Of Walking Abortion

The value of a pledge? Roughly £7,000 p.a.

2010-10-12T21:20:00.002+01:00

It's difficult how to react to these most recent revelations about yet another U-turn by the Liberal Democrats. This must now complete the most comprehensive and rapid breaking of policy pledges any party has ever enacted. Even New Labour at the height of Blairism didn't go this far (Thatcherism of course had always stated its aims - if anything it probably didn't go far enough considering its ideology).

But this betrayal of the LibDems basic constituents has got to be one of the most senseless and bizarre decisions ever taken by a party. What do they expect to get out of this (a Lordship for Clegg and Cable? Is that it?)? Are they aware who their voters are; namely students, academics, university towns? Are they aware of the havoc this will cause and the extent to which the gap and divisions within society will widen? Perhaps they do not care.

This also further entrenches the neoliberalisation of the UK. What began under Thatcher, was accentuated under New Labour (in relation to universities, quite heavily so) is now being pushed out completely into the arms of business logic and diktat.

But the most unfathomable aspect to all of this is the speed and brutality with which pledges have been not only discarded or compromised (these things happen after every election), but comprehensively overturned.

Of course the once sainted Vince Cable will claim that it is all Labour's fault, that they did not know the state of the finances. But of course they did: The figures had been public. So either they were incompetent before the election, promising things they could not possible hold, or they lied. I am quite sure that it's almost exclusively the latter, since there is an alternative (in fact: alternatives) to the drastic and ideologically-driven proposals put forward by the coalition (or let's just call it the Tory government, since that is what it is de facto).

The New Statesman predicted at the beginning of September that the photo above might yet come back to haunt Nick Clegg. What the New Statesman couldn't guess (no one could) was the wholehearted endorsement offered by the LibDem leadership. They merely suggested that an abstention to send the bill through would be sufficient to please the government while appeasing the LibDems constituents. It seems they have been even more radical and idiotic than that. It will certainly come back to haunt the Liberal Democrats as they face - rightly so - political oblivion and possibly the end of the party altogether.

Tory and Tory

2010-10-07T22:57:00.005+01:00

Question Time throws up an interesting commentary on the right-wing lurch in British politics:

QT's guests consist of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Charles Clarke, Susan Kramer, Max Mosley, Susan Cramer and Rageh Omah.

Baroness Warsi is easily turning into the prominent figure of hate in the Tory party. If the Tories needed to reinvent that hard-nosed Tory without an ounce of compassion, then they have found that archetypical person in Baroness Warsi. Her constant interruptions and attempts to lecture the audience, Dimbleby and members of the panel, grate beyond belief. It would be nice to see the Tories wheel her out more often, as she can only alienate people.

Susan Kramer is probably as right-wing as David Laws in the Liberal Democrats and thus represents the most extreme right-wing fringe of the Liberal Democratic Party.

Charles Clarke, of course, is also on the right of New Labour (yes, the right of New Labour): Again a member of the hard-right.

Bizarrely, what is noticeable within this environment is that Max Mosley, the son of a fascist, and someone who acted within the legacy of his father (the Union Movement) sounds, relatively speaking, reasonable (within the context of having three right-wingers out-tough themselves).

Rageh Omaar (of whom I don't know what his political views really are, but he seems quite keen on the 'Big Society') is so far off the centre ground (despite of his endorsement of BS) in the presence of essentially an internal right-wing bickering, that his interjections sound like dreamy afterthoughts.

This really highlights how right-wing Britain has become. The basic questions of centre ground and of ideology do not feature, as it seem a fait accompli that the standard conversation is firmly on the right. To be sure, there is clearly a discrepancy with sections of the audience, but who represents them?

Red Ed

2010-09-26T09:43:00.005+01:00

Here are a few observations on Ed Miliband's Labour leadership victory:

Firstly, I do think it is a good thing considering the alternative (David Miliband): The New Labour generation has been left behind and, assuming he remains party leader for at least four years, looks unlikely to come back. So irrespective of his prospects of becoming PM (and my hunch tells me he won't win), it is at least a good thing to have - in a way - sidelined the Blairites and New Labour.

But still, it is remarkable the way in which he is being presented as the left-wing candidate. Perhaps in relative terms he is 'left-wing' (in the same way that, say, John McCain might be described as left-wing compared to Sarah Palin) but in real, concrete terms, what does he advocate that is so left-wing? He advocates a living wage (of roughly £7), but is that really what makes someone left-wing? As far as I can see, he has located Labour's votes not among Tories (so he's not targeting the right) but among LibDems and non-voters. But this is hardly left-wing.

