In the Ottoman lands..

I am currently halfway though my trip around the old Ottoman Empire, or for those of you whose heads are not filled with History junk, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.

It all started a week ago when I landed in Bucharest. Fresh from a dizzying experience in London in which I got lost on my way to the British museum, I arrived at a European capital that could not be more different to our own. Stray dogs, crumbling buildings and abandoned cars will be my defining memory. Although the place had an odd, quirky charm about it, I cannot help thinking that if the Prime Minister himself has to park amongst overgrown weeds and broken concrete (as seems to be the case at the People's Palace), then the country has some way to go. Like Sarajevo, this will be an interesting destination to visit in 10-15 years.

Then it was over into Bulgaria and the charming medieval town of Veliko Tarnovo. This place was literally bursting at the seams with history. Nevertheless, I opted for a tour of the churches and monasteries of the local area - one of which - Ivanovo - is on the UNESCO list. I travelled with an Australian girl called Lucy and a Dutch brother and sister. Before I left Veliko I went to the top of the Tsaverets Fortress - a great symbol of Bulgarian pride and nationalism.

I then intended to go to Varna, but the complicated nature of the cyrillic alphabet dictated that I would end up in Sofia. The only good thing I can say about this is that I can tick off another European capital city. It was much nicer than Bucharest, though.

And now here I am in Plovdiv, 1 week into my trip and still with a week to go. This place boasts a Roman ampitheatre that was only discovered after a freak landslide in 1972. Tomorrow I head for Burgas for a few lazy days by the beach in preparation for an onslaught of the senses - Istanbul will hopefully be the highlight of my travels this year. I can hardly hide my excitement.

I will write at greater length soon!

Back..

So here I am, back in the UK after a hectic couple of weeks. It all started a few Tuesdays back. After a full day of teaching I went home, only to return to school at 12 midnight to meet 64 children a 6 colleagues for a trip down to Dover and then onwards to the battlefields of WW1.

We travelled through the night, stealing bits of sleep here and there. After a trouble free crossing we went to the 'Trench of Death' in Belgium. I had been told that I'd be feeling reasonably OK despite being up all night and this was pretty much true. I was on working on adrenaline and the repetitive counting of kids and trench exploration meant that tirednes ddin't catch up with me until about 10. I was even happy to have a few beers that evening in the main square in Ypres. The reconstruction has been immaculate (comparisons could be drawn with Warsaw - my residence over last weekend).

So we visited 'the usuals' - Vimy Ridge, the Somme etc.. very interesting to visit the places I've studied (and taught about) for a good while - one worrying point though. A few of the kids said 'it isn't as bad as I thought it would be'. I suppose that this is one of the main differences between a place like the Somme and Auschwitz (my next port of call). The WW1 battlefields have been maintained in pristine condition and, quite frankly, look 'beautiful'. Graves are tended with flowers and grass is diligently mown. The trenches themselves, if they have not been filled with concrete, are covered in thick grass which hides the mud, the rats, the barbed wire and general shit that the trip was supposed to give pupils an insight into. Regrettably, I still think that some of the pupils don't quite recognise the 'horror' of the trenches. Ironic, really considering we have visited the sights themselves. What more is a teacher to do?

So bearely 10 hours after arriving back in Manchester I was out on the road again, this time to Krakow, Poland. I visited with Mike and Owen in 2007 for a 'Lad's break' and we did the usual touristy things - Wieliczka (?) salt mine (crap) and Auschwitz. But of course, this week has taught me one thing - tourism and Auschwitz are uneasy bedfellows. Of course this is a site of mass murder and I visited on two occasions this week, not as a 'tourist' but as a Freelance Educator with the Holocaust Educational Trust. I applied for the post back in May and was successful (thankfully my current employer, Crompton House School, doesn't mind about the time off that this role will entail). What I've just done is a week's on the job training. We studied at both camps (Auschwitz I and Birkenau) with the intention of bringing 16-18 year olds on one day visits over the next year. We also spent a lot of time in the town of Auschwitz (or, to use its correct Polish name - Oswiencim), the Jewish Kazimierz district of Krakow and various Synagogues here and there. Overall it was a rewading, albeit tiring experiences and I look forward to working with HET on its LFA and Outreach programme over the coming year.

At the weekend I got the train up to Warsaw and continued my 'Jewish journey' - finding a surviving section of ghetto wall and visiting the only surviving Synagogue in a city that suffered like no other in WW2. After two days of this and monging in the hostel/drinking Zywiec off Nowy Swiat it was back down to Krakow for the flight home.

Overall a very rewarding two weeks - which is that same amount of time that I have to wait until Bucharest-Istanbul. It is going to be interesting!

Without egalitarianism, what is the point of Labour?

In a speech to the Fabian Society (a Labour think-tank) last week, Communities Secretary John Denham said that the party must abandon..

"...the purely needs-based approach to fairness, and inequality which has dominated much left-liberal thinking since the 1960s...The left needs to stop holding up egalitarianism as the ideal. If we continue to believe that the egalitarian approach is really the right one, and we, somehow, have to find more cunning ways of getting there, we will fail."

