Something about today makes it feel that I am not to be here much longer, yesterday it still felt like I'd be here a little while. I would like to be here a few more days. The atmosphere is a little surreal in so far as the group of people I'm hanging out with here are here for the longer term save for myself and Nick. Me, I return whence I came back to my life on Thursday, house, children, work etc. Don't get me wrong in so many ways I appreciate what I have, I've worked hard enough for it after all. When I didn't have security it was something I craved, I've been looking for a chance to find somewhere to put down roots for ages, I guess when you wait for something for a long time and then you kind of achieve it you wonder what it is you ought to do next. I try to make up for this with meaningless possessions and gadgets, nothing more than playthings to prevent me getting bored. It doesn't work. This is the only thing that prevents me getting bored. Writing and politics is all there is really when it's broken down below the surface.
I guess it's the lack of adventure really, the uneventful security now of a job and a house. I could see trying to stabilise my finances as a challenge, an adventure but it bores me, money bores me, I need enough of it to survive, I don't like the struggle but anything else is overkill. I was talking to Warren about life and his plans and things. He's only a little older than me and he is currently working for a catering agency getting work on a sporadic basis and as a result he is forced to live on a shoestring. He is thinking of being a pedicab driver but what he really wants is to be a writer. He might just do it, he certainly has the potential, but then so many of us do. (I presumptuously lump myself into the 'us' here based on other people's views on my writing rather than my own.) Warren is prepared to take the risks which may just stand him in good stead, ultimately he needs to succeed to give everyone else hope, I wish him luck for it.
As for James, as time goes on he seems more and more the Peter Pan figure, slightly tragicomically I sense he doesn't have the inner peace he wants but then how hypocritical it would be of me to regard that from a distance. I have no idea how James actually makes any money, but he is responsible for the nightly dope intake, I think mainly because his dealer's just come out of chokey so he might have had to abstain for a while! Most of the evenings in the hostel has been spent sitting in a group of around 6 people getting caned and laughing for hours. It is easy to release such emotion when the next day is not beset with the notion of needing to find a job by the end of the week so you can pay for your bed for the next 7 days.
When I look at this situation I have to be thankful for the lifestyle I have, but I envy my friends here the sense of communal living and camaraderie that they have. They have to have it it's what gets you thru' the night I guess, not everyone gets involved, some keep themselves to themselves but to me it's infectious, in the short time I have been here already I have become concerned about people's welfare, Renata's job, Elias getting bleach poisoning or something (!) John and Warren and their lack of a decent job.
There are some who are eminently capable and just seem to have the fortitude or just the confidence to get thru' it and sort their lives out quite adequately. Elaine from Winnepeg is like this, she is quite assured, she has obviously been around long enough to have got a pretty good idea who she is, she has grown up, it, and the fact that she's a bit of a fox, make her really quite alluring. Her problem now is wondering whether to go back home where she'll be a big fish in a small pond to a degree, someone who has grown up and spent the necessary time doing so but as a result will be seen by many of those around her at home as someone 4-5 years behind everyone else because she hasn't settled down with a job or family yet, or should she stay away and see how things go and take that step into the unknown. It's a quandry I remember, whether I made the right choice...?
I am not really that concerned about Elias' welfare either, he's a very intelligent bloke, he is also mad as a fish but he's savvy and has a good dose of realism. A chemistry graduate who smokes the same pipe tobacco in his roll-ups as my Dad does in his pipe, l will not forget encountering him in the morning when he's in full toilet blitz mode and I haven't quite woken up yet. Every now and again in the evening when we're all horsing around he'll mutter some spanish phrase which for some reason I alway found hilarious. He is here for the Summer learning English, he doesn't actually seem to ever sleep it's up early do the bogs then off to classes then back home, bit of study, stay up till at least after the rest of us have gone to bed. the place wouldn't be the same without him.
There are also a hell of a lot of Poles here too. Some travelling, some looking to stay around a while. There's Krystof who busks on Calton Hill, he's a pleasant affable chap, and again I really hope that he is able to make a living playing his flute because I like to think there is still a chance to be Bohemian. Besides he is a courageous and proud man and I respect him for the principled way he lives his life. I saw him on Calton Hill on Monday, he had obviously been there a while and had collected around £5, it's slim pickings really because he plays very well. Adam and his girlfriend/sister I never did find out which were around most nights, I tired to keep Adam in decent beer, he seemed to enjoy it, the both of them are very friendly and they were practically the first people I met here. They don't speak a huge amount of English but more than I do Polish so conversations tended to involve sign language and bits, but it's nice to make the effort to talk to people that you wouldn't otherwise get the chance to.
Song Of The Day ~ The Libertines - Can't Stand Me Now
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Monday, July 04, 2005
G8 Edinburgh Day 5 - Anarchist Monday
I was sitting in the hostel conservatory eating brunch when the news came on about the anarchist demonstrators penned in by police in the city centre. The radio report had an interview with a Green party Scottish MSP who was in the thick of it. He said the police were keeping the crowd in a block and pushing them first up then down Princes st. This was the early afternoon barely an hour or so after the Carnival for Full Enjoyment must have started so I decided to go down and take a look.
The city centre appeared to be full of police, mostly in riot gear, and from various parts of the country. It seemed that the demonstration was being held by the police in one area with riot police and mounted police keeping them in and other lines of riot police keeping us from getting anywhere near them. Part of the area holding the “anarchists” had been well fenced off with heavy duty perspex shielding.
This was clearly not a reaction to something happening for nothing had yet happened. This was a clear strategy in advance, they had little or no intention of allowing the peaceful demonstration but because the numbers were relatively small they decided to deploy full-scale riot tactics and planned to cage people in and slowly drain them physically and mentally. I have seen this described in a German anarchist publication as the “Kesselstrategie” kettle strategy. Someone asked one of the policewomen how long the people had been in there. The policewoman haughtily replied that they (the police) had been there since 10am. Of course she neglected to add to that that they (the police) were not only getting paid but also getting shift changes not to mention fed and, most importantly on what was such a hot day, watered. The police had van-loads of water, crates of it staked up in the many riot section vans all over the place. Suffice to say this did not make it’s way to the inner part of the ‘kettle’ which must have been close to boiling dry at this point.
At one of the blockade lines of riot police a lone middle-aged lady sat down in protest. She was heckled by some of the observers, “Get a job” one man shouted, I looked at him, designer t-shirt and baseball cap and the anger at the bigotry of it all took over and I got the red (appropriately) mist. “Get a life” I shouted back at him, hardly inspiring I’ll grant you but you always come up with the better responses some 2 hours after the event don’t you?! The bloke wheeled round at me and his smug expression of his own importance had changed to one of surprise and irritation. I attempted to diffuse the situation and asked him why he’d said it. “they’re all fucking violent lunatics” he retorted. I pointed at the lady sitting in the road sifting through her bag whilst the line of riot police towered over her. “Does she look violent to you?” I asked “In fact who out of this scene looks violent, her or the big burly geezers standing there all tooled up and with their shields and helmets?” I was kind of pleased with my argument, it was a scoring shot no doubt but it fell on deaf ears. One girl who looked barely 16 turned around and started mouthing off about how “her business” had had to shut for 2 weeks because of all this. I asked her if she thought that the shut businesses were really going to lose a lot of money and go bankrupt, whether these businesses should be allowed to continue whilst there were people hungry and homeless. It was wasted rhetoric, she didn’t care, she just said something about only caring if she had enough make-up.
Shortly after that verbal fracas I went back to the hostel thinking that the situation would be dying down anyway since there must have been twice the number of police to protesters anyway. About an hour later John came in and said that it was still going on and he was itching to go and take a look, and since the Edinburgh Apple Centre had kindly let me use one of their iMacs for free to download my pictures from my memory card and burn them onto CD I decided to take the Dim 7 down to take some pics. I didn’t think there’d be a lot so left my 340MB microdrive at home and took only a 64MB card.
Back in the city centre the atmosphere was a lot tenser than it had been an hour or so earlier when I’d left. There was still a small group hemmed in by the looks of things on Princes St., they had now been there for over 6 hours. Other streets had been sectioned off by the police in full riot gear with mounted back up. A crowd had gathered around the entrance to Rose St. which runs parallel to Princes st. There were 3 battle lines of riot plod here and an angry noisy crowd was booing, whistling and chanting “Let them go, let them go”. On 3 occasions the police started banging their batons against their shield before rushing into the crowd, people panicked and ran back anarchists, tourists, press all in a crush to get away.
To begin with the crowd had been mostly interested bystanders, tourists and photographers with a small handful of anarchists, but the mood changed after the police started rushing, people got cross, they didn’t want to be rushed by the clearly over-exuberant filth, they thru’ plastic water bottles in disgust. (Later that moved to anything they could get their hands on including ripped up the street and throwing bricks. There more the police engaged the crowd in confrontation the angrier the mood became. The police response was to bus in many more riot police and they started to advance and take certain parts of the street. There were streams of police coming from everywhere, I saw at least 4 different Scottish forces as well as the Met, Manchester, Liverpool, S.Yorkshire, Lancashire etc. It was clear this was a pre-emptive police show of strength. Their tactics were to deal with the crowd as if in full riot situation and therefore it became almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.
John and I did some investigating of the side streets, this was mainly because the police were moving around all the time and boxing people in particular areas and we wanted to ensure we always had a bolt hole. Twice we actually found ourselves behind police lines right in between lines of riot police on either side, so their planning certainly wasn’t that good. Fortunately for them when 2 blokes come out behind lines of riot plod who haven’t noticed them yet their reaction is to look at each other and leg it back whence they came not to stand and fight.
Behind the lines on Princes St. riot police sat on their arses eating sandwiches and drinking water. John and I explored other areas around the top of the area but little was going on there except the busing of multiple reinforcements around. I have quite literally never seen so many police in all my life. We made our way back to Princes St. to find that the police had worked the last section of entrapped demonstrators onto South St. Andrew St. which seemed a bizarre choice since it contained the MacDonalds. I would have thought of all the streets to attempt to block anarchists and anti-capitalists that would have been the last choice. Perhaps they were hoping that some damage would be done. They were disappointed because it wasn’t. Interestingly MacDonalds did not have their windows boarded up tho’ they chose to do so later.
Shortly after this it looked as if things were dying down again properly, unsurprising since it was after 9pm and anyone there since the beginning must have been dangerously dehydrated. Apparently the police were getting worried that local people were coming out of the pubs to join in. Hardly surprising really since they (the police) had kept the demonstrators in for the whole afternoon and well into the evening.
I have now heard the aftermath, the news, the commentaries, the condemnations. 111 people are appearing in court in Edinburgh on charges ranging from breach of the peace to possessing a firearm I believe, altho' it has not been made clear how many of the 111 are locals. I was sickened and disgusted to hear Midge Ure passing his judgement and insinuating that that this sort of thing by mindless idiots was hijacking the Live8 spirit/message. Ure was not present for the demonstration, in fact he wasn't even at the MPH march on Sunday and yet he chose to pass judgement based on what were at best 2nd hand facts. For him to do this and somehow claim the moral high ground for Live8 I found especially vexing. Why? Because Live8 is all very well but as I have said before it is an establishment movement, it is not really seeking to solve the problem, it will do no more than scratch the surface. Now that would be fine if solving the problem was impossible or would take decades, but it isn't and it wouldn't. Why do you think all the politicians have been so quick to jump on the bandwagon claiming that the Live8 message is their message? The politicians and G8 leaders know it's bloody Christmas now, they've been let off the hook big time. George Monbiot summed it up on Sunday at the Stop The War tent, "What is Gordon Brown's campaign slogan in this, down with me and all I stand for?!"
For me the few days that I have been here have shown that when it comes to the vast majority of the anarchists there is a huge difference between going somewhere with the express intent on causing trouble and going somewhere knowing that there might be trouble and being ready to respond. One would not expect the police to turn the other cheek in the face of an onslaught of violence from any group so why should it be any different when it is the police that are perpetrating the violence. Given modern police tactics viz video and photo technology the black bloc approach is perfectly rational. I do not agree with anyone who seeks to perpetrate violence before exhausting any other means of negotiation but I completely understand those caught in a situation where the police have already decided that these are 'violent anarchists...and will be dealt with forcefully'
How many times have we seen football hooliganism breaking out into violence and destruction? And yet one would not think to presume that every conceivable football fan is a violent hooligan intent on criminal damage. One has to be consistent in this approach and currently there is very little consistency because the police have the powers to practically incarcerate anyone whose face they do not like, be it the colour or the fact that it is partially masked. If the police had any intention of preserving the Carnival of Full Enjoyment as a peaceful event they could have stopped the group of black-clad people that they monitored so closely, rather than allowing this group to join the rest of the people on Princes St. before declaring that the Black Bloc was a threat and therefore must be contained. Furthermore if so many of these people were such dangerous elements how is it that only 8 were remanded in custody? Again there is no clear indication of how many of the people on trial were local. Unprecedented bail conditions were attached on those 103 released stating that they could not go to Edinburgh or Glasgow or Stirling or anywhere near Gleneagles. As far as I know this is being appealed as so it should.
Song Of The Day ~ Kaiser Chiefs - I Predict A Riot
The city centre appeared to be full of police, mostly in riot gear, and from various parts of the country. It seemed that the demonstration was being held by the police in one area with riot police and mounted police keeping them in and other lines of riot police keeping us from getting anywhere near them. Part of the area holding the “anarchists” had been well fenced off with heavy duty perspex shielding.This was clearly not a reaction to something happening for nothing had yet happened. This was a clear strategy in advance, they had little or no intention of allowing the peaceful demonstration but because the numbers were relatively small they decided to deploy full-scale riot tactics and planned to cage people in and slowly drain them physically and mentally. I have seen this described in a German anarchist publication as the “Kesselstrategie” kettle strategy. Someone asked one of the policewomen how long the people had been in there. The policewoman haughtily replied that they (the police) had been there since 10am. Of course she neglected to add to that that they (the police) were not only getting paid but also getting shift changes not to mention fed and, most importantly on what was such a hot day, watered. The police had van-loads of water, crates of it staked up in the many riot section vans all over the place. Suffice to say this did not make it’s way to the inner part of the ‘kettle’ which must have been close to boiling dry at this point.
At one of the blockade lines of riot police a lone middle-aged lady sat down in protest. She was heckled by some of the observers, “Get a job” one man shouted, I looked at him, designer t-shirt and baseball cap and the anger at the bigotry of it all took over and I got the red (appropriately) mist. “Get a life” I shouted back at him, hardly inspiring I’ll grant you but you always come up with the better responses some 2 hours after the event don’t you?! The bloke wheeled round at me and his smug expression of his own importance had changed to one of surprise and irritation. I attempted to diffuse the situation and asked him why he’d said it. “they’re all fucking violent lunatics” he retorted. I pointed at the lady sitting in the road sifting through her bag whilst the line of riot police towered over her. “Does she look violent to you?” I asked “In fact who out of this scene looks violent, her or the big burly geezers standing there all tooled up and with their shields and helmets?” I was kind of pleased with my argument, it was a scoring shot no doubt but it fell on deaf ears. One girl who looked barely 16 turned around and started mouthing off about how “her business” had had to shut for 2 weeks because of all this. I asked her if she thought that the shut businesses were really going to lose a lot of money and go bankrupt, whether these businesses should be allowed to continue whilst there were people hungry and homeless. It was wasted rhetoric, she didn’t care, she just said something about only caring if she had enough make-up.
