separate lives (which encourages the growth of myths and rumour). A well used BNP tactic is to use this information to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour and in many cases feel neglected by this government. Many of these people feel that they have only two places they can go. One is not to vote, the other is to vote for the far right. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a "safe space" for ordinary working people to air their feelings - they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being thought of or even accused of being a racist. In the likes of Stoke-on-Trent the BNP is developing a network of supporters who are now openly willing to admit to not only voting for a racist and bigoted political party, but are doing so with pride and patriotic fervour.
If Labour is to stage a credible fightback then it must not only focus on the needs of the middle classes. Gordon Brown would send out a powerful message to his party's core supporters if he were to personally throw his weight behind a call for a new "coalition of the willing" that will help to blunt the advance of the far-right in this country by addressing some of the genuine concerns of white working-class voters while at the same time openly challenging those concerns that have no factual or legitimate basis. Brown should back calls for the creation of a multi-racial, multi-faith and cross-party movement that can help unite and lead the great majority of people in Britainwho feel repulsed by the rhetoric and actions of the likes of the BNP. Brown should explain that the reasons for Labour openly taking on the bigots and the bullies of the far right are not purely tactical and strategic. He should make it clear that the values that underpin the Labour movement demand that it be done.
Why we blog
WHY WE BLOG Our ethic of progressive activism Please let us know what you think: you can sign this statement at http://www.changeweneed.org.uk/, post or write about it on your own blog, discuss this with those who have signed it on the participating blogs linked below, or discuss it on twitter
We are a group of Labour party members and supporters who believe that blogging can play an increasingly important contribution to progressive politics. We are seeking, in different ways, to make our own individual contributions to that, and wish to set out the ethic which informs our blogging and the broader politics we are working for within the Labour Party and beyond it. Many of these are truths which should be self-evident. We are well aware that the broad spirit which we seek to articulate has long informed what most Labour bloggers do, as it also does most of those who blog in other parties and in non-partisan civic activism. So we do not claim any particular originality; still less do we seek to impose our views as a new regulatory code, or to attempt to police others. Our purpose is simple. We do not believe that new technology leads to inevitable outcomes, but rather that we must all make choices about how we use it and for what purposes. So we wish to set out why we blog and how we want the party which we support to change so that it can connect to new progressive energy for the causes we support.
1. Ethical and value-based We believe we must act as ambassadors for the political values we profess. This applies to all politics, online or not. The Obama campaign's power to mobilise was rooted in supporters living its ethic of 'respect, empower and include'. As Labour supporters, we wish to ensure that our values of solidarity, tolerance and respect are reflected in how we do politics as well as the causes we seek to serve. So we oppose the politics of personal destruction. We believe that the personal can be political, where it reveals the hypocrisy of public statements, the wilful misuse of evidence, or breaches proper ethical standards in public life. Where it doesn't do that, it should be off limits. Politicians should be able to have a family and private life too. A politics of personal destruction violates progressive values and brings all politics into disrepute.
2. Positive about political engagement We do not believe that the internet is inevitably a force for anti-politics. We reject the mythology of the internet as a lawless and ethics-free zone. Bloggers are subject to law, as well as to the ethical and civic pressures of our online and offline communities. We are clear that the left can never win a politics of loathing and mutual destruction, because the faith in politics that we need will inevitably be a casualty of war. The nihilistic approach practiced by a few online should not overshadow the greater energy and numbers engaged in constructive civic advocacy. We believe that we can challenge our political opponents without always questioning their integrity. We believe that there are big political arguments to be had between the left and the right of politics, and the left has every reason to be confident about our values and ideas, which have done much to change Britain for the better over the last century and which are in the ascendancy internationally after three decades in which anti-government arguments have often dominated. We also believe that what is pejoratively called 'negative campaigning' has a legitimate place in politics. Scrutinising the principles, ideas and policies of political opponents is an important part of offering a democratic choice. We should challenge the ideas, claims and sometimes the misrepresentations of our political opponents, just as we would expect them to challenge us. We believe that this is effective when it is done accurately, and that this will become ever more important as the internet makes politics more transparent. So we will point out where there is a mismatch between professed principles and policies, or where the evidence does not back up what is claimed, but we will try not to assume our opponents are in bad faith where we do not have evidence to support that.