There is very little on neoliberalism and the creeping privatisation of Britain and its public spaces and services. In fact, reading his pledges (very content-light) there seem to be endlessly confused messages of supporting the working class, business, competitiveness, about being against both traditionalists and the new traditionalists New Labour. Here is his confused quote:

In the early 1990s some Labour people thought of themselves as traditionalists defending the Labour cause against Tony Blair and the modernisation of New Labour. Today our danger is to defend traditionalist new Labour solutions on every issue because this will consign us to defeat. It is my rejection of this New Labour nostalgia that makes me the modernising candidate at this election.

So is he advocating a 'fourth way'?

Where this notion of Red Ed comes from is from the support he has received from the Trade Unions. It's presented as some kind of shadowy deal, which is contrary to any democratic processes and understanding. Every media gimp repeats this ad nauseam, but of course what this constitutes is a real representation of the working class and employees. Moreover, since individual members vote on the issue, it is even more surprising that these votes are presented as somehow detached from the 'real world'. Yet our Big Business-obsessed media depict this as shady, undemocratic, fundamentally wrong. He is 'in the pay of the unions', they claim. It is a daft claim and says very little about his policies (about which no one really knows much and those that are known look rather more mainstream to me).

On foreign policy, it is somewhat of a break with the past, but it must be qualified, too. Unlike his brother and Andy Burnham who voted very strongly for the Iraq War, Ed Miliband has distance between the foreign policy crimes of New Labour and himself. Unlike his brother David, his hands aren't sullied by torture. But he has voted against an investigation into the Iraq War and for New Labour's anti-terrorist measures. But he (along with Diane Abbott who always had the cleanest record on most issues) has made some encouraging noises about moving away from the imperialist, aggressive nonsense of New Labour.

So on the whole, he isn't left-wing, but perhaps enough non-New Labour to expunge or at least neutralise that particular part of the party.

UPDATE:

Julian Glover is against Ed Miliband, so it cannot be all that bad.

Neil Clark offers a very good analysis on the myth of Ed's redness.

The DUSA

2010-09-15T23:57:00.004+01:00

As mentioned in my previous post, the US has gone through a remarkable development over the last few decades, accelerated since the Bush administration and 9/11 (the reaction to 9/11 was rather more a symptom than a starting point).

Now, it seems the Tea Party and its truly whacky members are gaining more and more clout and power with Christine O'Donnell winning the primary in Delaware (apparently the Republicans aren't right-wing enough). Coupled with Pastor Terry Jones' planned 'Burn a Koran Day' and the almost inevitable arrival of strong and vocal anti-Islam movements in the US, it seems that the USA are going through a development that is not merely standard American difference and eccentricity.

The economic crisis, the increasing power of fundamentalists and extremists, and ethnic tensions in the southern-western states of the country bode ill for a country that was founded both on violence (the legacy may return) but also on openness and frontier thinking. The possibility of serious civil strife suddenly seems less of a fantasy and more of a possibility.

While some are interpreting the rise of the Tea Party as a way of splitting the right-wing vote (this may be true in the very short-term), I would see it as further evidence for a real inward turn and signs of an implosion within American society. The USA are becoming disunited, which may be funny for about half a second, but in reality places 300 million with lots of weapons and diverse and transnational agendas in a dangerous position of disunity and tension.

Perhaps this sounds melodramatic, but one cannot underestimate the toxic mix of real economic hardship, ethnic and social tensions, and fundamentalism (that and a lot of guns, as mentioned). The primaries will be interesting indeed.

Superpower in ignorance?

2010-08-19T21:22:00.005+01:00

There has been much talk of the waning power of the USA. Indeed, looking at larger scales and broader developments, one might be inclined to draw such preliminary conclusions (China, India, Russia, Brazil, the EU etc...). Certainly on a discursive level, there has been a marked shift in emphasis away from the US, which may or may not correspond to actual events, but certainly renders the impression that the USA is no longer the centre of the world (in my own mental map the gravity has shifted away from America - both figuratively speaking, but also the way I imagine the world map).

There have been plentiful studies, commentaries, reports etc on the development of economies, natural resources, military might, the effects of ill-conceived (and dreadfully executed) foreign policy adventures. There are also a number of drip-drip studies (some quite bogus, others interesting) that tend to confirm and reconfirm our European prejudices about American ignorance.

The two that struck me today were these:

One survey of first year students (i.e. 18 year olds) revealed that the majority did not know that Czechoslovakia ever existed, nor that Germany had ever been divided, nor that John McEnroe used to play tennis (rather than be an ad-celebrity), nor that Apartheid existed in South Africa (a trend in ignorance first observed in 2006). When prompted with the expression Banana Republic, the majority thought they were referring to a brand and did not understand the expression in the historical-political sense.

Another survey (amongst American adults in general) demonstrated that a fifth (that is every fifth American!) believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. This either shows that Americans can be incredibly gullible and impressionable, or - more worryingly - that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of compromise, 'Americanness', and dialogue (of course this survey was made against the backdrop of the 'Mosque' debate in New York).