Shortly after that verbal fracas I went back to the hostel thinking that the situation would be dying down anyway since there must have been twice the number of police to protesters anyway. About an hour later John came in and said that it was still going on and he was itching to go and take a look, and since the Edinburgh Apple Centre had kindly let me use one of their iMacs for free to download my pictures from my memory card and burn them onto CD I decided to take the Dim 7 down to take some pics. I didn’t think there’d be a lot so left my 340MB microdrive at home and took only a 64MB card.
Back in the city centre the atmosphere was a lot tenser than it had been an hour or so earlier when I’d left. There was still a small group hemmed in by the looks of things on Princes St., they had now been there for over 6 hours. Other streets had been sectioned off by the police in full riot gear with mounted back up. A crowd had gathered around the entrance to Rose St. which runs parallel to Princes st. There were 3 battle lines of riot plod here and an angry noisy crowd was booing, whistling and chanting “Let them go, let them go”. On 3 occasions the police started banging their batons against their shield before rushing into the crowd, people panicked and ran back anarchists, tourists, press all in a crush to get away.
To begin with the crowd had been mostly interested bystanders, tourists and photographers with a small handful of anarchists, but the mood changed after the police started rushing, people got cross, they didn’t want to be rushed by the clearly over-exuberant filth, they thru’ plastic water bottles in disgust. (Later that moved to anything they could get their hands on including ripped up the street and throwing bricks. There more the police engaged the crowd in confrontation the angrier the mood became. The police response was to bus in many more riot police and they started to advance and take certain parts of the street. There were streams of police coming from everywhere, I saw at least 4 different Scottish forces as well as the Met, Manchester, Liverpool, S.Yorkshire, Lancashire etc. It was clear this was a pre-emptive police show of strength. Their tactics were to deal with the crowd as if in full riot situation and therefore it became almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.
John and I did some investigating of the side streets, this was mainly because the police were moving around all the time and boxing people in particular areas and we wanted to ensure we always had a bolt hole. Twice we actually found ourselves behind police lines right in between lines of riot police on either side, so their planning certainly wasn’t that good. Fortunately for them when 2 blokes come out behind lines of riot plod who haven’t noticed them yet their reaction is to look at each other and leg it back whence they came not to stand and fight.
Behind the lines on Princes St. riot police sat on their arses eating sandwiches and drinking water. John and I explored other areas around the top of the area but little was going on there except the busing of multiple reinforcements around. I have quite literally never seen so many police in all my life. We made our way back to Princes St. to find that the police had worked the last section of entrapped demonstrators onto South St. Andrew St. which seemed a bizarre choice since it contained the MacDonalds. I would have thought of all the streets to attempt to block anarchists and anti-capitalists that would have been the last choice. Perhaps they were hoping that some damage would be done. They were disappointed because it wasn’t. Interestingly MacDonalds did not have their windows boarded up tho’ they chose to do so later.
Shortly after this it looked as if things were dying down again properly, unsurprising since it was after 9pm and anyone there since the beginning must have been dangerously dehydrated. Apparently the police were getting worried that local people were coming out of the pubs to join in. Hardly surprising really since they (the police) had kept the demonstrators in for the whole afternoon and well into the evening.
I have now heard the aftermath, the news, the commentaries, the condemnations. 111 people are appearing in court in Edinburgh on charges ranging from breach of the peace to possessing a firearm I believe, altho' it has not been made clear how many of the 111 are locals. I was sickened and disgusted to hear Midge Ure passing his judgement and insinuating that that this sort of thing by mindless idiots was hijacking the Live8 spirit/message. Ure was not present for the demonstration, in fact he wasn't even at the MPH march on Sunday and yet he chose to pass judgement based on what were at best 2nd hand facts. For him to do this and somehow claim the moral high ground for Live8 I found especially vexing. Why? Because Live8 is all very well but as I have said before it is an establishment movement, it is not really seeking to solve the problem, it will do no more than scratch the surface. Now that would be fine if solving the problem was impossible or would take decades, but it isn't and it wouldn't. Why do you think all the politicians have been so quick to jump on the bandwagon claiming that the Live8 message is their message? The politicians and G8 leaders know it's bloody Christmas now, they've been let off the hook big time. George Monbiot summed it up on Sunday at the Stop The War tent, "What is Gordon Brown's campaign slogan in this, down with me and all I stand for?!"
For me the few days that I have been here have shown that when it comes to the vast majority of the anarchists there is a huge difference between going somewhere with the express intent on causing trouble and going somewhere knowing that there might be trouble and being ready to respond. One would not expect the police to turn the other cheek in the face of an onslaught of violence from any group so why should it be any different when it is the police that are perpetrating the violence. Given modern police tactics viz video and photo technology the black bloc approach is perfectly rational. I do not agree with anyone who seeks to perpetrate violence before exhausting any other means of negotiation but I completely understand those caught in a situation where the police have already decided that these are 'violent anarchists...and will be dealt with forcefully'
How many times have we seen football hooliganism breaking out into violence and destruction? And yet one would not think to presume that every conceivable football fan is a violent hooligan intent on criminal damage. One has to be consistent in this approach and currently there is very little consistency because the police have the powers to practically incarcerate anyone whose face they do not like, be it the colour or the fact that it is partially masked. If the police had any intention of preserving the Carnival of Full Enjoyment as a peaceful event they could have stopped the group of black-clad people that they monitored so closely, rather than allowing this group to join the rest of the people on Princes St. before declaring that the Black Bloc was a threat and therefore must be contained. Furthermore if so many of these people were such dangerous elements how is it that only 8 were remanded in custody? Again there is no clear indication of how many of the people on trial were local. Unprecedented bail conditions were attached on those 103 released stating that they could not go to Edinburgh or Glasgow or Stirling or anywhere near Gleneagles. As far as I know this is being appealed as so it should.
Song Of The Day ~ Kaiser Chiefs - I Predict A Riot
Sunday, July 03, 2005
G8 Edinburgh Day 4b - Naming Of The Dead, Shaming Of The Responsible
Sometimes power doesn’t come with large numbers, sometimes actions alone are the most powerful. The anti-war march this evening was a more select band than had been the day before at the MPH march. A few thousand politically aware and active with more singing and chanting. We made our way from the bottom of the Mount up Calton Hill, a beautiful spot and there the dead on both sides were read out in lists by the well-known and the not so well-known.
The victims names and often their ages even sometimes the way they died, it was a poignant reminder to us all that the powers that be would have us detached from this war, have it all going on far away where we don’t need to think about it. To hear children read the names of Iraqi children their own age was very powerful indeed almost too much, but that’s how it should be, these children have often left relatives behind altho’ sometimes you hear on the list a series of names clearly of the same family where perhaps all of them have been wiped out.
Earlier in the day I had been to the Respect public meeting in town & I met George Galloway for the first time, as the meeting was a fairly close-knit affair, so that was another handshake to cross off my list anyway (just Chomsky to go!). I bought his book and he signed it for me. Colin Fox was also at the meeting, he the new spokesperson for the Scottish Socialists who have recently been fined a weeks wages and all parliamentary privileges including the wages of their staff for a protest in the parliamentary chamber. I think it was either George or John Rees who said if Colin had been supporting hunting the fox rather than called fox he could have made a protest in parliament and got off scot free! I think there were around 150 people at the meeting and because I came in late and had my camera with me I was asked where I wanted to be to take pictures. I assured them that I wanted to stay and they showed me right to the front. Of course I did want to take photos but the power of mine is maybe a little less than they might have thought by the calibre of camera I have with me. Present at the meeting were Rose Gentil who’s son Duncan died in Iraq and Heidi Giuliani whose son Carlo was killed at the G8 protests in 2001. Rose Gentil was later on Calton Hill reading out a list of British servicemen killed in Iraq, a list during which she paused almost in disbelief or just emotion when she reached her son’s name. Again it was a timely reminder of the many ramifications of this war to all concerned, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers are killed indiscriminately.
G8 Edinburgh Day 4 - The Misfits
"We're all a bunch of misfits but we fit in here," said Warren "you seem a good addition to our band" he went on. There are certain times in one's life where the most seemingly insignificant of conversations can mean a lot more than it would appear on the surface. It was a touching sentiment and one which I shared, in the couple of days since my arrival I feel I have settled in for myself and with those around including the regulars who have been here for up to a few months. It's a group that has a lot of laughter, horsing around, dead pan comedy and everyone's enigmatic little traits. Everyone is quite different and yet here we all find ourselves. It is easy to see how one might apply the misfits term and yet realistically the fact that people do fit in here gives them a chance to belong if only for a short while.
I don't know if it is one of those short term things, in a way like Rostock was where because there is a finite amount of time the pressure to conform is a little less, no past and in a way no future, carpe diem in its truest sense. As a result the appeal of staying here is quite tangible and understandable when viewed superficially. However one cannot forget that for the regulars here life is not without its trials. Work is the principle cause of this since the money that we all depend on to survive is tied up with being able to find the work. Here work seems to be sporadic and sometimes scarce to non-existent. John, for example has lost his job as shop security because he was subject to the last in first out strategy. Ironic really when you think that Edinburgh is currently in a high state of alert especially the shops on Princes St. Warren does catering agency work, so when something comes up he can be ok for a couple of days but a lean time can be costly and the quality of the work is variable. I remember the agency side of things only too well and I tend to be thankful that, hopefully, that part of my life is behind me. Elias is quite quite mad, he makes me laugh all the time, his laugh envelopes his whole person, he smokes pipe tobacco and uses polish swear words in tandem with his native spanish. He cleans the toilets here with gusto at stupid o'clock in the morning. Renata is the impromptu mother of the group, made so because she actually works in the hostel doing the reception desk, because she has to be responsible much of the time it makes it all the more amusing when she lets her hair down. She is another part of the new EU member states popullation influx coming in and doing back-breaking jobs for little remuneration. And then there's James...
James is the ringleader when it comes to the horseplay, a mad old queen with appaling taste in music but potfuls of charisma, he lives here because it was a toss-up between him keeping his flat or his horses keeping their stables, the horses won out and I respect him standing up for his principles on this one. James is definitely the hostel's enigma and I had chats with him on a variety of subjects. He has fox-hunted and is very pro that activity, but anti hare coursing and badger baiting. His principles when it comes to rural life are based on empirical experience so I have no problem with him holding them, I just choose to disagree with some. I'll be here a week in all and I know I'll never figure James out. That's the way it should be, preserve some of the mystery of all the characters here, retain the idea that when I leave there'll be lots of stuff going on that I'm going to miss out on. That'll make me appreciate all the more having been part of it albeit for a short time.
Friday & Saturday nights were ones you simply had to be there, the sort of madcap antics fuelled through a haze of drink and dope. As I had my camera ready and movie mode I will now have snippets to share and preserve for posterity. It was the ideal way to capture the moment, unfortunately having now filled up my entire microdrive I need to figure out a way of downloading the pics so I can continue snapping.
I never did the way of life of going to a place unplanned and seeing what happened. I should have done it, would have been a good way to get around and find things including perhaps myself. Even inter-rail was boundaried by the fact that it was only for a month so it was but a microcosm of what it could have been. You stay no more than a few days anywhere, rarely longer than a week in 1 country. Of course I could have decided to take my inter-rail card and travel around with a view to staying somewhere when it was done, but that was a step too far too great a risk.
Since some of the people have been here for weeks, even months, it has given the place and them a sort of stability and routine. The reasons they have ended up here are as diverse as the people themselves.
I don't know if it is one of those short term things, in a way like Rostock was where because there is a finite amount of time the pressure to conform is a little less, no past and in a way no future, carpe diem in its truest sense. As a result the appeal of staying here is quite tangible and understandable when viewed superficially. However one cannot forget that for the regulars here life is not without its trials. Work is the principle cause of this since the money that we all depend on to survive is tied up with being able to find the work. Here work seems to be sporadic and sometimes scarce to non-existent. John, for example has lost his job as shop security because he was subject to the last in first out strategy. Ironic really when you think that Edinburgh is currently in a high state of alert especially the shops on Princes St. Warren does catering agency work, so when something comes up he can be ok for a couple of days but a lean time can be costly and the quality of the work is variable. I remember the agency side of things only too well and I tend to be thankful that, hopefully, that part of my life is behind me. Elias is quite quite mad, he makes me laugh all the time, his laugh envelopes his whole person, he smokes pipe tobacco and uses polish swear words in tandem with his native spanish. He cleans the toilets here with gusto at stupid o'clock in the morning. Renata is the impromptu mother of the group, made so because she actually works in the hostel doing the reception desk, because she has to be responsible much of the time it makes it all the more amusing when she lets her hair down. She is another part of the new EU member states popullation influx coming in and doing back-breaking jobs for little remuneration. And then there's James...
James is the ringleader when it comes to the horseplay, a mad old queen with appaling taste in music but potfuls of charisma, he lives here because it was a toss-up between him keeping his flat or his horses keeping their stables, the horses won out and I respect him standing up for his principles on this one. James is definitely the hostel's enigma and I had chats with him on a variety of subjects. He has fox-hunted and is very pro that activity, but anti hare coursing and badger baiting. His principles when it comes to rural life are based on empirical experience so I have no problem with him holding them, I just choose to disagree with some. I'll be here a week in all and I know I'll never figure James out. That's the way it should be, preserve some of the mystery of all the characters here, retain the idea that when I leave there'll be lots of stuff going on that I'm going to miss out on. That'll make me appreciate all the more having been part of it albeit for a short time.
Friday & Saturday nights were ones you simply had to be there, the sort of madcap antics fuelled through a haze of drink and dope. As I had my camera ready and movie mode I will now have snippets to share and preserve for posterity. It was the ideal way to capture the moment, unfortunately having now filled up my entire microdrive I need to figure out a way of downloading the pics so I can continue snapping.
I never did the way of life of going to a place unplanned and seeing what happened. I should have done it, would have been a good way to get around and find things including perhaps myself. Even inter-rail was boundaried by the fact that it was only for a month so it was but a microcosm of what it could have been. You stay no more than a few days anywhere, rarely longer than a week in 1 country. Of course I could have decided to take my inter-rail card and travel around with a view to staying somewhere when it was done, but that was a step too far too great a risk.
Since some of the people have been here for weeks, even months, it has given the place and them a sort of stability and routine. The reasons they have ended up here are as diverse as the people themselves.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
G8 Edinburgh Day 3 - We Are Gathered Here Today
It was immense at least double the 100,000 expected and probably more than that. Nick my Australian marching comrade and I went down to the Meadows around 11.30, I'd made a reckie around 11am and it was already packed. People were milling around stalls and tents and gathering on the middle path getting ready for the march and there seemed to be thousands of them, there were practically no spaces across the Meadows as a whole it was just awash with white-shirted people. We joined the queing throng around 12.15 and there was barely any movement, occasional inching forward. At 12.30 we were told over the tannoy that the first set of people that had left the Meadows were now arriving back in the Meadows again having marched the ring around. We had, they said now completed the ring around the city, it was a ring that was to remain constant for well over 5 hours.