3. Pluralist and open We believe that pluralism must be at the heart of the progressive blogosphere. We believe that debate and argument are what brings life to politics. We want to promote a cultural 'glasnost' of open discussion within our party, to show that we understand that the confidence to debate, and disagree, in an atmosphere of mutual respect helps us to bring people together to make change possible. We believe we must change the culture of Labour's engagement with those outside the party too, including those who were once our supporters but who are disillusioned, and new generations forming their political opinions. For us, democratic politics is about individuals working together to create collective pressure for change, but also about the need to continue to talk even when we disagree deeply. We believe in engaging with all reasonable critics of the Labour government and Labour Party, wherever we can establish the possibility of taking part in democratic arguments in a spirit of mutual respect.
4. Independent spaces We believe that attempts to transfer 'command and control' models to online politics will inevitably fail. Labour must show that it gets that - in practice as well as theory - if we are make our contribution to the progressive movements on which our causes depend. The government and the political parties should use their official spaces to contribute to and enable these conversations. We also want to see Ministers and MPs having the confidence to engage in political debate and argument elsewhere, while being clear that there is no value for anybody in seeking to control independent spaces for discussion.
5. Participatory and cooperative We believe in a cooperative ethic of blogging, because the internet is most potent when it harnesses the creativity, ideas and expertise of many people. The internet is a powerful tool for individual expression. We believe it also enables citizens to interact and collaborate in ways that were never previously possible, and catalyse new forces for participation and activism. As citizens, and as bloggers, we believe in asking not only what is wrong with the world but how we can work together to improve it. We hope that others will offer ideas and responses - supportive and critical - about these ideas and how they can help to inform the future of our politics. We know that the outcomes of politics matter deeply, that politics is about passion and argument, and that we may ourselves sometimes fall short of the values and standards that we aspire to. But this is why we blog - and what we hope to achieve for our politics by doing so.
Sunder Katwala, Fabian Society http://www.nextleft.org/
Nick Anstead www.nickanstead.com/blog/
Will Straw http://www.changeweneed.org.uk/
David Lammy MP http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/
Rachael Jolley http://www.nextleft.org/
Jessica Asato http://www.progressonline.org.uk/ and labourwomen.blogspot.com
Karin Christiansen labourwomen.blogspot.com
Paul Cotterill http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/
Laurence Durnan www.blackburnlabour.org/blog
Alex Finnegan http://www.abigblockofcheese.blogspot.com/
Gavin Hayes http://www.compassonline.org.uk/
Mike Ion mike-ion.blogspot.com
Richard Lane http://www.politicana.co.uk/
Tom Miller newerlabour.blogspot.com
Carl Nuttall www.blackburnlabour.org/blog
Anthony Painter http://www.anthonypainter.co.uk/ Don
Paskino don-paskini.blogspot.com
Andreas Paterson citizenandreas.blogspot.com
Asif Sange www.blackburnlabour.org/blog
Stuart White http://www.nextleft.org/
Graham Whitman gtrmancfabians.blogspot.com
We are a group of Labour party members and supporters who believe that blogging can play an increasingly important contribution to progressive politics. We are seeking, in different ways, to make our own individual contributions to that, and wish to set out the ethic which informs our blogging and the broader politics we are working for within the Labour Party and beyond it. Many of these are truths which should be self-evident. We are well aware that the broad spirit which we seek to articulate has long informed what most Labour bloggers do, as it also does most of those who blog in other parties and in non-partisan civic activism. So we do not claim any particular originality; still less do we seek to impose our views as a new regulatory code, or to attempt to police others. Our purpose is simple. We do not believe that new technology leads to inevitable outcomes, but rather that we must all make choices about how we use it and for what purposes. So we wish to set out why we blog and how we want the party which we support to change so that it can connect to new progressive energy for the causes we support.
1. Ethical and value-based We believe we must act as ambassadors for the political values we profess. This applies to all politics, online or not. The Obama campaign's power to mobilise was rooted in supporters living its ethic of 'respect, empower and include'. As Labour supporters, we wish to ensure that our values of solidarity, tolerance and respect are reflected in how we do politics as well as the causes we seek to serve. So we oppose the politics of personal destruction. We believe that the personal can be political, where it reveals the hypocrisy of public statements, the wilful misuse of evidence, or breaches proper ethical standards in public life. Where it doesn't do that, it should be off limits. Politicians should be able to have a family and private life too. A politics of personal destruction violates progressive values and brings all politics into disrepute.