I only came across this speech having seen it reported in the Manchester Evening News. Their political commentator Andrew Grimes (whose 'Opinions you can't ignore') gushingly agreed, claiming that 'egalitarianism discriminates against common sense. It prescribes largesse for the idle, paid for by the diligent'. This, of course, assumes that the poor are not only idle, but that the rich are diligent. Perhaps more often than not it is the other way round.

Grimes goes on, perhaps much further that Denham would be able to stomach...'But the political notion of equality is an absolutist notion (!?), and it always has been. It its extremist modern manifestation, Pol Pot murdered millions in the killing fields of Combodia because they wore spectacles, read books, dressed nicely, earned more than paddy field labourers, or just fearlessly argued back against the egalitatian goons.'

This is sensationalist reporting at its best/worst (?) Grimes clings to the right, and in order to smear the left, like Tebbit, he will liken their current ideas with the most despicable moments in the history of the left (Tebbit, like I said in an earlier post, goes one step further by saying that the National Socialist Party of 1919-1945 in Germany was 'left wing')

What's perhaps most disturbing, however (I'm not bothered about what Grimes has to say - were he any good as a writer he wouldn't be commenting in a free paper)is that a Labour cabinet minister has come out against egalitarianism. A very good friend of mine argues against clinging tirelessly to old left-right arguments. To a large extent I agree with him. What I cannot do, however, is disassociate the Labour party from egalitarianism. The two go hand in hand - like day and night, fish and chips..whichever analogy you which to pursue. In the last 20 years much of the ideological baggage has been stripped away from the Labour party. This was necessary in order to fight the Militant Tendency and make Labour electable again. It is no longer committed to public ownership as a means to achieving equality - today is it an ideal to which the party strives rather than a policy goal. To take away this ideal removes Labour's raison d'etre. The post Clause IV period has seen Labour become a candidate for the 'Trades Discription Act' - take away egalitarianism and the party will have no reason to exist.

What is Sarkozy's motivation for this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8112821.stm

President Sarkozy of France has spoken out against Muslim French women wearing the full burkha, saying that it 'reduced them to servitude and undermined their dignity'. This is widely regarded as a prelude to the establishment of a parliamentary commission which may in the long run ban the wearing of burkhas in public. This is a sickening denial of an individual's human right to practice their religion and whatever that entails - provided that, of course, this does not inpinge on the liberty of others.

Quite frankly, I do not mind if women wear the burkha in public (so, no, it doesn't inpinge on my liberty and nor should it one anyone else's). The negligable, quite frankly miniscule minority who have in the past used it to disguise suicide bombs (and bombings have never been carried out in the West this way it must be said) number less than that other minority who say that it excludes these women from society. Unfortunately, the French government seems to fall into this latter category.

Yes, the women look 'different', but so do hassidic Jews. So, to be honest, do monks. Sarkozy's arguments completely contradict what most women who wear the burkha would say. Rather than reducing them to servitude and undermining their dignity, they serve as a very visible manifestation of women's deep religious beliefs. Sarkozy claims that they are a symbol of the paternalistic, submissive nature of conservative Islam synonymous with (although he doesn't specifically say this..) forced marriages, beatings and the like.

He has clearly missed the point. 99.9% of women wear their veil because it reflects their deep belief. It is a human right. Surely, Sarkozy must recognise this to some extent. The question is, then, what is his motivation? Is he racist? Unlikely. Is he so caught up in France's famous secularist culture that he is tripping over himself to deny the legitimate rights of thousands of French women? Possibly. This is significant because it has precedents in history, not least Nazi Germany in the 1930s when Jews started to emigrate as a direct result of the harsh policy of Nazis.

Oh, isn't it terribly awful about the Speaker..

It's a feature of British politics that really annoys me; politicians, the public, the media, you name it - they will call on a public figure to go, they will hound him or her, they will rake up all manner of arguments to support their claims. Then, when the individual finally gets out of their bunker and resigns, caving in to the pressure, it is followed by a collective "oh, he wasn't that bad", "we'll really miss her", "she was an excellent so-and-so".

I watched tributes to the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, today with a certain degree of cynicism. MPs and in some cases party leaders (Nick Clegg) who called for Martin's head gushed with praise for 'Gorbals Mick'. As a result, I was quite happy when Martin used his last address to attack party leaders for not supporting his plans last year to overhaul MP's expenses.

Praising individuals after you have stuck the knife in is nothing new in UK politics. A couple of years ago, after a sustained attack on former LibDem leader Ming Campbell about his age (65) and apparent unsuitability for the job, the former Olympic medal winner stepped aside and this paved the way for the younger Clegg. Again, immediately afterwards praise was heaped onto Campbell as a very able leader who, indeed, is well respected across the political spectrum and in the country (dodgy expenses notwithstanding!)

Historians among us will recognise that age is no barrier to success in politics: Gladstone - 85 years old in retirement in 1894. Churchill - 81 years old in 1955.

This leaves me with a simple conclusion. In both the Westmister 'soap opera' and civil society we all love to see someone dragged through the mud even if their credentials or record do not merit this. We lick our lips with anticipation as we wait for the axe to fall. When it does, we face sober realisation - we've dispatched with one of the 'good guys'. Gushing praise is one way to compensate for these guilty feelings.