It wasn't until about 2pm that we finally got going. We stopped in the shadow of the back of the castle around 3 for the minutes silence and made it back to the Meadows sometime around 3.30. There were still thousands of people it seemed who hadn't even set off yet. In fact we saw people still marching into the Meadows having completed their circuit up to about 7pm. The only march I can compare it with for sheer size and atmosphere was the London Feb 03 Anti-War march so that goes some way to describing the semblence of significance and enormity of it all. As a proportion of the population of the city we were at about 1/4 which is like getting 2.5 million in London, it's a pretty stunning achievement on balance.
After the march at the Meadows, Billy Bragg did a couple of numbers and Bianca Jagger spoke. There was a Stop the War stage where Georges Galloway and Monbiot spoke. Nick hadn't heard George Galloway before and George was on good old fashioned firebrand form so he didn't disappoint. I said a brief hello to "my mate" John Rees who also did stirring stuff from the platform.
The atmosphere during the march and for the whole time down at the Meadows was congenial and carnival like. The official figure bandied around now is around 250,000. From what we hear there was only 1 arrest and one point where the police sectioned off a group of 30 odd around Buccleuch St. It is unclear exactly why they did this but knowing the Plod it was probably the fact that some people were carrying the wrong flag or dressed in black or whatever. There cannot have been any real serious reason since no arrests followed.
I went pretty mad with the camera, took photos and movies and all sorts. I hope at least some of the pics will give an impression of what it was like to be on the march. Trouble is I may need to buy some more memory, I don't have a lot left and I need to ensure that I have some for the last day at Gleneagles.
I didn't really watch Live8 to be honest, it all seemed a little tame in comparison with what we were doing, more of an assuaging guilt ceremony rather than something designed to achieve. The pictures of Geldof and Blair only serve to reinforce this.
Song Of The Day ~ The Magic Numbers - Forever Lost
Friday, July 01, 2005
G8 Edinburgh Day 2 - A Meal & A Place To Stay
There are quite a few little shops near the hostel where I'm staying. On my arrival last night the staff kindly showed me where to avail of beer and fish n chips and I started to feel better after that.
I had expected the hostel to be rammed full of people just here for the demos, after all there were precious few other places available in the city. Instead I appeared to be the only one and everyone else was either tourist or staying to find work. This gave the hostel a nice feeling of continuity. Except in my room, an 8 bed dorm which was empty save for me. The hostel is fully booked tonight tho' so there may be many more of us. There are people who have been here for months and I like the semblence of the hostel running as a collective. The atmosphere within reminds me of inter-railing how I remember it from the late 80s early 90s.
It makes me realise how much I miss that sporadic nomad existence that I used to have. At the time it was partially through choice and partially thru' simply not knowing where I wanted to end up. You learn about yourself in those situations and in your interaction with others and I always enjoyed both the challenge and trying figure it all out.
Another thing I like about Edinburgh is that in spite of having to at first pay always in English money that I brought with me I have only ever received Scottish money in return. It's as if the English money is vapourised upon the moment of entering the Scottish tills, I don't know why it amuses me so but it does.
Edinburgh is a good city to visit. My overriding impression so far is that it is very tall, there are lots of imposing 19th century dark stone buildings, many stories high. Some go from the lower part of town to the upper part. Obviously there is the inevitable tourist area around the castle and the Royal Mile with it's "authentic Scottish" souvenir shops selling Tam O'Shanters with added ginger mullets, everything under the sun with a tartan pattern and of course kilts.
It feels a lot more laid back than London. Perhaps I am simply more at ease due to the current influx, there are of course a lot of people here now who are "my lot" if you like. Of all the times for a long-haired leftie loon with politically inflamatory attire to feel at home in the city this must be as good as it gets. It's always a nice feeling to seem to fit in. All in all tho' the city has a less crushed more positive feel about it. I would be interested to contrast this with how it would be the rest of the year.
Of course the minor misfortune that seems to follow me round like a bad smell caught up again. I had been blithely wandering around town taking pictures thinking that for much of the rest of the week I may have other things on my mind. I took some grand pictures including some of people in particular situation the like of which you cannot replicate you either get it or you don't. My plan was to rattle off a film from the East German Praktica BC1 I got for £15 off ebay and to get it developed whilst I am here so as to assure that it works properly. Otherwise I'll need to take the Minolta around with me everywhere and there are certain places I'd rather not have it just in case. Anyway as I strolled around I noticed that the picture counter on the Praktica had reached 26 which seemed strange for a 24 exposure film. I tried winding the film back to find that it seemed to vanish all too quickly.
So a brief period of reflection later I realised that I could either go home with nothing to show for it or do the whole thing again including the walk along the entire Royal Mile twice. I bought another film and trusted the fact that since the city seems photogenic I would be able to find things that maybe I hadn't seen last time to make up for those I'd lost. Sadly the Make Poverty History double decker bus on the Royal Mile and the 2 gents in formal Scottish dress leaning on the fence having a fag break at the castle will be pictures that remain only in my head.
Pleasingly there seem to be a great deal more events going on this week than I had thought. Sunday there is to be an Anti-War demo whilst on Monday an Anarchist demo and obviously tomorrow and Wed were the ones I knew and came for. The city and its regular inhabitants are gearing up for it all. The feeling is of mild to severe apprehension as to whether there will be any trouble. The owner of the hostel came in half cut today and chatted at me for some time about how worried he was about the hostel being trashed by anarchists and the like. I tried to reassure him that it would be fine and the anarchists had no reason to cause any damage to his hostel the like of which they will probably be staying in themselves. I have to say I hope I'm right, there are so many establishment figures who would derive so much political capital from being able to brand us thugs and hooligans and therefore giving themselves an excuse to write off the actual message that we are here to deliver. They'd bloody love that, the bastards, it's the hysteria caused by the establishment and the police about the nature of the anachists that has made local residents so fearful about this anyway. We must not give those idiots the chance to bury their head in the sand yet again as they have done year after year from Seattle through Genoa and Evian. Of course they will try to brand us all as violent militants in an effort to dilute the cause and make it seem less attractive to those who may be thinking of joining us in what is becoming a noticable wave of public dissent.
What do the next few days have in store? Are we sitting on the verge of something powerful, something of such significance? How are we going to get there, will it be peaceful or is it going to be like Seattle and Genoa before? Am I ready for the consequences if it turns out to be the latter? This is something I have had to think very seriously about. As a political, non-violent coward I have always shied away from violent confrontation because a) I genuinely don't believe in it being the answer and b) I fear it and the lack of being able to exert any control over it. The randomness. Yet I know that the coming week more than any other occasions I have taken part in heralds the potential to be caught up in confrontation. This is just something you have to learn to accept and get on with it. It's all very well to have principles if they are never tested and you are not forced to defend the tenets you stand for. Not going on the demos, not coming to Edinburgh was just not an option. Besides, personally I think there will be too many well-known faces for anything to happen during the main events. Monday is an unknown quantity. We shall see.
People have started arriving in the hostel in numbers now. The tranquility of my empty dorm will be broken by the nocturnal noises of 7 other people.
Song Of The Day ~ James Blunt - Wise Men
I had expected the hostel to be rammed full of people just here for the demos, after all there were precious few other places available in the city. Instead I appeared to be the only one and everyone else was either tourist or staying to find work. This gave the hostel a nice feeling of continuity. Except in my room, an 8 bed dorm which was empty save for me. The hostel is fully booked tonight tho' so there may be many more of us. There are people who have been here for months and I like the semblence of the hostel running as a collective. The atmosphere within reminds me of inter-railing how I remember it from the late 80s early 90s.
It makes me realise how much I miss that sporadic nomad existence that I used to have. At the time it was partially through choice and partially thru' simply not knowing where I wanted to end up. You learn about yourself in those situations and in your interaction with others and I always enjoyed both the challenge and trying figure it all out.
Another thing I like about Edinburgh is that in spite of having to at first pay always in English money that I brought with me I have only ever received Scottish money in return. It's as if the English money is vapourised upon the moment of entering the Scottish tills, I don't know why it amuses me so but it does.
Edinburgh is a good city to visit. My overriding impression so far is that it is very tall, there are lots of imposing 19th century dark stone buildings, many stories high. Some go from the lower part of town to the upper part. Obviously there is the inevitable tourist area around the castle and the Royal Mile with it's "authentic Scottish" souvenir shops selling Tam O'Shanters with added ginger mullets, everything under the sun with a tartan pattern and of course kilts.
It feels a lot more laid back than London. Perhaps I am simply more at ease due to the current influx, there are of course a lot of people here now who are "my lot" if you like. Of all the times for a long-haired leftie loon with politically inflamatory attire to feel at home in the city this must be as good as it gets. It's always a nice feeling to seem to fit in. All in all tho' the city has a less crushed more positive feel about it. I would be interested to contrast this with how it would be the rest of the year.
Of course the minor misfortune that seems to follow me round like a bad smell caught up again. I had been blithely wandering around town taking pictures thinking that for much of the rest of the week I may have other things on my mind. I took some grand pictures including some of people in particular situation the like of which you cannot replicate you either get it or you don't. My plan was to rattle off a film from the East German Praktica BC1 I got for £15 off ebay and to get it developed whilst I am here so as to assure that it works properly. Otherwise I'll need to take the Minolta around with me everywhere and there are certain places I'd rather not have it just in case. Anyway as I strolled around I noticed that the picture counter on the Praktica had reached 26 which seemed strange for a 24 exposure film. I tried winding the film back to find that it seemed to vanish all too quickly.
So a brief period of reflection later I realised that I could either go home with nothing to show for it or do the whole thing again including the walk along the entire Royal Mile twice. I bought another film and trusted the fact that since the city seems photogenic I would be able to find things that maybe I hadn't seen last time to make up for those I'd lost. Sadly the Make Poverty History double decker bus on the Royal Mile and the 2 gents in formal Scottish dress leaning on the fence having a fag break at the castle will be pictures that remain only in my head.
Pleasingly there seem to be a great deal more events going on this week than I had thought. Sunday there is to be an Anti-War demo whilst on Monday an Anarchist demo and obviously tomorrow and Wed were the ones I knew and came for. The city and its regular inhabitants are gearing up for it all. The feeling is of mild to severe apprehension as to whether there will be any trouble. The owner of the hostel came in half cut today and chatted at me for some time about how worried he was about the hostel being trashed by anarchists and the like. I tried to reassure him that it would be fine and the anarchists had no reason to cause any damage to his hostel the like of which they will probably be staying in themselves. I have to say I hope I'm right, there are so many establishment figures who would derive so much political capital from being able to brand us thugs and hooligans and therefore giving themselves an excuse to write off the actual message that we are here to deliver. They'd bloody love that, the bastards, it's the hysteria caused by the establishment and the police about the nature of the anachists that has made local residents so fearful about this anyway. We must not give those idiots the chance to bury their head in the sand yet again as they have done year after year from Seattle through Genoa and Evian. Of course they will try to brand us all as violent militants in an effort to dilute the cause and make it seem less attractive to those who may be thinking of joining us in what is becoming a noticable wave of public dissent.
What do the next few days have in store? Are we sitting on the verge of something powerful, something of such significance? How are we going to get there, will it be peaceful or is it going to be like Seattle and Genoa before? Am I ready for the consequences if it turns out to be the latter? This is something I have had to think very seriously about. As a political, non-violent coward I have always shied away from violent confrontation because a) I genuinely don't believe in it being the answer and b) I fear it and the lack of being able to exert any control over it. The randomness. Yet I know that the coming week more than any other occasions I have taken part in heralds the potential to be caught up in confrontation. This is just something you have to learn to accept and get on with it. It's all very well to have principles if they are never tested and you are not forced to defend the tenets you stand for. Not going on the demos, not coming to Edinburgh was just not an option. Besides, personally I think there will be too many well-known faces for anything to happen during the main events. Monday is an unknown quantity. We shall see.
People have started arriving in the hostel in numbers now. The tranquility of my empty dorm will be broken by the nocturnal noises of 7 other people.
Song Of The Day ~ James Blunt - Wise Men
Thursday, June 30, 2005
G8 Edinburgh Day 1 - Karmageddon
So I’ve made it. I got here ok, I’ve been here a little over 12 hours & already I feel the decision to come fully vindicated. The atmosphere here in the city is very much one of a city building up for something big.
It has not been without it’s hiccups. At the airport my departure was delayed on account of my foresight to have remembered to pack a corkscrew. This was deemed an offensive weapon & presumably a long-haired geezer getting on a flight to Edinburgh with a “sharp” could have resulted in pandemonium were I to unsheath the 1 inch blade. I mean I could have demanded that they fly the plane immediately to I dunno, Glasgow or something, I can see how that might have been a worry!
Admittedly the last time I was in an airport I unwittingly caused a security alert by leaving a small briefcase with a sony walkman and some cassettes by the X-Ray machine in the fluster of being late for the flight. Yes, I had arrived at the airport with very little time to spare for my flight, this was lessened by the fact that there was no way I was going to miss out on my 200 fags from the duty-free! They asked me to take my jacket off at security, and then my money belt etc. and I got all stressed and miscounted the items I was picking up in my haste. Naturally I paid for my impetuosity as I had to spend the next few months with 3 tapes which happened to be in another bag, rather than the planned 40 odd that I should have had. There is only so much time you can listen to the same music no matter how good it is.
So I digress, back to Edinburgh, I survived the flight and got on the convenient airport bus and the driver, who was English, told me not only where to get off on Princes St. but the bus no. of the one I wanted from there. It is a pity that the driver of the 41 was blissfully unaware of his route & told me he hadn’t a clue where Melville drive or Argyle Place were and therefore seemed assured that he didn’t go there in his bus. Whether or not this was some payback for the Battle of Cullodden or some other such sassenach crimes agin’ the Scot I know not, but I should have worn one of my Ireland shirts to be safe! So, I found myself devoid of both bus and clue in a city in which I had never been and with a woefully inferior map and carrying an ‘all eventualities covered (except anything requiring a corkscrew)’ which was obviously quite hefty. I had a pretty fair idea that I needed to be South of Princes St. but there is something of an obstacle to this, those familiar with the city will be ahead of me on this one, namely a big fecking castle in the way!
It seems the street I was looking for was totally off the radar for native Scots, of all the people I asked everyone seemed to have a different direction for me. I was sent in all sorts of random directions, none of which seemed quite right. Irritatingly had I just followed my instincts I would have ended up in the right place. But nay, I placed my trust in those that lived and worked in the place thinking they may know more about it than I who had only just arrived, silly twisted boy!
I admitted defeat in the end and caught a black cab only to find that sure enough there was a 41 bus stop around the corner.
Song Of The Day ~ Velvet Revolver - Fall To Pieces
Monday, August 09, 2004
Open University - Idiots Politics Session 4b - Violent Insurrection
The last session has raised a particular question that needs perhaps to be tackled in its own subsection, call it the seminar that follows the lecture to stick with the OU analogy if you like!