2. Positive about political engagement We do not believe that the internet is inevitably a force for anti-politics. We reject the mythology of the internet as a lawless and ethics-free zone. Bloggers are subject to law, as well as to the ethical and civic pressures of our online and offline communities. We are clear that the left can never win a politics of loathing and mutual destruction, because the faith in politics that we need will inevitably be a casualty of war. The nihilistic approach practiced by a few online should not overshadow the greater energy and numbers engaged in constructive civic advocacy. We believe that we can challenge our political opponents without always questioning their integrity. We believe that there are big political arguments to be had between the left and the right of politics, and the left has every reason to be confident about our values and ideas, which have done much to change Britain for the better over the last century and which are in the ascendancy internationally after three decades in which anti-government arguments have often dominated. We also believe that what is pejoratively called 'negative campaigning' has a legitimate place in politics. Scrutinising the principles, ideas and policies of political opponents is an important part of offering a democratic choice. We should challenge the ideas, claims and sometimes the misrepresentations of our political opponents, just as we would expect them to challenge us. We believe that this is effective when it is done accurately, and that this will become ever more important as the internet makes politics more transparent. So we will point out where there is a mismatch between professed principles and policies, or where the evidence does not back up what is claimed, but we will try not to assume our opponents are in bad faith where we do not have evidence to support that.
3. Pluralist and open We believe that pluralism must be at the heart of the progressive blogosphere. We believe that debate and argument are what brings life to politics. We want to promote a cultural 'glasnost' of open discussion within our party, to show that we understand that the confidence to debate, and disagree, in an atmosphere of mutual respect helps us to bring people together to make change possible. We believe we must change the culture of Labour's engagement with those outside the party too, including those who were once our supporters but who are disillusioned, and new generations forming their political opinions. For us, democratic politics is about individuals working together to create collective pressure for change, but also about the need to continue to talk even when we disagree deeply. We believe in engaging with all reasonable critics of the Labour government and Labour Party, wherever we can establish the possibility of taking part in democratic arguments in a spirit of mutual respect.
4. Independent spaces We believe that attempts to transfer 'command and control' models to online politics will inevitably fail. Labour must show that it gets that - in practice as well as theory - if we are make our contribution to the progressive movements on which our causes depend. The government and the political parties should use their official spaces to contribute to and enable these conversations. We also want to see Ministers and MPs having the confidence to engage in political debate and argument elsewhere, while being clear that there is no value for anybody in seeking to control independent spaces for discussion.
5. Participatory and cooperative We believe in a cooperative ethic of blogging, because the internet is most potent when it harnesses the creativity, ideas and expertise of many people. The internet is a powerful tool for individual expression. We believe it also enables citizens to interact and collaborate in ways that were never previously possible, and catalyse new forces for participation and activism. As citizens, and as bloggers, we believe in asking not only what is wrong with the world but how we can work together to improve it. We hope that others will offer ideas and responses - supportive and critical - about these ideas and how they can help to inform the future of our politics. We know that the outcomes of politics matter deeply, that politics is about passion and argument, and that we may ourselves sometimes fall short of the values and standards that we aspire to. But this is why we blog - and what we hope to achieve for our politics by doing so.
Sunder Katwala, Fabian Society http://www.nextleft.org/
Nick Anstead www.nickanstead.com/blog/
Will Straw http://www.changeweneed.org.uk/
David Lammy MP http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/
Rachael Jolley http://www.nextleft.org/
Jessica Asato http://www.progressonline.org.uk/ and labourwomen.blogspot.com
Karin Christiansen labourwomen.blogspot.com
Paul Cotterill http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/
Laurence Durnan www.blackburnlabour.org/blog
Alex Finnegan http://www.abigblockofcheese.blogspot.com/
Gavin Hayes http://www.compassonline.org.uk/
Mike Ion mike-ion.blogspot.com
Richard Lane http://www.politicana.co.uk/
Tom Miller newerlabour.blogspot.com
Carl Nuttall www.blackburnlabour.org/blog
Anthony Painter http://www.anthonypainter.co.uk/ Don
Paskino don-paskini.blogspot.com
Andreas Paterson citizenandreas.blogspot.com
Asif Sange www.blackburnlabour.org/blog
Stuart White http://www.nextleft.org/
Graham Whitman gtrmancfabians.blogspot.com
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wednesday's budget: the dividing lines are becoming clearer
Alistair Darling is - according to today's Guardian - set to take on tax cheats who deprive the exchequer of sums greater than £25,000. Individuals and companies will be named and shamed in a crackdown on evasion to be unveiled in the budget on Wednesday.