This is not a case of bashing Americans. Not at all. It's simply a consideration why predictions of America's soon-to-be decline are rarely linked to the ever-increasing inward turn in US society as a whole. How is it possible that a country that was build on the idea of ever-growing horizons have turned so in on itself that apparently a good number of Americans barely comprehend their own country, let alone the world beyond the big blue sea? A country that has prized itself on its innovations now produces students (students, no less) who have never heard of the major developments and actors of around their own birth (not in some mythical distant past).

Is this indeed an integral part of how a country 'plays' on the international scene? There are often (lazy) references to Rome and decadence (of course the Roman Empire was at its strongest during some of the most 'decadent' periods - but never mind), but what about ignorance and decline? On the day that A-Level results are being published and the Great Education Debate starts afresh in that annual ritual, it is certainly worth bearing this in mind and also a word of warning how important and delicate the education system is. It is not about establishing 'global power' or anything, but about shaping a society that works. Education has certainly a key role to play, as the US (and perhaps most stingingly the 'progressives') are maybe just finding out.

Something must be wrong

2010-08-03T16:10:00.003+01:00

AS European states pass more and more laws against the Gypsy and traveller communities, it is interesting yet somewhat predictable to note that many observers and members of the public take this as proof for their existing stereotypes.

As Nicolas Sarkozy plans to tighten the noose around the Roma community's neck, Berlusconi continues his populist anti-Gypsy rhetoric (often purposely confused with anti-foreigner rhetoric), some east-central European states (for example, Hungary under the right-wing populist government of FIDESz) continue their legal ostracising of Gypsy communities, and 'sensible' countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Germany add to the expulsion frenzy of Roma, the prejudices against them (just as one example of many 'black sheep' in Europe) increase.

Indeed, as 'sensible' countries are taking these measures, it only seems natural to deduce that there must be something afoot for said countries to act in such a draconian manner. But this is merely the perverse logic of yesteryear.

Apologies for evoking parallels to the interwar period, but when more and more anti-Jewish laws were being passed, more and more fascists and rightists were gaining control in Europe, would it therefore have been sensible to deduce that indeed there was a 'Jewish problem' that needed dealing with? In hindsight (and then, at least to 'sensible' people) this is of course an absurd and in fact ridiculous statement to make. However, when the same logic is applied to Gypsies, or of course Muslims (all of them, no less, with France 'leading' the way again!), this appears to be impeccable logic to some of these members of the public.

But it is precisely the same logic applied in the interwar period or indeed in the 'scramble for Africa' (someone had to 'liberate' them from backwardness). This kind of logic was sick then as it is sick now, and it should therefore be rejected. Sarkozy, Orban, Berlusconi et al may be angling for votes (or even believe the nonsense they peddle), but this will simply not do. Europe has tried expulsions and racially informed laws too many times. It only leads to calamity.

Intervening in 'liberal interventionism'

2010-07-20T16:31:00.007+01:00

The policy of liberal interventionism was always going to unravel at some point. Ever since Tony Blair took power in 1997, UK foreign policy shifted markedly towards a form of neo-imperialist foreign policy embedded in late C20 human rights language. Even before Blair's Chicago speech in 1999 (effectively justifying the bombing of then Yugoslavia), it was clear that Tony Blair's government was heavily concerned with re-establishing the UK's position in the world following decades of decolonisation and postcolonialism (Thatcher's Falklands War notwithstanding).

Those who believe Blair simply became Bush's poodle ignore the fact that aggressive, interventionist foreign policy was already the main foreign policy agenda of the Blair government. It is a mistake to see Iraq (or indeed Afghanistan) as an isolated post-9/11 incident. It makes even less sense to somehow support the intervention in Yugoslavia (or indeed Afghanistan) but object to Iraq. What makes far more sense is to see all three interventions in a similar light: A Machiavellian foreign policy that used the language of human rights (hence the big fallout within the liberal left following 9/11) to bolster power, influence, and control (at all costs), established well before 9/11.

In Yugoslavia, the bombing in March 1999 turned localised clan-style violence (foolishly depicted in the media as a repeat of World War Two) into ethnic cleansing and in fact sanctioned expulsion and ethnic cleansing (as did the muted response to the expulsion of 250,000 Serbs from the Krajina in 1995).

The 'liberation' of Afghanistan (explained in a multitude of ways: Liberating women, fighting the Taliban/Al-Qaeda (with no distinction), bringing democracy, standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US etc...) has set a fractured, violent society back in many ways and has utterly destabilised Pakistan (a country that had dismantled the jihadi networks after 1989 until the post-9/11 folly) and further radicalised Muslims in the region and in Europe.