There are many groups who struggle against what they see as oppression. We may indeed agree with many of their motives but we may not agree with their modus operandi. Obviously the most prevalent of these examples is when it comes to violent insurrection.
In an ideal world everyone would be represented and things would be equal without being homogenous. Without getting into an argument about how possible this may be and to what degree desirable I think we can all safely agree that it is not the case now. This means there are many marginalised and disenfranchised and they have a right to struggle for recognition, again I don't think this is especially contentious. What is more the repressive armies and police of the state constitute quite legitimate targets and any focus on insurrection should primarily be aimed here. The problem comes if such resistance to the actual bodies of the State proves ineffectual.
Remember that the armies of the state rarely play by the rules when it suits them. Take the Israelis the most heavily-armed and crack-trained military unit in the world. Occupying large areas of land in defience of international law they flout the rules and regulations laid down and whilst they may be censured for doing so they are allowed to continue because there remains the upholding of the 'might is right' principle. They think nothing of obliterating whole areas of residential -?- in order to secure 1 "legitimate" target. The Palestinians would certainly be highly unlikely to inflict serious military damage against the Israeli army because it is not a level playing field, they have neither the hardware not the training nor the manpower and therefore they fight in the way they know how.
So in such a one-sided conflict it does seem rather bourgeous to sit and eulogise about only attacking military targets etc. I do not deny it is right as a utopian strategy, but I question it's effectiveness and therefore its relevance in the modern world. Not to do so is I feel not to understand the nature of the problem, it labels such conflicts as wrong because of the methods without necessarily the acknowledgement of why these methods are adopted and the cause for which they stand. It is, for example, all very right and proper to condemn Al Queda bombers for their targeting of civilians but one must be very careful not to be swept up in that tide of condemnation that merely labels these men as mad extremists and begins a path to reprisals and retaliation. After all it IS as a direct result of US foreign policy that the West is so unpopular and not just in the Islamic world but across swathes of the Far East and Central & South America where their self-indulgant interventionist policies have ridden roughshod over democracies and the needs/wishes of the people for the good of the US establishment. Let us not forget that the US has the most-equipped Air Force in the world and has used it to bomb over 50 countries since the Second World War. It seems a large number, how many do you think you can name? In the face of B-52s and such like can one really be so self-righteous as to tell disperate groups of ordinary men that they may only attack legitimate military targets? It's a hell of a choice. It is easy for me because I sit in my house and I can just about get by from day to day and I have just enough education to perform as it were. Would I have the luxury of such circumspection if I lived in Ramala and Israeli shells were frequently blowing up parts of the neighbourhood? Or if I was an African or South American marxist seeing my country starve because of the raping of resources by the West and the corruption of the governments that support them. Would I still feel that talking about the problem or being nobly detached from engagement empowered me in any way shape of form?
Another aspect to add to this question is that the world's major powers now run on economic might and it is precisely this force and power that is used to subjugate so many. Should this make Wall St. a legitimate target, or the World Bank building, the WTO, the IMF offices? I feel the case for this is strong based on the widescale damage these organisations cause, and yet whilst I would certainly baulk at the possible loss of innocent lives, withdrawing from any conflict in this area may yet result in the death of thousands, maybe millions more. Do we not have to strike a balance? At what point do the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few? Is there such a point, is it static or fluid? I think the only conclusion of sorts that I can come up with is that this has to be a choice for the individual, each of us may face it and based on our characters and experience we may make different decisions, history or perhaps your God may judge you for your actions. If we apply our usual tenets to any such situation it should help us decide what is right. To me the Gandhi "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" quote is such a powerful mantra that it would have to take a very serious cause for me to reconsider that approach. After all it was Gandhi who achieved much with non-violent confrontation. I would like to think this approach can always work but I fear there are many situations where it may not and then the question raised is one of whether you are prepared to stand up for your principles and to what extent you feel prepared to take that stand. Will I ever choose violence over peace to try to achieve what I believe is right, definitely not, but will I defend what I ardently believe in, what I consider paramount for me and my family, by any means necessary, I would like to think I might find the courage to do so should the occasion ever arise.
I would like to end by citing an article of a fellow (!) academic, Abhinav Aima, which was brought to my attention by my twin and whose prose is a deal more eloquent than mine and goes some way to explaining the roots of the current Middle Eastern problem within the context of this session.
There are many groups who struggle against what they see as oppression. We may indeed agree with many of their motives but we may not agree with their modus operandi. Obviously the most prevalent of these examples is when it comes to violent insurrection.
In an ideal world everyone would be represented and things would be equal without being homogenous. Without getting into an argument about how possible this may be and to what degree desirable I think we can all safely agree that it is not the case now. This means there are many marginalised and disenfranchised and they have a right to struggle for recognition, again I don't think this is especially contentious. What is more the repressive armies and police of the state constitute quite legitimate targets and any focus on insurrection should primarily be aimed here. The problem comes if such resistance to the actual bodies of the State proves ineffectual.
Remember that the armies of the state rarely play by the rules when it suits them. Take the Israelis the most heavily-armed and crack-trained military unit in the world. Occupying large areas of land in defience of international law they flout the rules and regulations laid down and whilst they may be censured for doing so they are allowed to continue because there remains the upholding of the 'might is right' principle. They think nothing of obliterating whole areas of residential -?- in order to secure 1 "legitimate" target. The Palestinians would certainly be highly unlikely to inflict serious military damage against the Israeli army because it is not a level playing field, they have neither the hardware not the training nor the manpower and therefore they fight in the way they know how.
So in such a one-sided conflict it does seem rather bourgeous to sit and eulogise about only attacking military targets etc. I do not deny it is right as a utopian strategy, but I question it's effectiveness and therefore its relevance in the modern world. Not to do so is I feel not to understand the nature of the problem, it labels such conflicts as wrong because of the methods without necessarily the acknowledgement of why these methods are adopted and the cause for which they stand. It is, for example, all very right and proper to condemn Al Queda bombers for their targeting of civilians but one must be very careful not to be swept up in that tide of condemnation that merely labels these men as mad extremists and begins a path to reprisals and retaliation. After all it IS as a direct result of US foreign policy that the West is so unpopular and not just in the Islamic world but across swathes of the Far East and Central & South America where their self-indulgant interventionist policies have ridden roughshod over democracies and the needs/wishes of the people for the good of the US establishment. Let us not forget that the US has the most-equipped Air Force in the world and has used it to bomb over 50 countries since the Second World War. It seems a large number, how many do you think you can name? In the face of B-52s and such like can one really be so self-righteous as to tell disperate groups of ordinary men that they may only attack legitimate military targets? It's a hell of a choice. It is easy for me because I sit in my house and I can just about get by from day to day and I have just enough education to perform as it were. Would I have the luxury of such circumspection if I lived in Ramala and Israeli shells were frequently blowing up parts of the neighbourhood? Or if I was an African or South American marxist seeing my country starve because of the raping of resources by the West and the corruption of the governments that support them. Would I still feel that talking about the problem or being nobly detached from engagement empowered me in any way shape of form?
Another aspect to add to this question is that the world's major powers now run on economic might and it is precisely this force and power that is used to subjugate so many. Should this make Wall St. a legitimate target, or the World Bank building, the WTO, the IMF offices? I feel the case for this is strong based on the widescale damage these organisations cause, and yet whilst I would certainly baulk at the possible loss of innocent lives, withdrawing from any conflict in this area may yet result in the death of thousands, maybe millions more. Do we not have to strike a balance? At what point do the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few? Is there such a point, is it static or fluid? I think the only conclusion of sorts that I can come up with is that this has to be a choice for the individual, each of us may face it and based on our characters and experience we may make different decisions, history or perhaps your God may judge you for your actions. If we apply our usual tenets to any such situation it should help us decide what is right. To me the Gandhi "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" quote is such a powerful mantra that it would have to take a very serious cause for me to reconsider that approach. After all it was Gandhi who achieved much with non-violent confrontation. I would like to think this approach can always work but I fear there are many situations where it may not and then the question raised is one of whether you are prepared to stand up for your principles and to what extent you feel prepared to take that stand. Will I ever choose violence over peace to try to achieve what I believe is right, definitely not, but will I defend what I ardently believe in, what I consider paramount for me and my family, by any means necessary, I would like to think I might find the courage to do so should the occasion ever arise.
I would like to end by citing an article of a fellow (!) academic, Abhinav Aima, which was brought to my attention by my twin and whose prose is a deal more eloquent than mine and goes some way to explaining the roots of the current Middle Eastern problem within the context of this session.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Open University - Idiots Politics Session 4 - Terrorism
I do not think I need to add anymore to my fairly well-publisised view on violence however what does need to be looked at is the perception of who the aggressor is in many of the instances of "terrorism". It is a much-vaunted mantra that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but does the evidence support the claim?
If you take Ireland as an initial example, the problems stem from the British occupation and the planned migration of many protestant Scots to the hitherto Catholic Ireland and principally the northern Ulster province. Britain needed to drive the indigenous population as far away from the coast as possible to avoid them giving assistance to the Catholic Jacobite rebelllions which were taking place to undermine the accession of William of Orange. (Bonnie Prince Charlie and all that) Hence for many years the Irish had been fighting the English in what would legitimately have been called an independence struggle but would have been seen by the British as terrorism. In the other 3 Irish counties fighting stopped after the gaining of Irish independence after the First World War but a part of the independence conditions were the retaining of the six counties of Ulster by England as part of the United Kingdom. It is interesting that people regard partition generally as a very bad thing and see unification as an ultimate goal -look at the perception of Germany in 1990, and yet they do not understand why there are still problems in Ireland. Of course the situation of the six counties is tricky because of the Protestant contingent (the Loyalists) who do not want to go from being part of the protestant UK to part of the Catholic Republic of Ireland and the Catholic contingent (the Republicans or Nationalists) who for obvious reasons do not want to stay part of the UK. The original IRA was a Irish organisation fighting for an Irish nation pre-1922. After the treaty granting independence the organisation split many times before becoming what was known as the Provisional IRA (Provos) which is what most people think of when you mention the acronym nowadays. Generally it is accepted that the Irish had a right to fight for their autonomy and yet somehow an arbitrary line has been drawn in the sand declaring it unacceptable for those still in Ulster and remaining under British military rule to continue their struggle.
Now take the examples of the Palestinians who previous to 1948 had their land and post Israel settlement had large sections of it confiscated for the creation of a nation that has no geographic precedent (Like the Irish it was in fact the British that caused the shit in Palestine too!). Like the Irish the Palestinians had their territory occupied by a difference ethnic and religious group and this caused friction. Like the Irish the Palestinians chose to resist this in many different forms and the less electoral influence exacted the more violent tactics and civil disobedience was employed. When civil disobedience comes up against the most heavily armed force in the world it is clear that something is going to have to give. The less empowered people feel the more likely they are to take drastic measures. Unlike the Palestinians who do not have widespread representation in the Israeli Knessit, the Irish never felt the need to use suicide bombers because they always had a foot in the electoral door too which has eventually led to the potential for change. It would however be folly to suggest that the Irish question would have been in the agenda of any British premier were it not for the possibility of the IRA bombing the shit out of London. No, I do not agree with the bombing of civilians, but I also categorically disagree with the marginalising of peoples by oppressive governments leading people to believe that the only thing they can do is fight back violently. This is why I can understand the disenfranchised desperation that can lead to such actions even if it is not the course I take myself. Do not make the mistake in thinking that suicide bombing is a new or specifically Islamic thing. The military tactics of the whirling Dervishes as well as the Kamikaze Japanese pilots are a couple of examples. The most common and widespread use of suicide bombers is by the Tamil Tigers who are not islamic but a secular Marxist group fighting for autonomy in Sri Lanka. To take the example further there are Western soldiers lauded as heroes who, when the die was cast, decided if they were going to die they'd take as many of the enemy with them as possible. It's the old cornered rat analogy. This is seen as a legitimate military tactic in war-time, which is exactly the perception of reality of many groups using such tactics today
There are a myriad assortment of other struggles from East Timor's occupation by Indonesia, the FARC's battle against the repressive Uribe regime in Colombia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Marxists in Nepal, Pro-Democracy movement in Burma, ETA in the Basque country in Northern Spain etc. etc. etc. However these are not high-profile cases because on the whole the incumbant regimes have done little or nothing to tick off the US, in fact in many cases the regimes have supported the US openly such as in Colombia and Central America and have therefore received funding, training and hardware courtesy of the jackbooted Uncle Sam. Basically if you have tactical significance or natural resources heaven help you if you democratically elect anyone that you're not supposed to. You can vote for anyone you like as long as it's the ones they tell you to.
The common thread through these conflicts is that there is a clear aggressor, whether you agree with the reasons or simply accept the way history has panned out or not, in the Ireland question it is the British, in the case of Palestine it is Israel and in Iraq as so many others it is the US. Thus the way the oppressed feel towards the oppressor determines how they feel it necessary to act in order to free themselves. In the case of many of the former Eastern Bloc countries the oppressive governments were overthrown by peaceful demonstrations whilst in Romania Ceaucescu was seen as a more entrenched despot and his use of the Securitate meant there was considerable bloodshed and battles like Timisoara in order to change the status quo. It may not even be the actual facts of the agressor that is important but the perception of the agressor and this is the part that can be used as a recruiting sergeant. The Americans have for many years used the Big Bad Wolf theory to justify many things in particular some homeland security measures and the defence budget to back up a very agressive foreign policy. The Big Bad Wolf theory requires there to be a threat from a monster, a renegade or a rogue state and looking back there has been one for the Americans for most of the modern era from Hitler direct to Stalin to Kruschev to Castro etc. etc. through Gadaffi, Ayatollah Khomeni, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden etc. There is always one, as soon as the threat from one is neutralised there must be another to take his place, the maintaining of the heightened state of public alert is paramount.
We are fed propaganda in a way similar to WWII but most people don't see it as such. There is the belief that since we have so many different sources of news that we cannot be hoodwinked how we once could. This is a total misnomer and one of the biggest smoke screens of all. This will be discussed in Session 5 the Media.
If you take Ireland as an initial example, the problems stem from the British occupation and the planned migration of many protestant Scots to the hitherto Catholic Ireland and principally the northern Ulster province. Britain needed to drive the indigenous population as far away from the coast as possible to avoid them giving assistance to the Catholic Jacobite rebelllions which were taking place to undermine the accession of William of Orange. (Bonnie Prince Charlie and all that) Hence for many years the Irish had been fighting the English in what would legitimately have been called an independence struggle but would have been seen by the British as terrorism. In the other 3 Irish counties fighting stopped after the gaining of Irish independence after the First World War but a part of the independence conditions were the retaining of the six counties of Ulster by England as part of the United Kingdom. It is interesting that people regard partition generally as a very bad thing and see unification as an ultimate goal -look at the perception of Germany in 1990, and yet they do not understand why there are still problems in Ireland. Of course the situation of the six counties is tricky because of the Protestant contingent (the Loyalists) who do not want to go from being part of the protestant UK to part of the Catholic Republic of Ireland and the Catholic contingent (the Republicans or Nationalists) who for obvious reasons do not want to stay part of the UK. The original IRA was a Irish organisation fighting for an Irish nation pre-1922. After the treaty granting independence the organisation split many times before becoming what was known as the Provisional IRA (Provos) which is what most people think of when you mention the acronym nowadays. Generally it is accepted that the Irish had a right to fight for their autonomy and yet somehow an arbitrary line has been drawn in the sand declaring it unacceptable for those still in Ulster and remaining under British military rule to continue their struggle.