The latest figures available indicate that just over £800m of public money is lost as a result of benefit fraud each year. The TUC has recently estimated that tax avoiders cost the exchequer nearly £13bn in 2008-2009. Wednesday's budget offers Labour an opportunity to reclaim the agenda post 'smeargate' and to put some clear red water between ourselves and the City-friendly Tories.
The latest figures available indicate that just over £800m of public money is lost as a result of benefit fraud each year. The TUC has recently estimated that tax avoiders cost the exchequer nearly £13bn in 2008-2009. Wednesday's budget offers Labour an opportunity to reclaim the agenda post 'smeargate' and to put some clear red water between ourselves and the City-friendly Tories.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Gordon apologises
As per my posting on Monday I really did feel that it would be important for Gordon to publicly apologise - he has now done so and, might I add, has done so with sincerity and dignity. Perhaps now we can draw a line underneath the whole incident.Gordon has a taken the opportunity to restore some of his and the government's moral authority - he is be the bigger man for doing so.
in praise of ... Lord Adonis
The noble Lord Adonis comes in for a good deal of stick from his fellow comrades (particularly over his support for the Academy programme). This week (in his role as Transport Minister - not as a train spotter) he is travelling the length and breadth of Britain by train - 2,000 miles on over 40 trains spread over 70 hours. He is doing the whole trip on a standard class ticket and is being joined on various stages by MPs, train users (and spotters) and will be talking with 'ordinary' passengers.
What will come of it? Let's wait and see - but given the events of the past few days it is refreshing that a Labour Minister is focusing on finding out more about the realities of life for the people of Britain. Good on you Andrew!
What will come of it? Let's wait and see - but given the events of the past few days it is refreshing that a Labour Minister is focusing on finding out more about the realities of life for the people of Britain. Good on you Andrew!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Labour's Mackeson moment!
'Smeargate' - or however else you would like to describe the political disaster of the past days - is a Mackeson moment for the Labour party: it looks bad, it 'tastes' bad and, by golly, it will do us a good deal of harm. The sad truth is that (with a few recent and notable exceptions) the government has not been making it easy for the electorate to vote Labour with any enthusiasm. On the doorstep the divide between the concerns of core Labour voters and those of a PR fixated cabinet have never seemed wider.In fairness though, the history of Labour Governments was ever thus. Since the 1920s the story goes something like this: Labour supporters are near euphoric when victory is achieved there is then a period of hard slog as the party faces up to the harsh responsibilities of being in government. The party then accuses the leadership of betrayal and the leadership accuses the party of ingratitude. Supporters then become disillusioned which leads to defeat at the polls. We then experience a long period of Tory Government before the next outbreak of euphoria and so on and so forth. Historically Labour has been far better at defeating itself than the Tories have ever been and the past year has reinforced the point, what with the 10p tax fiasco, dodgy expense claims and now McBride.
After an unprecedented twelve straight years in power many of Labour’s own members want it to be both passionately principled and sensibly pragmatic; to be a party that proudly honours its past whilst not neglecting to shape both its and the nation’s future; to champion the state whilst being part of the market; to tackle poverty but also support aspiration.Gordon Brown stood for the leadership of the Labour party on a platform that argued that the renewal that was undertaken in order to gain power needed to be repeated if Labour was to keep power. In the mid 1990s Labour had successfully occupied the centre ground, it had modernised, was reaching out beyond its own activists Labour and turning the Tories into a replica of what it itself used to be – a party with a narrow base, a party obsessed about the wrong things and a party seen as old fashioned and out of touch.
Can Labour recover? Possibly - I am less confident today that I was pre the McBride nonsense. I believe that the best prospects of future success for Labour lie not in the puerile tactics of the spin doctor, politics has to be about more that the desire to wrong foot your opponent. Labour must grasp the opportunity that the 'smeargate' nonsense has presented. Brown can call for an election that is about ideas and ideals, policies and principles. The prospects for future success for Labour lies not in defending the status quo of what is still a highly unequal Britain, rather it is in working with the British people to help rid our nation of some ugly realities such as child poverty and the still endemic inequalities in both health and education. It is not too late to recover and win but it very soon will be.
