Question Time

Dear David,

I support you in the BBC's decision to accept Nick Griffin on to Question Time. Only in a public forum where sensible debate is held can we hope to destroy the hate-filled claims of the BNP.

I support neither Labour nor the Conservatives. Yet I know that both parties have a range of talented parliamentarians who, through the subtlety of their argument, will be able to rip into the BNP's message more effectively than the bottles thrown by the UAF hope to achieve.

(In this case, Baroness Warsi and Jack Straw are good choices - however I would like to see Bob Marshall Andrews because he'd turn Griffin into mincemeat!)

The BNP now have European seats. They need to be dealt with head on - on our terms (sensible debate), rather than theirs (violence and protests - doesn't this feed their propaganda machine?). My passionate hope it that Griffin and his party are made to look like a bunch of fools on Question Time. And I think they will be. Their arguments rest on suspicion and lies, and this is no substitute for what is right and good.

If we defeat them honestly with WORDS Griffin et al can no longer claim that they are the victim of a Liberal Conspiracy - rather, he will be a victim of the TRUTH! Surely the party will then lose its raison d’etre.

At present I do not believe that the Unite Against Fascism gets to the shaky heart of the BNP's message. Yes, protests are effective but to what extent do they challenge the party's policies? This should be very easy to do on television.

Mug the BNP of their right to free speech and we may have no reason to distrust them. Allow them to speak, and in the words of JS Mill, 'truth will prevail'.

'I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'
Voltaire



Craig Owen
Writing in relation to a request made by ‘Hope not Hate’
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/index.php

PS - I really do hope you send this guys

Vote for a Change (rather than moan about the Tories?)

Today I went to a meeting chaired by ‘Vote for a Change’ at the Friend’s Meeting House in Manchester; a mere stones throw away from the Tory party conference at the G-Mex. I first came across this group when my 6th formers hijacked a protest organised by themselves and Peter Tatchell on College Green in Westminster. The group has two aims – 1. To replace the ‘first past the post’ electoral system with one that is more democratic, accountable and breaks apart the majoritarianism of British politics, and 2. Bring about a revolution in British politics in the wake of the expenses scandal. Delegates want to see an end to the so-called ‘Westminster Gravy Train’ and a return to real MP accountability.

Daniel Hannan, for example, argued that at the moment MPs in safe seats (he calls them “modern ‘pocket boroughs’”) are accountable only to whips who can have them deselected at election time should they fail to ‘toe the party line’. He argued for the abolition of safe seats (i.e., other PPCs can challenge you to your candidature) and for Primaries (recently trailed by the Tories in Totnes) to be rolled out across the country.

The associate editor of the New Statesman, whose name I forget, argued vociferously against Primaries by pointing out that the Totnes experiment cost £38,000, a sum that the Tory party isn’t likely to want to spend again. He also poured cold water on any hopes of the Conservative party cleaning up politics if and when they are elected. He said that the party came out worst from the expenses scandal and Cameron meted out punishments according to individuals’ usefulness to the ‘government in waiting’. In other words, backbenchers like Steen were forced to fall on their sword whilst not one member of the front bench was disciplined. Only Alan Duncan lost his job when he was recorded saying that MPs were forced to live on rations. Needless to say, Duncan is a millionaire.

Martin Bell, another speaker in this incredibly diverse bank of speakers (I can’t imagine that these people have all been in the same room together ever before) said that Labour won in 1997 off the back of Tory sleaze and have spent the best part of the last 12 years managing to replicate many of the Tory misdeeds. John Strafford holds a role within the Chairmanship of the Tory Party (I can’t remember which) and he actually impressed me most. He offered a convincing and accurate argument against the FPTP (when many in his own party are happy to keep it as it is – after all, it will probably return them to government next year) and seemed upbeat about the prospects for change, at least until Mr. Hassan (New Statesman) ‘urinated on his bonfire’. Lewis Baston of the Electoral Reform Society said that bribery and disenchantment were nothing new in politics, the only difference was that today the two parties have a lot less support that they used to enjoy – nevertheless, power still swaps between these two elites in our democratically questionable majoritarian system.

Polly Toynbee chaired proceedings. She did a brilliant job of appearing impartial despite the musings of Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP and darling of the American right wing media for his statements that he ‘wouldn’t wish the NHS on anyone’. I hadn’t expected this to come up – we were having a debate about political renewal after all, and it seemed as though Hannan was reasonably articulate in his observations of our political system and offered a few decent arguments, albeit without much support from the left leaning members of the panel, Hassan, Toynbee et al.