An apologist for right wing conservatism

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind some Conservatives. It's a belief that certainly bucks the trend of late, however, I passionately believe that there are politicians in all parties who go into politics because they want to change things. They are fundamentally decent people. David Davis comes to mind...Lord Tebbit is NOT a decent person.

In a letter to The Spectator, Tebbit says that he does not think that there is anything right wing about the BNP. He believes that the party displays the old left wing policies of Labour before Blair et al. He regards history's greatest racists as leftists - Pol Pot, Mugabe and Stalin. To top it all he points out that 'Nazi' is short for NDSAP, or - National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Let's make one thing clear. Tebbit refuses to believe that the far right is the place for objectionable views because it provides room and justification for his own arch-conservatism. Indeed, he was the biggest right winger in the Thatcher cabinet - and made Thatcher herself look like someone whom Michael Foot was regard as a 'a bit of a lefty'

Of course Tebbit forgets to mention that the Nazis hated communism. Hitler campaigned for 20 years prior to becoming Chancellor on a platform of destroying the 'Reds' whom, for him along with Jews were responsible for the defeat of 1918. In power, Hitler banned the party (along with all others) and abolished trade unions. Economically, the extreme right and left do favour state control, the former through massive state corporations, the latter through worker's control. However, a fundamental difference remains - for fascists the state must become even more powerful. For communists and socialists it must wither away.

Furthermore, I don't think the BNP would take kindly to being regarded as 'left wing'. Only this week, Griffin railed against the 'liberal left' in the Unite Against Fascism movement for egging the leader a 'legitimately elected political party'. Opposition to Europe is a fundamentally right wing principle (socialists, by their very nature are internationalist), as are old fashioned attutudes to education and reluctance to invest in foreign aid (see BNP website http://bnp.org.uk/). We all know that anyone who criticises the BNP is, in their eyes, a Marxist nut, the 'mob' who attacked Griffin outside Parliament on Wednesday were under the auspices of the 'hard left'.

Clearly, Tebbit simply wants to pile the responsibility for the more extreme variants of his ideology on the left. Yes, communism has been responsbible for the deaths of millions (Stalin's purges and famines), however, to call fascism a left wing ideology is a complete contradiction in terms. At its heart fascists believe that life is a struggle between races, some of which are fundamentally better than others. Socialists don't see races, merely classes. Stalin fell into the old fascist trap of seeing some people as 'more equal that others', however true socialism has none of the hatred, bigotry and plain old idiosyncracies of its cousin on the far right. I am saddened that a former cabinet member will engage such a cheap argument not only when the old left-right argument is dead in the political mainstream but just so he can legitimise his own extreme views.

Is it any secret that he finds himself more akin to the BNP than the Tories? To make himself feel better Tebbit has had to dispense with some of the 'baggage of history'.

A dark day...

I'm sitting here listening to 'If you tolerate this...' by the Manic Street Preachers:

And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next...
...Gravity keeps my head down
Or is it maybe shame
At being so young and being so vain...
...And on the street tonight an old man plays
With newspaper cuttings of his glory days

To be renamed - *An ode for the abstainers* ??

I could have chosen a different quote - 'All that is left fo evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing' - Perhaps that's even more apt; PR elections are more democratic, however the problem comes with a low turnout when marginal parties like the BNP are elected. And that is exactly what happened today.

I happily blogged a year ago that the BNP had failed to succeed in the local elections. I remember my time in Carlisle - a key background for the BNP - characterised by fascist campaigning and leafleting. Ultimately such efforts were in vain. Now these neo-Nazis have two MEPs. Notwitstanding the fact that Euro-elections didn't exist during Mosley's day, one cannot get away from the fact that the far right can claim their biggest electoral achievement in British political history.

Their success can be boiled down to several reasons:
1. Anger over MPs expenses and general disillusionment with the Westminster system/the (warped) belief that MPs are 'in it for as much as they can screw out of the general public'
2. The rightward direction of New Labour over the last decade and a half - the inevitable skewing re: the distribution of wealth and the political 'disenfranchisement' of the old Labour party's natural constituency - the white working classes
3. Linked to the above - the working class's belief (wrong) that Labour has abandoned them and opened the floodgates to waves of immigrants (mainly eastern European) who have taken jobs and drained public finances through benefit claims.
4. The world economic crisis - probably less important than it may first appear to be - Brown has been largely praised for his statesmanlike approach regarding the financial crisis and benefitted a lot from the G20 (although expenses has largely negated this). Plus, no other British politician is seen as a better option in this respect - Cameron, for example, is still seen as a risky soft option.
5. The political nous of the far right to 'seize the moment', play on people's fears and exploit their own coverage and that of the discredited main parties for their own political gain. In this regard, the actions of the Telegraph has been abominable (has the editor been in the pay of Griffin et al?).

These tactics are nothing new, however, they have just come at a time when people are feeling other anxieties. This has created a toxic stew which has resulted in fascists representing me in the European parliament.

More to follow. I'm trying to organise my thoughts on this one -