Now take the examples of the Palestinians who previous to 1948 had their land and post Israel settlement had large sections of it confiscated for the creation of a nation that has no geographic precedent (Like the Irish it was in fact the British that caused the shit in Palestine too!). Like the Irish the Palestinians had their territory occupied by a difference ethnic and religious group and this caused friction. Like the Irish the Palestinians chose to resist this in many different forms and the less electoral influence exacted the more violent tactics and civil disobedience was employed. When civil disobedience comes up against the most heavily armed force in the world it is clear that something is going to have to give. The less empowered people feel the more likely they are to take drastic measures. Unlike the Palestinians who do not have widespread representation in the Israeli Knessit, the Irish never felt the need to use suicide bombers because they always had a foot in the electoral door too which has eventually led to the potential for change. It would however be folly to suggest that the Irish question would have been in the agenda of any British premier were it not for the possibility of the IRA bombing the shit out of London. No, I do not agree with the bombing of civilians, but I also categorically disagree with the marginalising of peoples by oppressive governments leading people to believe that the only thing they can do is fight back violently. This is why I can understand the disenfranchised desperation that can lead to such actions even if it is not the course I take myself. Do not make the mistake in thinking that suicide bombing is a new or specifically Islamic thing. The military tactics of the whirling Dervishes as well as the Kamikaze Japanese pilots are a couple of examples. The most common and widespread use of suicide bombers is by the Tamil Tigers who are not islamic but a secular Marxist group fighting for autonomy in Sri Lanka. To take the example further there are Western soldiers lauded as heroes who, when the die was cast, decided if they were going to die they'd take as many of the enemy with them as possible. It's the old cornered rat analogy. This is seen as a legitimate military tactic in war-time, which is exactly the perception of reality of many groups using such tactics today
There are a myriad assortment of other struggles from East Timor's occupation by Indonesia, the FARC's battle against the repressive Uribe regime in Colombia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Marxists in Nepal, Pro-Democracy movement in Burma, ETA in the Basque country in Northern Spain etc. etc. etc. However these are not high-profile cases because on the whole the incumbant regimes have done little or nothing to tick off the US, in fact in many cases the regimes have supported the US openly such as in Colombia and Central America and have therefore received funding, training and hardware courtesy of the jackbooted Uncle Sam. Basically if you have tactical significance or natural resources heaven help you if you democratically elect anyone that you're not supposed to. You can vote for anyone you like as long as it's the ones they tell you to.
The common thread through these conflicts is that there is a clear aggressor, whether you agree with the reasons or simply accept the way history has panned out or not, in the Ireland question it is the British, in the case of Palestine it is Israel and in Iraq as so many others it is the US. Thus the way the oppressed feel towards the oppressor determines how they feel it necessary to act in order to free themselves. In the case of many of the former Eastern Bloc countries the oppressive governments were overthrown by peaceful demonstrations whilst in Romania Ceaucescu was seen as a more entrenched despot and his use of the Securitate meant there was considerable bloodshed and battles like Timisoara in order to change the status quo. It may not even be the actual facts of the agressor that is important but the perception of the agressor and this is the part that can be used as a recruiting sergeant. The Americans have for many years used the Big Bad Wolf theory to justify many things in particular some homeland security measures and the defence budget to back up a very agressive foreign policy. The Big Bad Wolf theory requires there to be a threat from a monster, a renegade or a rogue state and looking back there has been one for the Americans for most of the modern era from Hitler direct to Stalin to Kruschev to Castro etc. etc. through Gadaffi, Ayatollah Khomeni, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden etc. There is always one, as soon as the threat from one is neutralised there must be another to take his place, the maintaining of the heightened state of public alert is paramount.
We are fed propaganda in a way similar to WWII but most people don't see it as such. There is the belief that since we have so many different sources of news that we cannot be hoodwinked how we once could. This is a total misnomer and one of the biggest smoke screens of all. This will be discussed in Session 5 the Media.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Open University Idiot’s Guide to Politics Session 3 - Taxation
Another in Professor Baron's occasional series in sociopolitical commentary.
So, tax yes, not much of a chortle on this one but I feel quite strongly about tax to tell the truth so I thought I'd share my convictions with you. Hell, it'll be a change from counting sheep for you!
Now if one accepts the necessity for an over-arching state then one must in turn accept the concept of it needing to raise money. This can be done in a couple of obvious ways.
The most obvious is taxation, a series of levies based around a tariff constant whereby the State effectively takes a cut of an existing transaction. The profit element for the state is 100% in cases where it is not having to provide the infrastructure for the transaction to take place but that is generally only the case within private industry and since I don’t believe private industry is a good idea we’ll leave one aside. So where the state has provided the infrastructure or is at least bound to it there will be a degree of overhead. Take the Inland Revenue for example, the myriad offices and tax collectors etc.
Another form of revenue is for the state to make money from the services that it provides, ie charges based on the usage of those services, be that fares on public transport and such like or a charge for the use of public utilities. Many people on the right-wing feel that the State should have levying powers on all services such as hospitals etc. It is important here to define services because the provision of hospital treatment is rather different to that of say a train system or electricity. One does not expect the amount of usage of a hospital to be charged the way say one might be for electricity or for traveling on the bus.
Now when it comes to taxation this is always going to have a degree of unpopularity because ideally people would like as much money to live off as they can. However it would not be true to say that people will never like tax. If a taxation system is managed correctly and open and accountable there is no reason why people will not accept it as part of daily life. The problems come when the system is poorly managed and either closed to scrutiny or so complex as to require a specialist qualification to understand it.
Taxation must be taken on an ability to pay basis, there is no point trying to extort money from someone who does not have the means to pay, the revenue is not forthcoming and money spent on recovery etc. is throwing good after bad. If a tax is taken proportionally this provides no basis for accusations of imbalance. Thus the percentage system is the only fair way to do so.
I am aware that there are people who do not believe in the concept of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. These are people who see that what they have attained as being a direct result of their own hard work and they resent the fruits of their labours benefitting somebody else that they deem may not be as deserving as they. This fails to take into account that the people that have done well as a result of the system have often done so at the expense of many others whether directly or indirectly. To benefit from an iniquitous system and not seek to change it is to offer compliance however tacit. The current system is not a fair one and therefore there are many factors which go into who succeeds and who does not. A person subjected to prejudice because of creed, colour, appearance or gender will not have the same opportunities regardless of whether they work as hard as one not subject to the same restrictions, it is therefore a smokescreen to suggest that success in our current environment is directly proportionate to output. Thus by the same token it is right and proper that those who happen to be on the right side of such a system should be made to subsidise the services for those who are less able to fund them. This creates a society whereby everybody should at least be able to live with comparative dignity and not have to worry about the provision for basic services such as healthcare, education, pensions, transportation etc.
Personally I agree wholeheatedly with the concept of a higher rate of tax for the more well-off. I believe that there should be a study carried out into how much is necessary for adaquate survival, based on circumstance like size of family etc. and those earning above that threshold will pay a gradually increasing percentage of tax. It may seem punitive that someone earning £30,000 is taxed at 40% whilst someone earning far more is taxed at 80% but if you look at it pragmatically the person earning £30k ends up with £18k net whilst someone earning £150,000 would even on an 80% tax rate still end up with £30k net. This would however go a long way to reducing the gap between the very rich and the vast majority of society as well as raising huge amounts of revenue for the Treasury. Put in context Britain would not have an insurmountable pensions crisis if a proper higher rate of tax was implemented.
The question is, is this a disincentive? Well, in the current system yes it is because we have been brought up of late to believe that we not only can but also should be able to have everything. People resent encroaching on what they perceive as being their "rights" and yet they do not expect to back these rights up by living up to their responsibilities. If people are brought up to believe that it is just as important for them to fill their roles in society and contribute to the good of the whole and not just the individual then it would be a more natural progression to recognise the need for a tax gradient.
Song Of The Day ~ Kenickie - Acetone
So, tax yes, not much of a chortle on this one but I feel quite strongly about tax to tell the truth so I thought I'd share my convictions with you. Hell, it'll be a change from counting sheep for you!
Now if one accepts the necessity for an over-arching state then one must in turn accept the concept of it needing to raise money. This can be done in a couple of obvious ways.
The most obvious is taxation, a series of levies based around a tariff constant whereby the State effectively takes a cut of an existing transaction. The profit element for the state is 100% in cases where it is not having to provide the infrastructure for the transaction to take place but that is generally only the case within private industry and since I don’t believe private industry is a good idea we’ll leave one aside. So where the state has provided the infrastructure or is at least bound to it there will be a degree of overhead. Take the Inland Revenue for example, the myriad offices and tax collectors etc.
Another form of revenue is for the state to make money from the services that it provides, ie charges based on the usage of those services, be that fares on public transport and such like or a charge for the use of public utilities. Many people on the right-wing feel that the State should have levying powers on all services such as hospitals etc. It is important here to define services because the provision of hospital treatment is rather different to that of say a train system or electricity. One does not expect the amount of usage of a hospital to be charged the way say one might be for electricity or for traveling on the bus.
Now when it comes to taxation this is always going to have a degree of unpopularity because ideally people would like as much money to live off as they can. However it would not be true to say that people will never like tax. If a taxation system is managed correctly and open and accountable there is no reason why people will not accept it as part of daily life. The problems come when the system is poorly managed and either closed to scrutiny or so complex as to require a specialist qualification to understand it.
Taxation must be taken on an ability to pay basis, there is no point trying to extort money from someone who does not have the means to pay, the revenue is not forthcoming and money spent on recovery etc. is throwing good after bad. If a tax is taken proportionally this provides no basis for accusations of imbalance. Thus the percentage system is the only fair way to do so.
I am aware that there are people who do not believe in the concept of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. These are people who see that what they have attained as being a direct result of their own hard work and they resent the fruits of their labours benefitting somebody else that they deem may not be as deserving as they. This fails to take into account that the people that have done well as a result of the system have often done so at the expense of many others whether directly or indirectly. To benefit from an iniquitous system and not seek to change it is to offer compliance however tacit. The current system is not a fair one and therefore there are many factors which go into who succeeds and who does not. A person subjected to prejudice because of creed, colour, appearance or gender will not have the same opportunities regardless of whether they work as hard as one not subject to the same restrictions, it is therefore a smokescreen to suggest that success in our current environment is directly proportionate to output. Thus by the same token it is right and proper that those who happen to be on the right side of such a system should be made to subsidise the services for those who are less able to fund them. This creates a society whereby everybody should at least be able to live with comparative dignity and not have to worry about the provision for basic services such as healthcare, education, pensions, transportation etc.
Personally I agree wholeheatedly with the concept of a higher rate of tax for the more well-off. I believe that there should be a study carried out into how much is necessary for adaquate survival, based on circumstance like size of family etc. and those earning above that threshold will pay a gradually increasing percentage of tax. It may seem punitive that someone earning £30,000 is taxed at 40% whilst someone earning far more is taxed at 80% but if you look at it pragmatically the person earning £30k ends up with £18k net whilst someone earning £150,000 would even on an 80% tax rate still end up with £30k net. This would however go a long way to reducing the gap between the very rich and the vast majority of society as well as raising huge amounts of revenue for the Treasury. Put in context Britain would not have an insurmountable pensions crisis if a proper higher rate of tax was implemented.
The question is, is this a disincentive? Well, in the current system yes it is because we have been brought up of late to believe that we not only can but also should be able to have everything. People resent encroaching on what they perceive as being their "rights" and yet they do not expect to back these rights up by living up to their responsibilities. If people are brought up to believe that it is just as important for them to fill their roles in society and contribute to the good of the whole and not just the individual then it would be a more natural progression to recognise the need for a tax gradient.
Song Of The Day ~ Kenickie - Acetone
Friday, June 18, 2004
Open University Idiot’s Guide to Politics Session 2b -Britain (conti)
Welcome back to Dr. R. Baron's series of lectures on the declining shithole that is Britain. Having covered the historical precedent of British politics Dr. Baron will now go on to look at the role of the Monarchy in British political life, with particular emphasis on post 1642.
The Monarchy
Well, before I get into a diatribe about the monarchy it is important to explain to you what the monarchy actually does in this country. The simple answer is not a lot but there are things that require some further explanation. Obviously the monarchy now is substantively different to the monarchy in say the Middle Ages or even up to the mid 17th century. Up to this point it was the old Divine Right principle, monarchy put there by God and absolute power etc. etc. the monarch effectively ran the show. The only way to get anything done would be therefore to influence the monarch and thus things were only done for the wealthy and powerful anyway as these were the only people with sufficient patronage to gain an audience. Magna Carta is a good example of this, it is not some groundbreaking bill of rights as some might have you believe it is simply the underpinning of the rights of the richest and most powerful landowners to have serfs and levy taxes and raise armies independently from the monarchs control. As I said 1215 was hardly the age of enlightenment!
Since the Civil War and execution of Charles I the situation has been somewhat different with the monarchy tied down far more and subject to Parliamentary control, of course not until the 20th century did this make a vast amount of difference because the people in charge of Parliament were hardly dyed-in-the-wool reds! In terms of current monarchical power over the legislature the sovereign is largely symbolic providing a rubber stamp element to government, however the monarch has the veto, tho' rarely used it does still exist. It is also worthy of note that the current queen has exercised her power on occasions, partially it must be said on trivial matters but none the less in a wholly unconstitutional and undemocratic fashion. Tony Benn recalls in his diaries whilst serving as Postmaster General his attempts to change the design of stamps, something the queen has absolute veto over, when he met with the queen and presented the designs no objection was given but later he was informed that the queen would not sanction any design that did not have her head on it and the designs had to be dropped. This is I agree a banal example but it is perhaps most worrying precisely because of its banality, why should something so trivial not be under the auspices of the elected government what is it about this that the monarchy wishes to hang on to? To understand this point you have to understand the monarchy as a whole and where its politics lie. It will probably not surprise most people to know that the British monarchy, as establishment a set of figures as you could ever hope to avoid, is fervently right-wing. Some like the mad old Greek Prince Philip make no secret of the fact and regularly take pride in offending a new national group by making xenophobic and idiotic remarks, other like the dead queen mother were more subtle but no less vitriolic. The monarchy is understandably one of the most reactionary groups in the world, it has every reason to be so after all it would be able to survive far better in the old days than it does now. Bearing in mind that in the scheme of things the monarchy has every reason to fear the people it would like to keep them at a long arm's length, after all it's only relatively recently that they've started speaking the same language as the rest of the population and some might say that whilst the words are the same their language is still as different as the Americans.