After an unprecedented twelve straight years in power many of Labour’s own members want it to be both passionately principled and sensibly pragmatic; to be a party that proudly honours its past whilst not neglecting to shape both its and the nation’s future; to champion the state whilst being part of the market; to tackle poverty but also support aspiration.Gordon Brown stood for the leadership of the Labour party on a platform that argued that the renewal that was undertaken in order to gain power needed to be repeated if Labour was to keep power. In the mid 1990s Labour had successfully occupied the centre ground, it had modernised, was reaching out beyond its own activists Labour and turning the Tories into a replica of what it itself used to be – a party with a narrow base, a party obsessed about the wrong things and a party seen as old fashioned and out of touch.
Can Labour recover? Possibly - I am less confident today that I was pre the McBride nonsense. I believe that the best prospects of future success for Labour lie not in the puerile tactics of the spin doctor, politics has to be about more that the desire to wrong foot your opponent. Labour must grasp the opportunity that the 'smeargate' nonsense has presented. Brown can call for an election that is about ideas and ideals, policies and principles. The prospects for future success for Labour lies not in defending the status quo of what is still a highly unequal Britain, rather it is in working with the British people to help rid our nation of some ugly realities such as child poverty and the still endemic inequalities in both health and education. It is not too late to recover and win but it very soon will be.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Why I think Gordon Brown should apologise
I have huge respect for Alan Johnson and think he is one of our party's genuine class acts but I think he is wrong to argue that Gordon Brown does not need to apologise for the McBride fiasco.
The truth is that politics at all levels has its share of hard-ball tactics, but nothing is more discomforting, more toxic and more damaging than a smear campaign. Gordon Brown knows this, he also knows that 'perception' in politics is critical. Tomorrow morning he should come out onto the steps of Downing Street and look into the eyes of the assembled media and state clearly and categorically that he is sorry for the hurt that has been caused to all concerned, sorry for the embarrassment and shame that has been heaped upon our party and sorry for the damage done to politics in general. He should even consider writing to the likes of Samantha Cameron and Francis Osborne expressing his personal regret at what happened. Without any of this I think it will be very difficult to draw a line underneath this sad, tawdry and rather ugly incident.
Gordon has a brief opportunity to restore some moral authority - he would be the bigger man for doing so and a lesser man for not.
The truth is that politics at all levels has its share of hard-ball tactics, but nothing is more discomforting, more toxic and more damaging than a smear campaign. Gordon Brown knows this, he also knows that 'perception' in politics is critical. Tomorrow morning he should come out onto the steps of Downing Street and look into the eyes of the assembled media and state clearly and categorically that he is sorry for the hurt that has been caused to all concerned, sorry for the embarrassment and shame that has been heaped upon our party and sorry for the damage done to politics in general. He should even consider writing to the likes of Samantha Cameron and Francis Osborne expressing his personal regret at what happened. Without any of this I think it will be very difficult to draw a line underneath this sad, tawdry and rather ugly incident.
Gordon has a brief opportunity to restore some moral authority - he would be the bigger man for doing so and a lesser man for not.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Jesus and the BNP
I don't know how many of you have seen the latest BNP 'Jesus' poster but
it features a picture of Jesus on the cross and quotes part of a verse from St. John's Gospel (John 15:20: "If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you". BNP leader Nick Griffin, in reference to the poster is quoted as follows: “The British National Party is the only political party which genuinely supports Britain's Christian heritage. It is the only party which will defend our ancient faith and nation from the threat of Islamification."
The fact is that using scripture is a bit like using statistics - you can use quotes to support all kinds of positions.
Perhaps Mr Griffin my make use of the following in his next poster campaign:
1 John 2:9
"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness."
it features a picture of Jesus on the cross and quotes part of a verse from St. John's Gospel (John 15:20: "If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you". BNP leader Nick Griffin, in reference to the poster is quoted as follows: “The British National Party is the only political party which genuinely supports Britain's Christian heritage. It is the only party which will defend our ancient faith and nation from the threat of Islamification."
The fact is that using scripture is a bit like using statistics - you can use quotes to support all kinds of positions.
Perhaps Mr Griffin my make use of the following in his next poster campaign:
1 John 2:9
"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness."
Damian McBride
What was Mr McBride thinking? The statement from No 10 reads: "Neither the Prime Minister nor anybody else in Downing Street, except the author, knew anything about any of these private emails. The author of these emails has apologised for their juvenile and inappropriate nature and for the embarrassment caused. All staff will be reminded of the appropriate use of Number 10 resources."
It looks embarrassing and is embarrassing and will lead many to think that we are in a rather desperate state at present. Should Mr McBride remain in the employment of the government. I personally think not.