And then something happened which made me think ‘right, Labour have really lost the election’. A member of Manchester Young Labour sitting behind me (who I’d recognised from our meeting with the Health Secretary) asked when proceedings were opened up to the floor if there’s any real choice next year when members of one party come out with spurious comments such as Hannan’s on the NHS. I had a problem with this for several reasons:

1. Hannan’s recent notoriety is down to his irksome views on national health, However, that’s not why he was there – he was talking about changing the political system and was making some reasonably decent points (for a hard right Tory MEP)
2. The girl who asked the question showed her disdain for Hannan by playing with her phone and not looking up when she was asking the question and during his answer.

MYL clearly came to the meeting with the intention of scoring some political points despite the fact that ‘Vote for a Change’ had aimed to have a frank and nonpartisan discussion about our broken political system. One of the things that has persuaded me that active involvement in the Labour party is perhaps ‘not my thing’ is that I’m getting increasingly pissed off by those annoying minor apparatchiks who are so wedded to the party, so blindly faithful to everything it stands for that they end up criticising everyone but themselves. What the young lady hoped to achieve by asking an off topic question at a public meeting is open to debate. Labour needs to question its own record – it has been in power for 12 years now. There are still those who prefix every sentence with ‘Before 1997…’ We need to start talking about ‘Since 1997…’ Numerous commentators, including Toynbee, argue that Labour is crap at talking about its successes. Even the Spectator is so confident of a Tory victory that it has started to talk about the good stuff that Blair did. However, to return to this little stunt in the Friend’s Meeting House, it represented in microcosmic form everything that has become so pathetic about the Labour party. It is tantamount to a KO’d boxer blithely still trying to throw limp wristed punches when flat on his back on the canvas because he has to be seen to be still putting up a fight. It was ill-informed, pointless and depressing to hear for people like me who like to think that there is life in the old dog yet. Labour needs a cleansing period out of office, that’s when groups like MYL will really come into its own and, I hope, find the ability to attack the Tories on less superficial lines.

That being said, the Vote for a Change meeting was interesting and informative. Conservative party conference in Manchester? Next Ethiopia will be hosting Live Aid for us….

Why I won't lose sleep over The Sun's political alliegence

The Sun is like a chameleon. Just like this creature changes its colours to match surroundings, this 'news'paper changes its stripes to match the political landscape. Indeed, whatever claim that the paper had in being able to dictate public opinion has now clearly gone. Today it merely follows in the wake of the changing tide, dutifully preaching to an already converted majority.

In 1992, The Sun famously printed the headline 'If this man [Kinnock] is elected tomorrow, will the last person to leave Britain please turn off the light?' In 1997, they switched sides with the notably less imaginative headline 'The Sun backs Blair!' and yesterday it claimed that 'Labour's lost us'. The paper loves to back a winner, in fact I'm sure that it's written in the paper's rule book that it has to pick the right time before any election when the outcome can be reasonably predicted to choose its party. Incredibly unprincipled I know, but this is a paper which is blatantly homophobic, ruins lives by referring to people as 'paedos' before they are convicted of any offence and contributes no end to Islamophobia and other types of xenophobia. You've got to ask yourself why any well meaning party would want to support of this toilet paper?

For a long time the answer has been clear. The Murdoch-owned paper is one of Britain's most read dailies. Its simple language makes it accesible to the almost anyone (I think the required reading age is about 7) and, yes, it has an uncanny abiity to predict election winners. I wonder why that is! Unfortunately for the Sun, however, its ability to control public opinion is on the wane. The age of 24 hour news coverage and the internet has seriously reduced its impact. No well meaning individual would go to their website for their daily dose of news. All newspapers are suffering, however it seems that The Sun's illiberal, bawdy and tawdry sensations are particularly out of kilter with the modern consensus. The internet has given us the ability to blog about issues such as this. The Sun no longer controls the agenda or seems to sum up the public mood (as it did with 'Gotcha' http://barorny.com/archives/gotcha1.jpg), it trails in its wake.

Yesterday, Cabinet members were rightfully angry, not about the switch, but rather The Sun's cruel timing. It took the limelight from a buoyant and promising Labour conference. That's all the paper can do nowadays - pick the right time. After all, it has lost its 'voice of the nation' moniker. By getting in bed with an old Etonian it has proved itself to be one of society's biggest hypocrites. Watch out Dave, give it a few years and you'll be splashed across the front page when the party has had enough of you - or smells another winner...it never fails to back one you know!