The 'liberation' of Iraq has done all the damage that has been amply documented in the media, academia, and on the web. There are so many factors that could be mentioned, from the appearance of jihadis to the conservative social turn in a country that has found itself in the crossfire of 'Big Global Politics' for decades.

I mention all this without alluding to what must be now at least hundreds of thousands of dead (in all three cases combined) if not more, millions of refugees, and countless wounded and mentally and physically scarred individuals.

Any thinking person knows all this and knows it has been a catastrophe, for the UK, for the world, but most prominently for the countries directly affected.

And indeed, the worst foreign policy since the early C20 is now unravelling (not before time) in front of our eyes, but without any sense of contrition. On Radio 4 this morning, William Hague almost flippantly admitted the end of the UK's involvement in Afghanistan within the next five years. Instead of simply admitting it isn't working and drawing up a quicker withdrawal timeframe (with the only possible solution of including regional neighbours to help in the nation (re)building) he pretended to still believe in 'winning' this war (whatever that means). Staying another five years is part of this charade, as it appears to send out the signal that the UK is still 'serious' about bringing happiness and democracy to open-armed Afghanis. So here we have a foreign secretary, who as shadow foreign secretary embraced every decision the New Labour government took vis-a-vis Afghanistan, purposely sacrificing more lives for image reasons.

Meanwhile, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, admitted to the Chilcot Inquiry (itself a joke of a panel) today that there were ample warnings given to Blair et al about the foolhardy nature of attacking Iraq. She had warned of the radicalisation of Muslims in Britain (a causal link always staunchly denied subsequently by the idiot cheerleaders of the Iraq War; instead lying that events like 7/7 had nothing to do with the UK's foreign policy - well they were warned in advance about this, so, yes, the victims of 7/7 are linked to Blair's government).

The only regret in all of this is that these interventions regarding liberal interventionism have come so late and - in some cases like Hague (as a committed liberal interventionist) - in such a feeble and conniving manner. Liberal interventionism must be viewed in the same light as any other aggressive, traumatic foreign policy of, say, the last 200 years. This must include the rejecting the story of 'good' interventions in Yugoslavia and/or Afghanistan - it has always been part of the same brutal agenda.

And while recent revelations (regarding Iraq, regarding the use of torture, regarding the ill-judged invasion of Afghanistan) should be welcomed, they are too little too late.

Joke 2.0

2010-07-06T10:30:00.004+01:00

Unfortunately, I found this on the Guardian website today. PeterBracken deemed it appropriate to waste a couple of hours of his life telling the world about his fantasies.

The problem with this is not so much its 'content' (this is easily dismantled or, better still, ignored as the nonsense that it is). It's not the fact that Bracken cannot distinguish between maverick one-off opinions, and Zizek, established criticisms of NATO's treatment of Yugoslavia, nuanced and subtle understandings and criticisms of power and hierarchy. It's also not so much that he patently has little or no knowledge of the broad themes he conveniently throws in. No, all of that is irrelevant.

It is perfectly acceptable to be ignorant of many issues and topics. It is of course absolutely acceptable to voice opinions, be they contradictory, illogical, ill-informed, ignorant etc as in Bracken's case.

What is bamboozling, however, is why an company like the Guardian (or CiF - an offshoot of this) would deem it appropriate or indeed relevant to publish such guff.

The Web 2.0 phenomenon has created space for such ramblings to be published, namely on a personal, non-authoritative site - in much the same way that I use this blog (The stuff I collate here ends up here for a purpose - namely because I don't send these particular written texts to authoritative publishers and precisely because it is quickly digestible).

So there are two observations: One is the fact that PeterBracken evidently has no self-awareness and thus cannot judge correctly the 'quality' of his 'text'. Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, is the stance the Guardian/CiF have taken in this respect, namely a kind of 'You Tell Us' approach. The Guardian still enjoys a position of authority and to publish fantasies smacks of relativism of the highest order. As brutal as it may sound, but not every opinion is equally valid or equal. Therefore, an organ that published an article by Ulrich Beck within 30 minutes as it publishes an 'article' by PeterBracken has completely and utterly lost its way.

'We're all in this together as we take tough decisions'

2010-06-22T22:52:00.005+01:00

It is difficult to imagine a more cynical media stunt than this budget and its media portrayal. Leaving aside the obvious fallacies of punishing the public sector for private failings and greed, it is the way in which the impending cuts have been framed that have bothered me most. George Osborne, a multimillionaire who has never really had to work to make ends meet, emphasises time and time (along with the other 22 millionaires in a cabinet of 29) that 'we are all in this together'.

About half a year ago on Question Time the question was raised whether it is right to point out Osborne's exceptionally privileged background and assets. Every panelist (including a Labour minister and Ian Hislop) deferred to Osborne pointing out that it is not 'his fault' (is the same 'argument' used to explain systemic poverty?). But I think it is obvious that this lies at the heart of the debate.