It looks embarrassing and is embarrassing and will lead many to think that we are in a rather desperate state at present. Should Mr McBride remain in the employment of the government. I personally think not.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Does class matter any more? Of course it does!
Last year's 'Tory toff' campaign prompted a plethora of articles and comment about whether class is still a major issue in modern Britain, but why? Why is it still an issue and why do so many people in the media react to the debate in the way that they do? In my experience talk of 'toffs' and privilege - particularly in the present economic climate - resonates with ordinary people and makes many so called 'liberal' journalists and media folk feel a touch uncomfortable.
The truth is that Britain remains a nation that is still dominated by class division. In 2007 an ICM poll for the Guardian found that 89% of those surveyed thought that people are still judged by their class - with almost half saying that it still counts for "a lot". Over 50% of people said that class, not ability, greatly affects the way they are seen. Despite more than a decade of Labour in power social mobility in Britain has decreased, in fact the British middle classes are operating what is, in effect, a closed shop. For example our top universities are still, in the main, the preserve of a rich, well-connected elite. You may well remember the furore a few years ago when Bristol University was accused of gross discrimination and unfairness - spurred on by several influential columnists and leader writers - for introducing a 'fairer' criterion for admissions that would benefit pupils from poorer backgrounds. Often the real reasons why many left leaning journalists and politicians end up sending their sons and daughters to fee-paying schools are not based on the raw results of the local state schools but on a desire to ensure that their child has access to what the local comprehensive cannot provide: privilege, advantage and the opportunity to network. British public schools have always been a production line of the class system. They employ some of the best-qualified teachers, can raise their fees steadily, select their pupils, enjoy a growing endowment income from their benefactors and offer some of the most impressive sporting and extracurricular activities in the country. What's more they now recruit from a middle-class obsessed by perceived educational and social advantage: parents who are willing to take the bold decision to become part of the problem rather than seeking to be part of the solution. I often hear some of my friends and fellow "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility.
Sometimes I cannot help but feel that the perpetuation of class divisions in Britain really is part of a 'liberal conspiracy.' It seems clear to me that those who have influence, those who have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order that they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. It must surely be true for example that when middle-class parents abandon the state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs. Suspicion of the wealthy, the privileged and of the 'upper classes' is hardwired into the DNA of most of us who espouse left-leaning ideas and policies. Why? Because most of us believe that a politics that espouses equity and fairness, a politics that seeks opportunity for all and not just an elite few, is a politics that gives comfort to the afflicted and ends up afflicting the comfortable.
The truth is that Britain remains a nation that is still dominated by class division. In 2007 an ICM poll for the Guardian found that 89% of those surveyed thought that people are still judged by their class - with almost half saying that it still counts for "a lot". Over 50% of people said that class, not ability, greatly affects the way they are seen. Despite more than a decade of Labour in power social mobility in Britain has decreased, in fact the British middle classes are operating what is, in effect, a closed shop. For example our top universities are still, in the main, the preserve of a rich, well-connected elite. You may well remember the furore a few years ago when Bristol University was accused of gross discrimination and unfairness - spurred on by several influential columnists and leader writers - for introducing a 'fairer' criterion for admissions that would benefit pupils from poorer backgrounds. Often the real reasons why many left leaning journalists and politicians end up sending their sons and daughters to fee-paying schools are not based on the raw results of the local state schools but on a desire to ensure that their child has access to what the local comprehensive cannot provide: privilege, advantage and the opportunity to network. British public schools have always been a production line of the class system. They employ some of the best-qualified teachers, can raise their fees steadily, select their pupils, enjoy a growing endowment income from their benefactors and offer some of the most impressive sporting and extracurricular activities in the country. What's more they now recruit from a middle-class obsessed by perceived educational and social advantage: parents who are willing to take the bold decision to become part of the problem rather than seeking to be part of the solution. I often hear some of my friends and fellow "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility.
Sometimes I cannot help but feel that the perpetuation of class divisions in Britain really is part of a 'liberal conspiracy.' It seems clear to me that those who have influence, those who have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order that they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. It must surely be true for example that when middle-class parents abandon the state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs. Suspicion of the wealthy, the privileged and of the 'upper classes' is hardwired into the DNA of most of us who espouse left-leaning ideas and policies. Why? Because most of us believe that a politics that espouses equity and fairness, a politics that seeks opportunity for all and not just an elite few, is a politics that gives comfort to the afflicted and ends up afflicting the comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)