Trip to Westminster

So on Friday 18th September, most of the Year 12 G&P cohort, along with a few Year 13s, travelled down to London for a trip round Westminster. Mr. Owen was saved from having a panic attack when everyone arrived at Piccadilly in plenty of time, we boarded the Virgin train and had a smooth ride. Even the Underground was trouble free. The trip leader was perplexed, things were not supposed to be this straightforward. So, as I gingerly escorted the pupils through the Westminster crowds, I tentatively entertained the idea that everything would pass off without a hitch.

I think it did. In fact I think I speak for everyone in saying that we had a hugely enjoyable and successful day. Even the sun shone down on us. After being denied entry to Westminster Abbey for free (should such places be free as a public right? Discuss) we found ourselves joining Peter Tatchell and a group of electoral reform campaigners. This certainly wasn't in the trip leader's plan. 'Vote for a change' are a recently created pressure group, a result I suspect of this period of so-called 'broken politics' following the expenses scandal. They basically want to see the end of FPTP and the creation of a fairer voting system. One of the alternatives being thrown around at the moment is the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the details of which I wont't go into here, needless to say that it is fairer.

With Year 12 studying Pressure Groups later this year and Year 13 'steeped in it', thanks to Mr. Owen's lessons (!) this was certainly exciting stuff. The pupil's enthusiasm soon got the better of them and before the trip leader could step in, placards were being waved and slogans chanted. It was a fantastic photo opportunity and a journalistic coup for the photographers and promo people wandering round the green. Indeed as I returned home in the evening I was able to find the photos published on the internet. It was a very surreal experience; nevertheless it was one that contributed to the enjoyment of the day no end.

After our foray into political remonstrating we entered Portcullis House for the start of our package. It began with 45 minutes in a Select Committee room. Pupils used 'Quizdom' to vote on and debate a range of issues. After this we had a question and answer session with Neil Gerrard MP. In my opinion, for someone about to leave Parliament and able to 'say what he wanted', he was still incredibly guarded and dry. On several occasions he didn't actually answer the question but did that thing which politicians do best - read from the well-versed song script. I asked him if he was a socialist. He said 'I hope so' (there seems to be an element of doubt there...) and proceeded to argue that he 'wasn't New Labour'. He also failed to sing the praises of FPTP when challenged on electoral reform, preferring instead to rubbish the alternatives. Nevermind, at least the pupils gained an insight into a 'typical' politician.

After this we had our tour. I think for all of us this was the highlight of the day. Both Houses, Westminster Hall, the works. The Houses were, as I expected them to be, small - much smaller than you would expect from seeing them on television. Parliamentary and elected privilege meant that we weren't allowed to sit down. Our guide Emily was knowledgeable and informative - I learned a thing or two, including the fact that UKIP do not have an MP, something that I had automatically assumed up till now!

Following our visit we walked down Whitehall and took in Downing Street, Horse Guards (cue poses with Guards soldiers - poor guys) and Buckingham Palace (again, rather smaller in real life!) This took us in the direction of the Victoria tube. So after Mr. Clayton nearly met a sticky end at the hands of a white van man we caught the now much busier underground back up to Euston and then went home.

Overall, a successful day. The pupils were very lucky to visit a place like this so early into their studies. It was a first for me - Politics degree notwithstanding.

History repeating itself?

Another contribution to my 6th Form blog (published elsewhere)

To say that History repeats itself is the biggest cliche in the book - of course it does. In fact, the repetition of history is so self evident that my mind scarecely registers this circular motion when I see murders being committed in the name of a religion (again), intolerance (again), political ideologies becoming mainstream (again), blue being the 'in' colour this season (again), music styles being repeated (again) and so on. However, one story in this weekend's news did catch my attention.

Have a look at the following article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/13/right-wing-groups-palestinian-march Now, we're all familiar with the BNP and their racist message. However, a new disturbing racist organisation has emerged - the English Defence League. This 'patriotic' association, like its partners in SIOE (Stop the Islamification of Europe) have been causing riots and disturbances in areas with a high Muslim population, or, as the report says, where various Islamic events and marches have been taking place.