If you want any example of the impact that the monarchy can have ask the people of Diego Garcia who today have found out that In Counsel for the Queen the High Court ruling that their eviction was illegal has been overturned. The islands were cleared some years ago to make way for an American airbase, interestingly the airbase was only on one island but it seemed necessary to remove the inhabitants of surrounding islands up to 200 miles away. The residents have campaigned through the UK judicial system and were recently rewarded with a High Court judgement in their favour - the High Court being the highest judicial court in the land bar the House of Lords. However rather than heed the judgement the government decided to go through a non-appealable process 'in the name of the Queen' and thus put an end to the matter in their favour. So that's the Queen's 'Rubber Stamp' power for you. What a surprise to find the Americans involved there as well.
Next session: Contemporary British Politics, same time, same place soon, thank you for your attention.
Prof R. Baron MA D Phil
Song Of The Day - Air ~ Cherry Blossom Girl
The Monarchy
Well, before I get into a diatribe about the monarchy it is important to explain to you what the monarchy actually does in this country. The simple answer is not a lot but there are things that require some further explanation. Obviously the monarchy now is substantively different to the monarchy in say the Middle Ages or even up to the mid 17th century. Up to this point it was the old Divine Right principle, monarchy put there by God and absolute power etc. etc. the monarch effectively ran the show. The only way to get anything done would be therefore to influence the monarch and thus things were only done for the wealthy and powerful anyway as these were the only people with sufficient patronage to gain an audience. Magna Carta is a good example of this, it is not some groundbreaking bill of rights as some might have you believe it is simply the underpinning of the rights of the richest and most powerful landowners to have serfs and levy taxes and raise armies independently from the monarchs control. As I said 1215 was hardly the age of enlightenment!
Since the Civil War and execution of Charles I the situation has been somewhat different with the monarchy tied down far more and subject to Parliamentary control, of course not until the 20th century did this make a vast amount of difference because the people in charge of Parliament were hardly dyed-in-the-wool reds! In terms of current monarchical power over the legislature the sovereign is largely symbolic providing a rubber stamp element to government, however the monarch has the veto, tho' rarely used it does still exist. It is also worthy of note that the current queen has exercised her power on occasions, partially it must be said on trivial matters but none the less in a wholly unconstitutional and undemocratic fashion. Tony Benn recalls in his diaries whilst serving as Postmaster General his attempts to change the design of stamps, something the queen has absolute veto over, when he met with the queen and presented the designs no objection was given but later he was informed that the queen would not sanction any design that did not have her head on it and the designs had to be dropped. This is I agree a banal example but it is perhaps most worrying precisely because of its banality, why should something so trivial not be under the auspices of the elected government what is it about this that the monarchy wishes to hang on to? To understand this point you have to understand the monarchy as a whole and where its politics lie. It will probably not surprise most people to know that the British monarchy, as establishment a set of figures as you could ever hope to avoid, is fervently right-wing. Some like the mad old Greek Prince Philip make no secret of the fact and regularly take pride in offending a new national group by making xenophobic and idiotic remarks, other like the dead queen mother were more subtle but no less vitriolic. The monarchy is understandably one of the most reactionary groups in the world, it has every reason to be so after all it would be able to survive far better in the old days than it does now. Bearing in mind that in the scheme of things the monarchy has every reason to fear the people it would like to keep them at a long arm's length, after all it's only relatively recently that they've started speaking the same language as the rest of the population and some might say that whilst the words are the same their language is still as different as the Americans.
If you want any example of the impact that the monarchy can have ask the people of Diego Garcia who today have found out that In Counsel for the Queen the High Court ruling that their eviction was illegal has been overturned. The islands were cleared some years ago to make way for an American airbase, interestingly the airbase was only on one island but it seemed necessary to remove the inhabitants of surrounding islands up to 200 miles away. The residents have campaigned through the UK judicial system and were recently rewarded with a High Court judgement in their favour - the High Court being the highest judicial court in the land bar the House of Lords. However rather than heed the judgement the government decided to go through a non-appealable process 'in the name of the Queen' and thus put an end to the matter in their favour. So that's the Queen's 'Rubber Stamp' power for you. What a surprise to find the Americans involved there as well.
Next session: Contemporary British Politics, same time, same place soon, thank you for your attention.
Prof R. Baron MA D Phil
Song Of The Day - Air ~ Cherry Blossom Girl
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Open University Idiot’s Guide to Politics Session 2a -Britain
The second in my occasional series of Idiot’s Politics, yes the apostrophe is intentional. Today I will attempt to give a brief overview of British politics as I see it, I stress the ‘as I see it’ because I shall be biased, so sue me!
History
British political history is long-winded and full of pompous arses I shall gloss over them and just start post civil war. In the 18th and 19th Centuries you had principally 2 political parties namely the Whigs and the Tories and this was the case right up until the early 20th century. You must bear in mind that at this point the actual political process was open to comparatively few enfranchised people. These were the landowners and industrial middle class there was no talk of votes for women or for the proles. Britain did not at any time in its history have a popular revolution and therefore missed out on the sort of political reform that say France had in the late 18th century. Thus even to this day the British constitution is no more than a loose interpretation of the Magna Carta which is dated 1215, 1215 is hardly a period in time known for its emancipation or universal suffrage of the masses.
In the 20th century after the Industrial Revolution had fully taken hold and transformed urban and rural life in Britain, mass movement ideas had been circulating for some time including most famously The Communist Party Manifesto of 1848 written in London by Marx and Engels. It is worthy of note that a document of such historical importance as this that was written here had by comparison little impact in England as it did across the rest of the world. The Labour Party in Britain was founded in London’s Faringdon district on the 27th Feb. 1900, whilst it was founded out of the Trade Union movement and the work of socialists such as Keir Hardie who believed it was necessary to unite the movement to achieve socialist success the initial founding was something of a mess, 2/3 of the Trade Union movement didn’t send delegates to Faringdon which undermined somewhat the claim to be a mass movement furthermore other socialist intellectual groups did not take part including the Fabians who believed in attempting to push a socialist agenda within the Liberal party. It wasn’t until 1906 when on the back of a Liberal landslide Labour actually gained any substantial electoral success returning 29 Mps. The Labour party stood for ideals such as nationalisation, emancipation, universal suffrage, human rights etc.
Since that point there have been 3 major political parties in Britain, and since the 1930s only 2 have really been able to call on the sort of support that enables the forming of a government. Between the 1930s and 1970s the 2 main parties stood pretty much either side of the political spectrum with the Labour party representing the Left-wing and the inner city populations, the working class and the philanthropic middle-class intelligentsia whilst the Conservatives represented the aristocracy, the upper middle-classes and the industrialists –the business vote. The Liberals mopped up the rest, the protest votes, the middle ground etc. etc. In the 1980s Labour started to change its agenda after suffering heavy losses in 1979/1983/1987 to Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives. Thatcher had embarked on a series of measures to dismantle Trade Union power which she and her followers saw as instrumental in bringing about the economic downturn in the 1970s [This view did however not take into consideration the global economic downturn which was being felt in many countries across Europe regardless of the political alignment of the incumbent government, this point is graphically illustrated by the recession in 1991 which was a direct throwback to the Tory economic policy of the 1980s and resulted in a devaluation of the £ in 1992 just as had happened after the Winter of Discontent in 1978-9]
Labour's response to the 1980s was to drop much of its socialist credentials such as Clause 4, which was a tenet in the party manifesto committing itself to the nationalisation of industry. The party did this in an attempt to address what it saw as itself being unelectable, it sought not to stick to its guns but chase the electorate to the right in the hope of capturing people on the whet end of the Conservative party. Now Labour may point to this strategy achieving success in 1997 which one of the largest landslide victories ever and backed up by a consolidation in 2001. This in my opinion is about as accurate an assessment as Thatcher's view of global economics. In 1997 the Labour party could quite literally have stood for anything and they would have been elected just as the Conservatives could have done in 1979, the incumbent governments had presided over a period of economic shambles and people blamed them for their personal lack of prosperity. In 1979 the Tories entrenched their position and Thatcherism became a phenomenon of right-wing thinking it was picked up on by many right-wing governments in the industrialised world such as the USA.
That's the history part covered in brief, and I think I was quite restrained there I didn't fill every paragraph with bilious comments even when mentioning Her name! There are a couple of other things that you need to know about British politics too, I shall tackle them in the next instalments.
Next session: The Role of the Monarchy, same time, same place tomorrow, thank you for your attention.
Prof R. Baron MA D Phil
Song Of The Day - Blondie ~ Good Boys
History
British political history is long-winded and full of pompous arses I shall gloss over them and just start post civil war. In the 18th and 19th Centuries you had principally 2 political parties namely the Whigs and the Tories and this was the case right up until the early 20th century. You must bear in mind that at this point the actual political process was open to comparatively few enfranchised people. These were the landowners and industrial middle class there was no talk of votes for women or for the proles. Britain did not at any time in its history have a popular revolution and therefore missed out on the sort of political reform that say France had in the late 18th century. Thus even to this day the British constitution is no more than a loose interpretation of the Magna Carta which is dated 1215, 1215 is hardly a period in time known for its emancipation or universal suffrage of the masses.
In the 20th century after the Industrial Revolution had fully taken hold and transformed urban and rural life in Britain, mass movement ideas had been circulating for some time including most famously The Communist Party Manifesto of 1848 written in London by Marx and Engels. It is worthy of note that a document of such historical importance as this that was written here had by comparison little impact in England as it did across the rest of the world. The Labour Party in Britain was founded in London’s Faringdon district on the 27th Feb. 1900, whilst it was founded out of the Trade Union movement and the work of socialists such as Keir Hardie who believed it was necessary to unite the movement to achieve socialist success the initial founding was something of a mess, 2/3 of the Trade Union movement didn’t send delegates to Faringdon which undermined somewhat the claim to be a mass movement furthermore other socialist intellectual groups did not take part including the Fabians who believed in attempting to push a socialist agenda within the Liberal party. It wasn’t until 1906 when on the back of a Liberal landslide Labour actually gained any substantial electoral success returning 29 Mps. The Labour party stood for ideals such as nationalisation, emancipation, universal suffrage, human rights etc.
Since that point there have been 3 major political parties in Britain, and since the 1930s only 2 have really been able to call on the sort of support that enables the forming of a government. Between the 1930s and 1970s the 2 main parties stood pretty much either side of the political spectrum with the Labour party representing the Left-wing and the inner city populations, the working class and the philanthropic middle-class intelligentsia whilst the Conservatives represented the aristocracy, the upper middle-classes and the industrialists –the business vote. The Liberals mopped up the rest, the protest votes, the middle ground etc. etc. In the 1980s Labour started to change its agenda after suffering heavy losses in 1979/1983/1987 to Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives. Thatcher had embarked on a series of measures to dismantle Trade Union power which she and her followers saw as instrumental in bringing about the economic downturn in the 1970s [This view did however not take into consideration the global economic downturn which was being felt in many countries across Europe regardless of the political alignment of the incumbent government, this point is graphically illustrated by the recession in 1991 which was a direct throwback to the Tory economic policy of the 1980s and resulted in a devaluation of the £ in 1992 just as had happened after the Winter of Discontent in 1978-9]
Labour's response to the 1980s was to drop much of its socialist credentials such as Clause 4, which was a tenet in the party manifesto committing itself to the nationalisation of industry. The party did this in an attempt to address what it saw as itself being unelectable, it sought not to stick to its guns but chase the electorate to the right in the hope of capturing people on the whet end of the Conservative party. Now Labour may point to this strategy achieving success in 1997 which one of the largest landslide victories ever and backed up by a consolidation in 2001. This in my opinion is about as accurate an assessment as Thatcher's view of global economics. In 1997 the Labour party could quite literally have stood for anything and they would have been elected just as the Conservatives could have done in 1979, the incumbent governments had presided over a period of economic shambles and people blamed them for their personal lack of prosperity. In 1979 the Tories entrenched their position and Thatcherism became a phenomenon of right-wing thinking it was picked up on by many right-wing governments in the industrialised world such as the USA.
That's the history part covered in brief, and I think I was quite restrained there I didn't fill every paragraph with bilious comments even when mentioning Her name! There are a couple of other things that you need to know about British politics too, I shall tackle them in the next instalments.
Next session: The Role of the Monarchy, same time, same place tomorrow, thank you for your attention.
Prof R. Baron MA D Phil
Song Of The Day - Blondie ~ Good Boys
Friday, March 26, 2004
Open University - Idiot Politics Session 1
Well this blog is prompted by an interesting point that bobred raised namely that in a democracy no-one is satisfied because everyone has to make compromises whereas in a dictatorship at least the one in charge is satisfied. OK this was in part I suspect a tongue in cheek remark but nevertheless it raises the question of what is the best method of government if there is such a thing or is it a case of looking for the best of a bad lot? I'm no expert but since this is my blog and not that of Vernon Bogdanor I shall put my views forward.
Let’s tackle those we know first and look at the pros and cons and see if that leads anywhere.
Democracy: In democracy the enfranchised (it would be a mistake to use a generic such as ‘everyone’ or ‘the people’ because this is almost always wrong from Greece to present day US/UK) vote their representatives into government to look after their interests, and therein lies the first problem, this structure already is fundamentally reactionary, for the enfranchised elect representatives for their own interests not primarily for the good of the majority. Thus those outside the system do not necessarily have any method of a voice for their interests. The disenfranchised can lobby for increased rights in a number of ways, they can seek to win round those already in the system to widen the scope of the franchise. This can usually take 2 forms, the genuine altruistic radical who fights for the equality because s/he believes it is correct to do so or the pragmatic rebel who believes it is necessary to throw the occasional bone to the masses in order to preserve the structure of the existing status quo. Another form of social change can be brought about by revolution, this doesn’t have to be a Russia 1917 style, it can be minor insurrection or civil disobedience or such like. Now the severity of this and the prospective success are not linked in the way one might think. In fact the effectiveness of such action is determined by how secure the ruling classes feel. Should their hold on power be strong they have many ways to avoid having to change such as politics and in a worst case scenario the military. If, however their grip on government is weak they will often try to put down any trouble in a more conciliatory way. Sometimes these mini-concessions are provided before such trouble, it is part of a strategy of social control, because the more pro-active the establishment is the easier it can shape social consciousness to prevent such rumblings below from ever happening.
Dictatorship: Now what we would assume is meant by dictatorship is a sort of inverse pyramid structure with a despot at the top who has in practise absolute power. In reality there are few circumstances where this simplistic view really holds water. Firstly one person cannot ever pull all the strings regardless of how much they might want to, they simply do not have the time. Thus what is generated is a series of mini-dictators who look after an individual area of policy, they have on a day to day basis autonomy but report to the dictator at the top on larger matters and at his/her bequest. This was certainly the case of Hitler in 1930's Germany who had such a convuluted beaureacratic structure that it was often impossible to get day-to-day things done, there was a party structure which ran almost parallel to a state structure. Whilst my knowledge of the intricasies of Stalin's time is less I suspect the MO was similar. The problem with Dictatorship is that you are dependent on the nature of a few select people, in certain matters they may be perceived to be benign, many Germans alive in the 1930's thought that Hitler did much to ease the economic situation and provide employment. However they attributed this change to him and the NSdAP rather than looking at the global economic cycle and how war-footing economies work etc.