This budget and its ensuing cuts will hit the poor the hardest, along with areas that don't directly 'make money' (education and the arts), so it is not at all the case that 'we are all in this together'. On the contrary, Osborne et al have probably never had it this good - rich, and now in power too!

The idea that the Liberal Democrats will somehow soften the blow has also evaporated. Until the election, it somehow went unnoticed that the parliamentary party - particularly the frontbench - is even less egalitarian than the Tories (quite a feat!). Not only have they changed their minds on the timescale of cuts (now, and not as they had campaigned for: later), but they have also reneged on yet another election promise of not raising VAT (Is there any major pledge that they have stuck to? I cannot think of one.).

Then there are these 'tough choices' and the 'pain'. To paraphrase Tony Judt, the way it has been presented in the media is the wrong way around. 'Tough & pain' would mean the ability to endure pain, not to inflict it, as this multimillionaire government is now doing. Shedding crocodile tears about the 'pain we are all going to share' will not do and is cynical beyond belief.

But the media are going along with this entirely. There is no real questioning of their position in using such rhetoric, less still of the political, ideological, and economic reasoning behind further dismantling the British public sphere.

Perhaps the UK (Europe?) has to go far deeper into this vortex of collective stupidity (ironically enough, of fetishising individualism) before asking constructive questions about culture, society, and solidarity.

World Cup of Clichés

2010-06-10T13:13:00.004+01:00

"It's those plucky little Africans' chance to show the world that Africa has changed."

That's roughly what the coverage of this year's World Cup in South Africa amounts to. That and a few other worn-out clichés.

First, there's the idea that this tournament somehow tells us something about 'Africa' (imagine the ludicrousness in claiming that hosting a competition in, say, Thailand would give 'Asia' the chance to prove that human rights are being being respected by 'Asians'). Then there's the big question what change means in this context: Changed from what and to what?

I suspect that as long as cameras show a few smiling six-year-olds smiling in a township saying 'Welcome to South Africa' and the tournament goes smoothly (global revenue for Nike et al goes up; happy faces in the crows; perhaps one or two reaffirming culturally stereotypical incidents in downtown Joburg), then everyone will feel better about themselves. That's until the next problem (anywhere in Africa), which will then be met with consternation and patronage (I thought 'they' had changed!).

I'm not entirely sure what I expect from the coverage, but what I've seen so far doesn't bode well. How can reports on South Africa be treated with such generalisations (it's Africa's World Cup) and be so vague without being torn apart by someone, anyone watching reports on the build-up? Apartheid is mentioned in some vague, abstract terms; something that happened in a distant past and (just like colonialism, of course) has no connection to the present. For some unknown reason, the Dutch will enjoy strong support in South Africa, we are told, though we are never told why that might be and what that tells us about South Africa (not 'Africa').

Then the clichéd predictions. As with every World Cup, the pundits (in the British press, though not exclusively so, of course) get paid to simply rank the teams in order of FIFA ranking and boldly pronounce that this is exactly how things will transpire. The top team of each group will indeed finish top who will then go and progress to the quarters. Of course this never ever happens.

As such, everyone simply lists Spain, Brazil, Argentina, and the jingo vote for England. Firstly, how anybody can seriously believe England will win the World Cup (or even get through to the semis) is beyond me. They are a typical potential quarter-finalist, but no more. And then there are the 'cupsets'. Spain have been playing the most free-flowing football of perhaps the last 30 years, but something (like Brazil '82) tells me they will get knocked out in the quarters (mas o menos). Argentina are the great unknown (they could lose all three matches, or win the lot). Brazil, yes, I think Brazil are in with a real chance.

But the British press, as usual, discount Italy and Germany (this time, they won't get through to the semis, unlike glorious England). So here's a frightening statistic for you: Since 1966 (annus mirabilis) Germany have always finished at least one round ahead of England. I predict that this run will continue this time round, too. Italy will somehow stumble their way to the quarters and semis, the Dutch might for once get far.

As far as potential surprises are concerned, well, we are told by pundits that Chile play well, so we can discount them. So here's a list: Uruguay, Serbia, Cameroon (James' Avatar, David's not-defeat, now this?), Algeria. Note: I said potential. And Chile might yet still have a chance.

One last quibble: The Group of Death. Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast, North Korea is not the group of death, despite claims to the contrary. Brazil will handsomely win this group and whoever wins the first match between Portugal and Ivory Coast will come second (only to be knocked out instantly, since both teams aren't really up for it). Groups of Death must be evenly-matched where one can imagine any combination of two going through. These groups include Group A (France, South Africa, Uruguay, Mexico), Group B (Argentina, South Korea, Greece, Nigeria; what a group!), Group D (Germany, Australia, Ghana, Serbia) and Group E (Netherlands, Japan, Cameroon, Denmark). England and Italy have the easiest groups.