As disturbing as this is, it is not without precedent. In the 1930s a new political party was formed called the British Union of Facists. Like now, the country was in a deep recession - some economists would say that it was a depression. However, the country was not supposedly 'swamped' with Muslims back then. Just like in Hitler's Germany it was the Jews who were targeted. In the so-called 'Battle of Cable Street' in London in 1936, 'Blackshirts' (Fascists), anti-Fascist protestors and police clashed. Is history repeating itself at the moment. The Spectator would not have us believe so http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5324466/john-denhams-mosleycomparison-merely-sensationalises-racetensions.thtml However, to discount the admittedly minor problems caused by the EDL runs the risk of falling into another of the 'traps' of History. The BUF started as a small organisation too - it was only WW2 which saw it being disbanded. The BNP were written off until they won 2 seats in the North West and Yorkshire European elections. The EDL may be small, however their tactics are echoed in History, and just as History shows, far right hate groups have the power, means and the message to increase their scope and success. Watch this space.

The US vs. The NHS

N.B. Originally written for my A-Level politics groups

You may have been aware of a furore over health care that has taken place in America over the summer. The political battles have been very insightful for students of AS and A2 politics. Below, I will try to outline some of the main points.

At the moment, healthcare in America is funded mainly by private insurance companies. In other words, it is not free. In order to cover the costs of a stay in hospital Americans need to purchase insurance with one of the many big insurance conglomerates such as AETNA or AmeriHealth - see http://www.amerihealth.com/. Insurance, however, is not cheap and 47 million Americans go without, leaving them at risk if they develop health problems. In the 1960s the American government stepped in, creating "Medicare" and "Medicaid" - to help retirees and the destitute (you'll have to check which is which). However, these by no means provide the kind of universal health care that the likes of Clinton and Obama have campaigned for.

When Bill Clinton became President in 1992 he tried to pass a bill guaranteeing "Universal Health Care". It failed, and now Obama is trying for a second time. Basically what it means is that a "National" Health Service along the lines of the British and Canadian model will be created. This will guarantee health care for those currently too poor to pay for insurance. Ideologically it recognises that health care is a right, not a privilege of the rich. Also, by covering ALL Americans, it carries rather a lot of moral clout. In the world's richest country, the only superpower left, many people are dying needlessly. Charities originally set up to help third world patients treat Americans in converted sports stadiums. The system at present seems wholly unworkable and unethical. Why, then, is it coming up against so much opposition?

There are three reasons for this:

1. Money. The Health Insurance Companies make a lot of money. It the government suddenly dipped its hands in its (deep) pockets and guaranteed health insurance for all Americans these companies would face a serious drop in profits. They therefore use their influence to flood Washington with lobbyists who get politicians to block healthcare reform in return for financial help at election time. It's a neat situation which keeps everyone happy - the incumbents are re-elected due to well financed campaigns; health reform stays off the statute book. Given this state of affairs, the White House appears incredibly isolated.

2. Ideology. This is perhaps even more important; Americans are incredibly fearful of the growing influence of the state on ordinary people's lives. They see government intervention as the preserve of the failed social democratic countries of C20th Europe. Some right wingers even go as far as to say that universal health care is one small step on the slippery slope towards communism. Amercians are fiercely conservative, they don't like change and they don't like the idea that the government is interfering in their lives - which, as they see it is a waste of money and personnel.

3. Fear. Unfortunately, this is the ugly side of American politics. In order to stop this so-called 'communist' system being passed, some Republicans and opponents have said that:

-National Health Care is a breeding ground for terrorism - they cite the failed Glasgow airport terrorist attack (perpetrated by two NHS doctors) as an example.
-Elderly or sick patients would face government "death boards" where bureaucrats decide whether you should live or die (assuming than continued care would be at too great a cost to the state)
-Obama and his supporters are socialists (a dirty word in America ever since the days of Cold War hysteria), a communist, a fascist, a Hitler-lover etc...

Worryingly, some even say that health care is not a fundamental privilege for anyone but can be used a tool of "social cleansing" - the worthless sections of society can be allowed to die off, thus improving the collective 'lot' of the 'good' sections of society.