So what's the difference, well in dictatorship people often do not have the illusion of a representative democracy, this means they have very little way of expressing their grievances but is the situation much different in a democracy? I would contend that it is simply a shift in who and how many hold the power, the actual representative side is a sham. look at Britain now, if you do not agree with middle-class neo-liberal politics and there are plenty of people who do not who would you vote for in an election, there is no real choice at the moment. [I hasten to add I sincerely hope that RESPECT will be able to offer at least some hope for this] If you take the US the way their system is structured the candidate in the presidential election who was voted for by the popular majority was not elected (and this is disregarding the Florida fiasco, the vote numbers issue is not under discussion) the way the electoral system is set out the final say rests with a fundamentally reactionary group hence the appointment of Bush. And yet where are the UN and EU election observers -if this had been in an African country you can bet your arse they'd be scrutinising the current election. Finally it's not as if this is the first time irregularities have happened in the US, and Britain doesn't even have a secret ballot so forgive me if I don't buy into the democracy principle.
Next week: Communism and Anarchy
Let’s tackle those we know first and look at the pros and cons and see if that leads anywhere.
Democracy: In democracy the enfranchised (it would be a mistake to use a generic such as ‘everyone’ or ‘the people’ because this is almost always wrong from Greece to present day US/UK) vote their representatives into government to look after their interests, and therein lies the first problem, this structure already is fundamentally reactionary, for the enfranchised elect representatives for their own interests not primarily for the good of the majority. Thus those outside the system do not necessarily have any method of a voice for their interests. The disenfranchised can lobby for increased rights in a number of ways, they can seek to win round those already in the system to widen the scope of the franchise. This can usually take 2 forms, the genuine altruistic radical who fights for the equality because s/he believes it is correct to do so or the pragmatic rebel who believes it is necessary to throw the occasional bone to the masses in order to preserve the structure of the existing status quo. Another form of social change can be brought about by revolution, this doesn’t have to be a Russia 1917 style, it can be minor insurrection or civil disobedience or such like. Now the severity of this and the prospective success are not linked in the way one might think. In fact the effectiveness of such action is determined by how secure the ruling classes feel. Should their hold on power be strong they have many ways to avoid having to change such as politics and in a worst case scenario the military. If, however their grip on government is weak they will often try to put down any trouble in a more conciliatory way. Sometimes these mini-concessions are provided before such trouble, it is part of a strategy of social control, because the more pro-active the establishment is the easier it can shape social consciousness to prevent such rumblings below from ever happening.
Dictatorship: Now what we would assume is meant by dictatorship is a sort of inverse pyramid structure with a despot at the top who has in practise absolute power. In reality there are few circumstances where this simplistic view really holds water. Firstly one person cannot ever pull all the strings regardless of how much they might want to, they simply do not have the time. Thus what is generated is a series of mini-dictators who look after an individual area of policy, they have on a day to day basis autonomy but report to the dictator at the top on larger matters and at his/her bequest. This was certainly the case of Hitler in 1930's Germany who had such a convuluted beaureacratic structure that it was often impossible to get day-to-day things done, there was a party structure which ran almost parallel to a state structure. Whilst my knowledge of the intricasies of Stalin's time is less I suspect the MO was similar. The problem with Dictatorship is that you are dependent on the nature of a few select people, in certain matters they may be perceived to be benign, many Germans alive in the 1930's thought that Hitler did much to ease the economic situation and provide employment. However they attributed this change to him and the NSdAP rather than looking at the global economic cycle and how war-footing economies work etc.
So what's the difference, well in dictatorship people often do not have the illusion of a representative democracy, this means they have very little way of expressing their grievances but is the situation much different in a democracy? I would contend that it is simply a shift in who and how many hold the power, the actual representative side is a sham. look at Britain now, if you do not agree with middle-class neo-liberal politics and there are plenty of people who do not who would you vote for in an election, there is no real choice at the moment. [I hasten to add I sincerely hope that RESPECT will be able to offer at least some hope for this] If you take the US the way their system is structured the candidate in the presidential election who was voted for by the popular majority was not elected (and this is disregarding the Florida fiasco, the vote numbers issue is not under discussion) the way the electoral system is set out the final say rests with a fundamentally reactionary group hence the appointment of Bush. And yet where are the UN and EU election observers -if this had been in an African country you can bet your arse they'd be scrutinising the current election. Finally it's not as if this is the first time irregularities have happened in the US, and Britain doesn't even have a secret ballot so forgive me if I don't buy into the democracy principle.
Next week: Communism and Anarchy
Saturday, October 06, 2001
Thinker For Hire - Modern Prologue
Christ knows why I didn't think of it before, I've been blogging for well over a year now but I never thought to upload the stuff I'd written over the last years from before I owned a computer to 2001.
I started writing 'Thinker For Hire', my 'book' back in 1997. I had left University, done a bit of teaching and then had a spell doing consultancy work for unemployment statisticians! It was at that time I came up with the title Thinker For Hire, I was unemployed but still young and idealistic with the hope that somehow what life may hold for me would be something challenging and rewarding. In those months I went thru' the mindless sloth and for the first time voluntarily routined myself. During which was included my sitting down and writing stuff, whatever I felt like, just my take on the world. I wrote a fair few pages in those months. I have not read it since and I am quite interested to know how my style of writing may have changed since then as well as the nature and depth of my socio-political beliefs.
I will transcribe the first parts at another time, initially I am going to upload the stuff that has been done since I had a computer. Most of this is from 1999 onwards, I think. It is passionate but disjointed, fragments of thought formed from things that I'd heard or seen.
A little while after that I went quiet for a while with a brief attempt to get a diary going in 2002. It wasn't until January this year that I discovered blogging and since then my writing has developed a regularity even if not an amelioration in quality!
So this is 'Red Baron - The Early Years' - judge for yourselves (Written 6th May 2005)
I started writing 'Thinker For Hire', my 'book' back in 1997. I had left University, done a bit of teaching and then had a spell doing consultancy work for unemployment statisticians! It was at that time I came up with the title Thinker For Hire, I was unemployed but still young and idealistic with the hope that somehow what life may hold for me would be something challenging and rewarding. In those months I went thru' the mindless sloth and for the first time voluntarily routined myself. During which was included my sitting down and writing stuff, whatever I felt like, just my take on the world. I wrote a fair few pages in those months. I have not read it since and I am quite interested to know how my style of writing may have changed since then as well as the nature and depth of my socio-political beliefs.
I will transcribe the first parts at another time, initially I am going to upload the stuff that has been done since I had a computer. Most of this is from 1999 onwards, I think. It is passionate but disjointed, fragments of thought formed from things that I'd heard or seen.
A little while after that I went quiet for a while with a brief attempt to get a diary going in 2002. It wasn't until January this year that I discovered blogging and since then my writing has developed a regularity even if not an amelioration in quality!
So this is 'Red Baron - The Early Years' - judge for yourselves (Written 6th May 2005)
Sunday, September 30, 2001
The Manifesto - Sept. 2001
Education
Education must be accepted as a right for all. It is not and must never be used as a privilege for any section of society. If we start with the premise that every child has the right to primary and secondary education of the highest calibre that the state can provide. When it comes to tertiary education this should take the form of Universities, Technical Colleges and Vocational Training Centres. The crucial point is to reject the previous bias in favour of academic achievement and see all forms of education and from that every vocation as equally important in the forming of a benevolent and just society. Tertiary education should be the domain of all. Should it be necessary to limit in any way the number of participants on a particular course at an institution it should be done so based on the acceptance of those with the greatest aptitude for the course in question. An applicant’s background, elements such as financial status, geographical location, parents etc. should not be taken into account.
Society
The fundamental basis of an equal and just society is its education. Students must be taught that everyone can succeed by working together and that this is the natural scheme of things. Many of the teachings of religions have similar philosophy at their cores and this is a head start in that many people already know these teachings literarily speaking, it is often the interpretation that has bastardised the principles. Society must be based on mutual respect, understanding, interest and tolerance. These rights must be for all people in the state and should extend to any living creatures where possible, it is an anathema to have protective rights for humans and yet treat animals with a different set of rules. Animal cruelty should be no more acceptable than violence against humans in a civilised society. Offenders must be severely punished for who can definitively state with impunity that it is one mind set to harm an animal but takes another to harm a human. Certain acts of animal cruelty are so incomprehensible that one thinks they cannot be carried out by the sane. The cause is more deeply rooted in a lack of community and civilisation, other people are aware of these crimes and those who commit them but there silence is a tacit acceptance of what they have done. Often in the case of animals the cruelty is carried out by the young and these is deemed by some to be high spirits or exuberance. This is however to miss the point that these youths are potential dangers and need to be stopped. An example must be set otherwise subconsciously they believe these actions are acceptable. The State must take a stand and lay down the guidelines of what constitutes acceptable conduct and those who will not conform will be removed until they are willing or able to do so.
Culture
All cultures are to be studied and welcomed as they promote the idea that humans are all different, these differences should be presented as interesting and what makes up the facets of humans as a species. Bigotry must be eradicated and no one type of culture or section of society should be promoted above another.
Industry
All industries which provide services essential to daily life need to be nationalised so as to be under the control of the state. These industries include transport (railways, buses, planes, shipping), telecom, power and fuel(electricity, gas and oil and renewable sources) council services such as refuse collection and disposal, the post office and the Media (Press, Television, Radio). In addition to this, any industry which is used by the public and where safety is a factor also needs to be under the control of the state. There are fundamental reasons that these industries need to be controlled by a state rather than a corporate body or an individual the main one is the obvious failure of a corporate body to think ethically. If a company is beholden to its shareholders who in turn are beholden only to greed then profit becomes the be all and end all of production, worker exploitation becomes necessary to cut costs and siphon more profit to stop investors from defecting to other more lucrative enterprises. Profit and safety do not mix as an organisation will never take a safety measure if there is a cheaper option. Thus we can see with the privatisation of the railways what happens when a public service is put into the open market and left to rot. Companies are not interested in rail links being a vital service from A to B, they are interested in getting as few people as possible paying as large an amount as possible. Since the railways were privatised in Britain, the number of passengers has dropped, as have safety standards but the fares have risen as have company profits as have the number of fatal accidents. Critics may say that the system before privatisation was not much better and this is partially true, but mainly attributable to a sustained lack of investment and proper management by a disinterested government. In Britain the Clapham Rail disaster under British Rail was the worst that most could remember and should have told us that there were some serious problems that needed addressing, flogging off the system to avoid having to pay into it and make it somebody else’s problem was a catastrophically short-sighted and ill-advised action and it has directly led to 3 major rail tragedies within 5 years. As a consequence of this the state no longer has control of one of the potentially most environmentally friendly and safest methods of travel. This must be addressed. Private transportation is to be discouraged excepting necessary journeys. Public transportation such as trams, trolley-buses and gas buses which are good for keeping those nonessential private vehicles off the road need to be given priority funding. Essential road users, the emergency services, parents transporting children where public transport may not be applicable, and disabled people should be given permits to travel, the rest of road users who cannot justify the private vehicle over public transport should pay high prices for fuel and road tax, and this money should be directly subsidising increasing development in public transport. The use of large lorries and transporters should be superseded by rail transportation and any large vehicles which cannot justify their existence should pay prohibitive levies so as to be priced out of the market.
As an interim provision, the state must set up incentives for companies to use rail for distribution and transportation, this must be seen as the only viable alternative.
Business
Ultimately the same theories need to be applied to business as to society as a whole. Reinvestment should be the key objective rather than profit and greed. Workers are not subordinate to managers they simply perform a different function. Middle Managers will be where possible elected by the workers having already done the job for a period. Upper management should be chosen for their managerial capabilities but must in every case enter the firm at the working level and perform the same function as the workers for a minimum specified period, so that they may best understand the potential problems that the workforce may encounter. Should the ‘Manager-in-waiting’ be unable to carry out the task competently a minder should be assigned, as this period should make the manager respect the skills of the workforce. A financial discrepancy should not be between manager and worker. Salaries should be set based on experience in doing the job and also necessity of financial aid such as domestic circumstances. Those with dependants should be helped
Sport
Sport should be seen by society and participants as an excellent leisure activity and way to improve the morale of those around you. Sports personalities should have salaries based on the same criteria as other industrial workers. Sports events should be available to all those who wish to spectate and any goods that are sold as accessories should be kept to a minimum and prices should be affordable. The idea that sports personalities are icons or should be paid more should be actively discouraged. Sports clubs and associations should be given budgets by the state. The larger clubs should be given a larger budget on the proviso that they are responsible for smaller clubs and youth organisations in their areas. Should they fail to do so their budgets will be cut to the level of other clubs in the area. All sports clubs are to be given equal weighting no one sport is to be considered more or less worthy than another and likewise participants will treat each other with equal respect. Areas should be given the facilities of as many differing sports as resources and interests allow.
Health
It should be everybody’s right to expect the state to provide healthcare from birth until death. Private hospitals and staff should be re-nationalised in order to stop the inequality and the current two-tier health service. The money to sustain the health service must be provided from taxes. There should be no geographical discrepancy in healthcare and all persons regardless of status have the right to be treated for their ailments as quickly and efficiently as possible. Obviously there is a medical hierarchy of disease in the sense of seriousness and this must be considered. Should there be a need to prioritise the most serious ailments must be dealt with first. Surgery such as cosmetic surgery for nonessential reasons, vanity etc. is to be actively discouraged. It is the responsibility of doctors and health professionals to err on the side of caution and ensure that diagnosis and treatment is of the highest order.
Family
The family is the closest knit group of humans and the emotional bonds it builds up cannot be broken by the state. Likewise there is no way to artificially manufacture these emotions in humans. Families, if nurtured can provide an excellent home for the new generation and it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that not only is the family adequately supported but that this support is flexible enough to adapt based on the needs of both children and parents. Some parents want to stay at home to look after their children and this should be encouraged by the state, for both mothers and fathers. The job of looking after a child and house whether by a father or mother should be given equal weighting with other forms of work. The state should keep a watchful eye on progress but should not intervene unless absolutely necessary and the welfare of the child is at stake. Should both parents wish to go back to work after the birth of their child, this should also be considered an acceptable option and the state should have a network of facilities to allow parents to do this such as approved childcare and job-share schemes. Companies should be encouraged by the state to take a flexible line with parents and job sharing schemes, state certified crèches, work experience programs should be given state backing.
Rights
In a society where the state is promoting equality it is vital that the state ensures that this is translated into all strata of society, discrimination intolerance and bigotry are to be stamped out and those that continue to discriminate will be treated the same way as those committing violent crimes against the person. There should be no differentiation between the handling of physical or psychological damage against an individual.
Government
This is always a tricky one how can one have a government in a state where everyone is supposed to be equal? This of course depends on how one envisages those doing the governing. If one perceives those who are involved in the government as no different from those doing other forms of work then it removes the view that there is an unequal relationship. Other options are for example to have a 2nd chamber which consists of people who are given time out from their jobs to serve. These positions should be like jury service, but optional, and tenure should be short-term such as 1 year. This would enable a wide cross-section of people to become involved in government on a day to day basis and should enable people to be interested in and empowered by government.