Enjoy.

PS: It's ok, though, because Shakira is leading the way in empowering Africans, and we know that her lips don't lie.

Britain's Got Talent

2010-05-30T10:21:00.004+01:00

Since the coalition got together two and a half weeks ago, David Laws has been praised as a 'talented politician' and has been widely tipped to be the next big thing. There's something curious about the media in that certain phrases and wisdoms become established without anyone knowing (or even asking) why.

This talented politician has since been involved in a post-expenses scandal whereby he has been claiming 40 grand (over a number of years) to pay his secret male partner...it all sounds a bit dated.

Since the media are currently enamoured with the Lib-Con coalition, the reaction to his resignation (surely the only possible outcome) has been hugely bizarre. It's as if David Laws has somehow been wronged. The government, so we are told, is losing a hugely talented individual with a glittering career ahead of him (it's so easy to churn out these cliches...I'm doing it in a stream of consciousness as I sip a cup of tea on a rainy Sunday morning).

There are several points to make in this respect:

Firstly, the reactions are in stark contrast to the reactions to the expenses scandal last year. Jacqui Smith's £10 claim for her husbands porn was met with such incredible indignation as if it constituted some constitutional crisis. There were plenty of other examples of over the top reactions; two others that come to mind were Menzies Campbell slightly high bill for food expenditure and Chris Huhne's trouser press. With the exception of a few clearly criminal offences, the expenses scandal was an anti-democratic media frenzy during which people utterly lost any perspective.

What's interesting is that David Laws' talent has embezzled 40k, which probably makes up about 100 trouser presses and 8,000 porn films for Jacqui Smith's husband. Yet last year's claims were an outrage, whereas Laws' claim is a personal tragedy. Brecht's saying about banks and debt comes to mind, only with a slight variation (a millionaire embezzles a lot of money and it becomes a tragedy).

Then there's the diversion towards his hidden sexuality. While this is, on a personal level, a little sad, it doesn't and shouldn't concern the public, and in any case the link between claiming 40k and hiding one's sexuality is utterly unclear and in fact nonsensical (though it's accepted uncritically in the media).

Now, finally, there's the whole trope of David Laws being talented. Is he? Here's his story: He takes the classical route of public school education followed by Cambridge and then becomes an investment banker, then VP and MD at JP Morgan. He was also head of US Dollar and Sterling Treasuries at Barclays de Zoete Wedd (wiki) from 1992 onwards.

So Laws has a firm rooting in neoliberal practices and processes. But there's more still: In 2004 he co-edited the infamous Orange Book - a neoliberal blueprint for a new generation of Liberal Democrats who began to follow a similar path the neoliberal extremists in Germany (FDP). Contributions to this book were made by the Sainted Vince Cable, Nick Clegg, Ed Davey, Susan Kramer, Chris Huhne and others. In short most of those who are now in positions of power. A Coincidence? Absolutely not. Clegg, Laws, Cable, Huhne and others plotted to turn the Liberal Democrats into a neoliberal party and succeeded (while stabbing Kennedy and others in the back on the way). One might even argue that David Laws is probably more to the right than David Cameron is.

I had an inkling before the election that this marriage might take place (this orange book business has been nagging me since it first gained prominence in 2005), but now the deal's been done, it's so obvious: The coalition is not that far-fetched. It's the ultimate neoliberal coalition. Add to that the 55% needed in the house to call a new election and it looks like this stranglehold on British politics is set to continue.

In any case, having made millions out of that very rotten neoliberal system that has caused these, Laws then has the gall to announce public spending cuts (and would have continued to do so had this revelation not emerged) while pocketing 40k off the tax payer. But the media outrage is muted. Instead, they bemoan the passing of a 'talented' politician.

It can only be hoped that such 'talented' individuals like David Laws (talented means: neoliberal doctrinaires) continue to fall by the wayside, though judging by the media fawning and lovey-dovey towards this coalition, it might just be a short lived joy.

Post-election resume

2010-05-07T22:01:00.005+01:00

I'll be honest: I dreaded the result. In the end, I think it's been ok and in fact might be a good day for democracy.

The Tories will either rule as a minority government; in which case their lifespan is limited and they will be burdened with what will be undoubtedly unpopular, excessive cuts. In other words, the next election, in roughly 12-24 months, ought to be a defeat for the Tories.

If the LibDems end up whoring with the Tories, then this will either result in electoral reform (end of the Tory party as we know it) or a complete a fiasco for what appears to be a bizarre coalition (and would probably result in diminished seats for both parties at the next election in 12-24 months).

Real positives:

Peter Robinson's unseating by The Alliance Party in Belfast East. It's always nice to see a bigot go and the post-victory embrace by Naomi Long touched a real soft spot with me.