Conservatives have also cited the NHS as symbol of everything that is wrong with government controlled health care. It is claimed that death boards exist, hospitals are dirty, primitive and if you get cancer "then you're a gonner". American news networks have interviewed British conservatives who support their views, most notably the MEP Daniel Hannan who has said that he 'wouldn't wish the NHS on anybody': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiSPRkq28iU

This has let to an almost patriotic outpouring of support for the NHS in the UK this summer. The Labour Party has jumped on Hannan's remarks as symptomatic of the ambivalence felt by the Opposition for Britain's most cherished national institution. David Cameron has dismissed Hannan's remarks as "eccentric" and pledged his party's support behind the NHS. Nevertheless, the Labour Party are bound to claim again and again before next year's election that the NHS will not be safe under a Conservative government: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/18/labour-keep-up-nhs-attacks-on-tories/. This is quite clearly a piece of political opportunism by Labour. Everyone knows that the NHS is safe with either party - as Tony Benn puts it, if it were disbanded "there would be a revolution". The bigger problem is how to reform a system which, no matter how much you love it (as Brown's twitter on 'welovethenhs' contends), still provides a number of challenges to a government no matter its colours. This is where the real dividing lines will be drawn before the next election.

In the meantime, American Universal Healthcare seems to be stalling. Town Hall meetings are descending into shouting matches, Democratic congressmen are hiring bodyguards to protect themselves during the heated exchanges and Obama has had to go on TV telling Americans that the government will not kill the extremely ill (as Hitler's euthenasia programme of the late 30s did...this was suggested by one woman at a meeting here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8). In short, this is a battle for the very soul of America and it reflects the divided nature of this young democracy. If healthcare passes, and I doubt it, this will mean more than the extension of insurance to the needy - it will be a sea-change in American politcs. But then again, this country elected a black man less than a year ago. Anything is possible...

Some thoughts on tourism...

Yesterday morning ı got up early in order to make my way down to Sultanhamet before the crowds so that I could go get into the Aya Sofıa and the Blue Mosque. Both were, as expected, beautiful but were spoıled by tourists. I recognise that İ am one myself and that by going to such places İ am contributing one iota to the commotion. Nevertheless, İ still feel that İ am not 'one of them'...

The way İ see ıt, tourism today has reduced once important and hugely important and influential sıtes to public 'frıpperies'. The advent of the digital camera means that we can snap away without a second thought or glance at what we're actually taking a picture of. Gone are the days when we had only 36 exposures and had to pick and choose carefully.

But do people actually know they're taking photos of? Or do they snap away because ıt 'looks nıce'? Posing is something else that bothers me. By posing you are ıdentıfying yourself wıth an object/paıntıng/buıldıng..whatever. You may share an ımage wıth a 10th century mosaıc of the Vırgın Mary wıth Christ, but what point is beıng made - 'look Frank, I was actually here..!' Does thıs need proving? Cynıcal. It provıdes a nıce background to a pıcture of Bob and Phıl? I'm sorry mate but a 10th century mosaıc deserves to be ın the foreground. Get the fuck out of my pıcture!

Photography ın the Blue Mosque (and in any place of worshıp) bothers me (lıke most thıngs? Another rant..) If you lıke the look of the place, buy postcards. They're probably better qualıty anyway. You're measly flash ıs not goıng to fıll the dome of the Aya Sofıa. What ıs partıcularly dıstressıng about photography ın the mosque ıs that ıt ıs stıll a place of worshıp (as well as a tourıst productıon lıne). Tourısts are allowed ın only between prayers..however, there are people prayıng here all the tıme. The thought of someone takıng photos of thıs sacred act ıs pretty sıckenıng - 'Look ^^generıc mate/relatıon from home^^, a real Muslım prayıng ın a real mosque.' WTF! The crowds move through one door and out of the other - lıke a tourıst productıon lıne..and stıll yet the quıet serentıy of the Blue Mosque ıs unmoved. It's almost as ıf the Gods or the buıldıng ıtself are lookıng down wıth a quıet aır of dısapproval or bewılderment at the waterıng down of thıs sacred place. Sure, let us foreıgners and tourıst see ıt. However, we should behave ın a way that shows gratıtude that these places are opened to us ın the fırst place. Photos I don't have a problem wıth, as long as they are taken at the rıght tıme and place. On the beach, at the restaurant, of a hugely ımpressıve buıldıng - not of you ın front of a mosaıc wıth a belıever prayıng ın the background.

As İ knelt down ın the Blue Mosque among the hordes I trıed to ımagıne what the place would be lıke wıthout people such as myself - to tap ınto the 'quıet serentıy' ıf you wıll. Then I heard 'so ıs thıs stıll a ral Mosque mom?' Shame.