Advertising
Advertising should serve one specific purpose, to inform about products available. This should take the form of providing product specifications, addressing who may need the product, and where it is available. Brand names should not be mentioned unless the product is to be the only one in its field. It would be nice if advertising could be made within these parameters and yet avoid being simply dour and bland, the difficulty is that if adverts become glossy or funny the product gets remembered, not for its usage or quality but its marketing. This gives an unfair slant to large wealthy companies advertising their products, whilst the smaller producer is unable to compete. Claims that are made in adverts must be substantiated before the advert is aired and a State advertising regulator must decide whether the content of the advert proposed is relevant, in the public interest and factually based.
Exchange Rate
The exchange rate should be artificially set so as to stop currency speculation and also to allow ‘taxation’ of ‘hostile’ countries by raising of the value of the currency. Currency should only be sold/exchanged within the home country.
Taxation
Redistribution of wealth must be the long-term goal on a global scale until some form of parity exists to empower those in the former 3rd world. This can be achieved by a percentage of income taxation, say 1% for sake of argument, being spent on balancing the status of the population. When the redistribution has been achieved internally this 1% of tax can be used for overseas aid. If this were to be done by a large proportion of countries, it would greatly speed up the process of ‘harmonisation’. Overseas aid should be to set up the necessary infrastructure for basic facilities, utilities, public services etc. A good example must be set by the affluent countries on how to manage these facilities so that these are not simply set up to be exploited by non sympathetic parties. Charging for utilities such as water consumption and sewerage, electricity supply etc. is to be discontinued as soon as these utilities are re-nationalised. The upkeep of these utilities is to be the jurisdiction of the state and therefore to be paid for through taxation. This way those most able to pay will be doing so at an acceptable rate. Income tax should encompass all the basic necessities, utilities and public services that the state needs to fund. Other forms of taxation are to be discouraged and only used where absolutely necessary. This will mean that income tax will pay for what people as a collective need and take home pay will be purely the jurisdiction of the individual or family to pay for their requirements based on taste such as food, toys, decoration. Take home pay as it currently stands is deceptive as there are a multitude of bills which then need to be paid. The key point with regard to taxation is that it must be administered fairly and openly. Government spending, in all areas other than those involving national security should be published openly and where possible workers pay slips should include the percentages of income tax used for whichever purpose. People must be informed in detail about changes in taxation and rises must be openly justified.
Housing
Housing should be under the control of the state, the right to be a private landlord will be abolished as will the right to home ownership. This must be brought across via education that if the state manages housing it should not be necessary to own a home and this will eliminate many of the inflated costs involved with moving into a home. Homes will be provided as needed by the occupants. All citizens have the right to a comfortable home, that definition being a living room, kitchen bathroom and bedroom per individual resident, this is to include couples so that if a child is born, accommodation is already on hand in terms of an extra bedroom and thus the necessity for immediate rehousing is negated.
Human Nature
Ambition is not a bad thing per sé, if citizens succeed in their personal or professional endeavours the whole of society benefits provided this success is not based on exploitation of others or purely at the expense of others. Actions which involve the furthering of the individual at the expense of the collective are to be discouraged and through education eliminated.
The Media
The media cannot be independent, it is an anathema and this pretence should be dropped. The media must be controlled by the state for the purposes of the people. It must provide factual news reporting as well as consequential actions of events. Comment is to be encouraged from all sections of society but must be clearly labelled and, unless in a specialist publication, an alternative view should be provided. All sections of the media from paper, ink and news supply to reporters, distribution and the means to access must be controlled by the state. The State is to allow extensive criticism of its actions and is to justify its policies and plans accordingly. Investigative journalism is to be encouraged and interrogation of ministers will help hold the State to proper account. Journalists in this case are the representatives of the people, this is a responsible position and must be acknowledged as such. This criticism must be constructive ie part of a genuine effort to reform for the better. There should not be censorship as such, in that if something is not worthy of merit it can be easily refuted and should be done so in public. News selection is inevitable but emphasis must be placed on events which will affect the population first and foremost.
Law and Order
Crimes against persons are not to be tolerated and those guilty of violent offences are to be placed in custody for mandatory sentences based on the severity of the crime. Wilful murderers will serve a lifetimes imprisonment in either penal or mental institution, the latter’s cases should only be reviewed if a cure for a medical condition can be categorically proven. Crimes against property are to be dealt with by the state but these are not as severe as those against the person. The State must decide why an individual has perpetrated a crime against property, wilful damage against amenities is to be punished by a temporary removal of the perpetrators right to certain leisure activities. These will be substituted by a period of community service based on the severity of the misdemeanour.
National Service
A period of national service is to be introduced for all persons following the end of their secondary education, regardless of gender. Suitable community work will be provided in their area, be it manual, clerical or such depending on the individual’s aptitudes where possible. Hospitals, transport systems, renovation work of public facilities are areas which could benefit from this injection of workers. All work will be paid the same amount and it is important that the education system stress how vital this period of work is both for the state and the individual. Should individuals have a preference for certain work, this should be accommodated where possible. Military service can be offered as an option should a standing army be in situ.
Defence
Defence is another grey area as a national army often leads to ambition of territorial gains acquired from ones neighbours. Should all states be agreed all national armies should be abolished and be replaced by a large UN force. Bases with these soldiers should be in every continent enough to keep the peace should it be necessary. Soldiers should be from other continents so as to have no vested interest in regional issues. The UN must be an empowered force and not an organisation that carries out the bidding of the larger nations. UN edicts should be binding and be enforced if necessary by force. However in the transitional phase where some states will remain in a capitalist structure whilst others transform it may be necessary to have an army to defend the country against the ambition of these capitalist countries. It is clear that decisions taken that displease the U.S. can lead to sanctions and military intervention and therefore any reforming state must first make the contingency plans to weather this storm until either they are able to gain complete self-sufficiency or there are enough like-minded states to order the reactionary nations, preferably within the framework of the U.N., to back-off.
Buzzwords
Progressive humanism
Utopianism
Modernist socialism
Socio-economic communism
Collectivism
Monday, April 30, 2001
Government - April 01
It is clear that the state must be the institution to make the laws, you cannot privatise the legislature. Why? Well, clearly if this process was in private hands the primary interests that would be served would be those of the controller. This would not be a helpful way to govern at least not for the majority of the population. Why is it then that there are those who imagine that one can privatise various public utilities and yet these will continue to serve the public interest?
With the state making the laws there are some factors that need to also be in place to safeguard the public good. Firstly it is important that laws being made are communicated properly, punctually and comprehensibly to the populous. The population should be given the chance to discuss the legislation and should certainly be made aware as far as possible when legislation is passed. The media is the natural apparatus to carry out this function, as if it is under the control of the state it will be able to best appraise the statutes and act as an interpreter to inform the people. At this point I am sure there are doubters who will presume that if the media is in state hands it will be bound to be biased toward that state and therefore cannot be relied upon to give an objective viewpoint or critique. I would draw the example of the BBC as part of debunking this whole argument. There are a handful of political interviewers who are well respected within the media sector and well feared by politicians, as they do not pull their punches calling ministers to account, most of these high-profile interviewers work for the BBC. As commercial television and media is beholden to its advertisers it can never be fully objective as there will always be a conflict of interest when it comes to an argument over corporate legislation. The BBC is not dependent on advertising revenue and is therefore able to afford its journalists more freedom to go ‘for the jugular’. Let us not assume that the BBC is independent, it is under state control and it would be foolish to imagine that at certain points the government has not exercised its influence in order to serve its purposes, however these occasions are, I would suggest, many fewer than in the private sector. The government of the day must be held directly accountable for its actions. If a law is proposed within a particular sector then the minister responsible for that brief must be obliged to give interview to the state media and be questioned most strongly to justify the policy, if the law is a good one, it should be easy to do so, if the law cannot be justified then perhaps it should be dropped or modified. Furthermore the same rules should govern a minister’s justification of his/her behaviour which should be subject to a stringent code of conduct. If a minister is proven to have violated this code in front of an extra-parliamentary standards committee then said minister should be dismissed forthwith and a replacement sought with immediate effect.
This also leads me to look at the whole setup of government. The bipartite system is not conducive to good government. It leads to the polarisation of politics into extremes and also means local issues are often swept underfoot for centralised political reasons. It is vital that if a person is to represent an area that they are standing for that area, they either come from or have been resident for some time in that area. It is an unacceptable practise for representatives to have multiple residences and to stand in an area in which they are not based. The state should provide apartments for the representatives when they are required for central governmental duties.
The Second Chamber It appears to be a given in a democracy that one have a second chamber of the legislature. Let us for the moment proceed without questioning this, we must first establish what this chamber is for and then populate it with those best suited to serve out this purpose. Let us say that we wish to have a second chamber as a safeguard mechanism, an overseer of the acts of the first chamber. This would be by design a way of tempering politics and regulating the first chamber. If this is the case then obviously the first chamber must not have the appointment rights for its own regulator this must be done independently. One could say, why not let the people decide this and this idea has merit, but one must then be sure that the people are able to have a good choice of candidates. These candidates must be chosen from the people and therefore the best way to ensure competency is to educate the entire populous to have the ability to serve should they wish to do so. This is the volition approach; allow the people the ability and opportunity to help in the process of government. The other method is a more forceful one, a system similar to that of the UK Jury service be set up. This means that people would be called up to serve in the second chamber; this would be a mandatory service. There are pros and cons to both of these suggestions, the first is open to corruption and rigging to get certain people elected, apathy and disinterest in the voting procedure and a second chamber populated by people who may or may not be competent to carry out the job. It is my theory that the problem of corruption would be hard to tackle but not insurmountable if properly scrutinised, wages for those serving in the second chamber should not be an incentive as those interested in serving should be doing so for their interest in government and not in financial gain. The problem of apathy is something that would need to be tackled at an early age by education. If people are taught how there government works and how they can make a difference the procedure of government is likely to be of more interest to them. Apathy occurs where a person either does not understand the system or believes his/her input to have negligible impact. Competence is difficult to asses before someone takes up a post but if serving terms are short then it should have minimum impact should their suitability be called into question, besides it is important to give those interested a chance as they may have crucial input no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time. If people are educated as to how their government works they should be able to take more of an interest in it and it is therefore far more likely that they will be able to make a valuable contribution.
The second approach to the second chamber recruitment poses more problems. Whilst giving people social responsibility is a good thing and makes them feel part of the collective it is a fine line between this and making people feel press-ganged. The forced approach is also no guarantor for competence although under the conditions already outlined this should not be a major issue. However it is important that people feel they are willing participants in the collective and not herded into every facet of their lives by an omnipresent, omni-cogniscient state, as this would just be retreading the steps to totalitarianism.
With the state making the laws there are some factors that need to also be in place to safeguard the public good. Firstly it is important that laws being made are communicated properly, punctually and comprehensibly to the populous. The population should be given the chance to discuss the legislation and should certainly be made aware as far as possible when legislation is passed. The media is the natural apparatus to carry out this function, as if it is under the control of the state it will be able to best appraise the statutes and act as an interpreter to inform the people. At this point I am sure there are doubters who will presume that if the media is in state hands it will be bound to be biased toward that state and therefore cannot be relied upon to give an objective viewpoint or critique. I would draw the example of the BBC as part of debunking this whole argument. There are a handful of political interviewers who are well respected within the media sector and well feared by politicians, as they do not pull their punches calling ministers to account, most of these high-profile interviewers work for the BBC. As commercial television and media is beholden to its advertisers it can never be fully objective as there will always be a conflict of interest when it comes to an argument over corporate legislation. The BBC is not dependent on advertising revenue and is therefore able to afford its journalists more freedom to go ‘for the jugular’. Let us not assume that the BBC is independent, it is under state control and it would be foolish to imagine that at certain points the government has not exercised its influence in order to serve its purposes, however these occasions are, I would suggest, many fewer than in the private sector. The government of the day must be held directly accountable for its actions. If a law is proposed within a particular sector then the minister responsible for that brief must be obliged to give interview to the state media and be questioned most strongly to justify the policy, if the law is a good one, it should be easy to do so, if the law cannot be justified then perhaps it should be dropped or modified. Furthermore the same rules should govern a minister’s justification of his/her behaviour which should be subject to a stringent code of conduct. If a minister is proven to have violated this code in front of an extra-parliamentary standards committee then said minister should be dismissed forthwith and a replacement sought with immediate effect.
This also leads me to look at the whole setup of government. The bipartite system is not conducive to good government. It leads to the polarisation of politics into extremes and also means local issues are often swept underfoot for centralised political reasons. It is vital that if a person is to represent an area that they are standing for that area, they either come from or have been resident for some time in that area. It is an unacceptable practise for representatives to have multiple residences and to stand in an area in which they are not based. The state should provide apartments for the representatives when they are required for central governmental duties.
The Second Chamber It appears to be a given in a democracy that one have a second chamber of the legislature. Let us for the moment proceed without questioning this, we must first establish what this chamber is for and then populate it with those best suited to serve out this purpose. Let us say that we wish to have a second chamber as a safeguard mechanism, an overseer of the acts of the first chamber. This would be by design a way of tempering politics and regulating the first chamber. If this is the case then obviously the first chamber must not have the appointment rights for its own regulator this must be done independently. One could say, why not let the people decide this and this idea has merit, but one must then be sure that the people are able to have a good choice of candidates. These candidates must be chosen from the people and therefore the best way to ensure competency is to educate the entire populous to have the ability to serve should they wish to do so. This is the volition approach; allow the people the ability and opportunity to help in the process of government. The other method is a more forceful one, a system similar to that of the UK Jury service be set up. This means that people would be called up to serve in the second chamber; this would be a mandatory service. There are pros and cons to both of these suggestions, the first is open to corruption and rigging to get certain people elected, apathy and disinterest in the voting procedure and a second chamber populated by people who may or may not be competent to carry out the job. It is my theory that the problem of corruption would be hard to tackle but not insurmountable if properly scrutinised, wages for those serving in the second chamber should not be an incentive as those interested in serving should be doing so for their interest in government and not in financial gain. The problem of apathy is something that would need to be tackled at an early age by education. If people are taught how there government works and how they can make a difference the procedure of government is likely to be of more interest to them. Apathy occurs where a person either does not understand the system or believes his/her input to have negligible impact. Competence is difficult to asses before someone takes up a post but if serving terms are short then it should have minimum impact should their suitability be called into question, besides it is important to give those interested a chance as they may have crucial input no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time. If people are educated as to how their government works they should be able to take more of an interest in it and it is therefore far more likely that they will be able to make a valuable contribution.
The second approach to the second chamber recruitment poses more problems. Whilst giving people social responsibility is a good thing and makes them feel part of the collective it is a fine line between this and making people feel press-ganged. The forced approach is also no guarantor for competence although under the conditions already outlined this should not be a major issue. However it is important that people feel they are willing participants in the collective and not herded into every facet of their lives by an omnipresent, omni-cogniscient state, as this would just be retreading the steps to totalitarianism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)