Nick Griffin's failure followed up by the ousting of all 12 council seats in Barking. What happened? I thought they represented real 'white working class' voices? Instead, they've been shown the door, not in a close fashion, but with an increased mandate for Margaret Hodge and a total failure in the council elections.

As far as the constitutional nature of government formation is concerned, it's perhaps best to sit back and enjoy. I do not see a mandate for the Tory Party (or indeed for Labour), but I guess now's a good time for a bunch of idiots to have a crack at it, since it will end their political careers. Hip hip...

BREAKING NEWS

2010-04-28T23:35:00.000+01:00

Man calls bigot bigoted in the privacy of his car!

The nasty past reinvented

2010-04-12T17:48:00.004+01:00

The British and West European press have - as was to be expected - reduced this weekend in east-central Europe to 'a personal tragedy'. All the focus has been on Lech Kaczynski's death in a plane accident near Smolensk. But this has not been 'a personalised tragedy' (or rather it has, but that does not make it relevant to the discussion - any and every death is 'a personal tragedy'; it's one of these meaningless catch-all journalistic phrases).

On board the Tupolev were members of the political, cultural, economic, and military 'elite'. The parallels to Katyn and of course Warsaw 1944 are uncanny. The difference in this case is that it has hit a broader political spectrum of said elites. That is why reducing it to 'a personal tragedy', i.e. focusing solely on Lech Kaczynski, is utterly misplaced. On board were historians, feminists, politicians from left and right, a banker and other individuals who have fundamentally shaped Polish society and politics, particularly in post-Communism. Their deaths do not change the views or actions of those caught up in the crash (many of Kaczynski's views remain vile), but what this event does is to throw open a small void at least. This could be a chance, it could be continuity, or it could be slightly more problematic by opening up the possibility of conspiracies, fear, and an inward turn.

In light of the fact that this was linked to Katyn and the commemoration thereof, there is a danger that Russia will become linked to the double-event of Katyn/Smolensk (even though it's in Belarus).

Looking to Hungary, it makes sense to be rather more reticent about the 'teleological' narrative of European progress. In yesterday's election, FIDSz, the populist national conservatives, won the election outright (whether they can secure the 2/3 majority of seats in parliament remains to be seen), while Jobbik (wonderful: a far-right party playing on the trope of 'improvement') the neo-fascists who have an Arrow Cross-style militia parading up and down Roma dominated areas (in the name of preventing 'gypsy crime') gained 16%. Hungary, like Poland, is returning to its past, regurgitating stories of glory and defeat; in Hungary's case Trianon, in Poland's case victimhood at the hands of Russia.

Of course Hungary's situation is far more worrying (as it gradually says good-bye to democracy), but Poland, too, has always been teetering on the verge of right-wing authoritarianism. Such developments (either the political one in Hungary or the 'cultural-political' one in Poland) should never be taken lightly.

Ask the neoliberals

2010-03-29T21:43:00.002+01:00

As Britain becomes more and more like digital TV, the latest gimmick has been to introduce 'leadership debates'; that is, cover versions of the cult of individual celebrities as in the USA. Tonight it was the time of the (prospective) chancellors in Channel 4's Ask the Chancellors.

Having read, very briefly, some of the reactions to the debate, it seems that the vote hinges largely on appearing to be competent (not the content itself). This is, of course, bad news for the Tories: Osborne looked beyond pathetic tonight - with some wonderful hints of the auld patronising Tory tone: 'I wish you well (snigger).'

So the fact that it's bad news for the Tories is, broadly speaking, good news for Britain. Still, what no one seems to pick up on is the fact that in fact all three agree! Indeed, throughout the programme all three - Darling, Osborne, Cable - appeared to be agreeing here and there (needing to be more 'savage' than Maggie etc...).

Well, of course: All three are essentially conscripted to neoliberal ideology. What the public now votes on are differences in accent within that ideology. The nightmare vision of TINA has, sadly, become reality as far as election choices are concerned for the voting British public.

What has replaced ideological dialogue and discussion are debates on appearance. It so happens that within that debate the party I detest and disagree with most - the Tories - also perform worst. But this is not what politics should be about.

Simon Cowell's ignorant suggestion on introducing a political X Factor may have already become reality.

Hard-hitting questions at Chilcot

2010-03-05T17:55:00.003Z

Gordon Brown being grilled at Chilcot

Prime Minster Gordon Brown made his way onto centre stage at the impartial, dispassionate Chilcot Inquiry, which (this needs to be emphasised) has no connections to the current or previous administration or the political and military elites at all (nor have they any vested interests in the reconstruction process in Iraq - just to make that clear).

Like his predecessors, Gordon Brown faced a barrage of cutting questions. No surprise then that Brown and the other witnesses have found themselves giggling nervously during the question and answer sessions.

And who can blame them? Today, the critical and incisive Sir Lawrence of FreeArabiaMan vexed Brown with ruthless questions and suggestions. At one point, while Brown was nervously straightening his tie, Sainted Lawrence implied that the UK government hadn't been aggressive and active enough in their pre(!)-war planning.

I look forward to the, undoubtedly, critical and damning verdict that will follow this open inquiry and etc etc

Postscript:

I feel a little guilty for singling Brown out, since he was manifestly not at the centre of the decision-making process. That, we must not forget, belonged to Blair and Campbell. It just annoyed me watching the nonsense proliferated at the inquiry toady.

How to make a Pratt of yourself

2010-02-22T18:41:00.004Z

Following Andrew Rawnsley's 'ground-breaking' revelation that working in politics may not always resemble a blissful scene from the Little House on the Prairie (I'm sorry to shock you with these kind of hard-hitting facts), we are now subjected to a certain Christine Pratt from the National Bullying Helpline who thought it would be a good idea to add her tuppence to the debate on Brown and bullying. In a typical hand-wringing move, David Cameron and David Cameron lookalike Nick Clegg now 'demand an enquiry' into Brown's conduct at work.

Of course there is nothing interesting about the realisation that a) Brown shouts at work and b) there's a lot of pressure for people working with Brown (or in politics in general). But it's Pratt's behaviour, which is now (also) raising some eyebrows. Why would she, as the chairperson of a allegedly confidentially run charity, decide to breach such confidence by virtually revealing who has been calling the centre? Moreover, her connections to the Tory party may also raise questions about her motivation to 'speak out'. Looking into her past a bit further more information transpires:

It seems that she was at the centre of a court case involving bullying (she being the alleged bullyee), however, at the time (in 2003) her case was thrown out. In fact, the court found that the correspondence she pursued in relation to this case was "discourteous and hostile" as well as "aggressive, accusatory and confrontational". Other claims of discrimination were equally rebuffed. While running the charity the National Bullying Helpline, it further appears that she exploited vulnerable individuals who contacted the helpline by overcharging them and coercing them into signing contractual agreements. Moreover, it also seems that the charity's tax status is not quite in order and that this will be 'reviewed'. I wonder if Pratt wishes she had shut up rather than (yet again) go public with nonsense.

But it also reveals something more about Britain nowadays. There is of course the obvious issue, namely that Britain is becoming more and more litigious. It also reveals something about the schizophrenic ideas the media and the public hold about politician. They should be compassionate and softly-spoken yet tough and go-getters at the same time.

Meanwhile, the personalised anti-Brown frenzy (which never focuses on actual issues, e.g. neoliberal economics) continues to portray him as both a weed and a dragon at the same time. One can witness the same people making these two contradictory claims almost in the same sentence.

Similarly, 'successful' managers and bankers are seen as 'role models' yet the same behaviour by politically inopportune individuals (e.g. Brown) is deemed 'bullying'.

Public and media discourse in the UK is in danger of becoming so schizophrenic that it will simply become impossible to govern this country in any meaningful fashion. Those who think this schizophrenia will end with the end of the current administration will find themselves sorely mistaken.

Boo-hoo, I'm upset.

2010-02-07T18:36:00.003Z

Alastair Campbell, professional liar and spin doctor for Tony Blair, appeared on the Andrew Marr show today. Yes, of course a media-type like Marr ended up looking far more challenging than the Chilcot inquiry ('What's for lunch?'), which also serves as a commentary on the state of the official route of inquiry post-Iraq. But perhaps the most bizarre incident was Alastair Campbell momentary loss of emotional control.

Asked the very reasonable question whether a conclusion that the evidence was not 'beyond reasonable doubt' would therefore show that Tony Blair misled parliament, Campbell asserted that Tony Blair did not mislead parliament. Marr pressed him on this:

'Even if the intelligence when it is looked at does not confirm that the assertion that it was 'beyond reasonable doubt'.'

Yes, Campbell answered (an answer that defies basic logic) before taking a deep breath and, apparently, being on the verge of tears/emotional breakdown. Unable to answer for a several seconds, Campbell claimed he had been through a lot and was a bit upset.

You can watch it here.

Now, there is a useful story about the boy who cried wolf, and I feel this is the sequel. I think I don't believe Campbell. Perhaps it's overly cynical to assume that this was a planned performance ('If I cwy, perhaps they'll weally believe me.'), but I can imagine - having been evidently backed into a corner, which he never experienced at Chilcot or elsewhere - Campbell resorted to clever tactics by introducing a new trope: Liberal interventionism with a very human face.

Prime witness arrives at Chilcot Inquiry

2010-01-29T09:22:00.002Z

Avatory

2010-01-12T12:13:00.004Z

It looks like this year is a good year for Camerons:

James Cameron cashes in with his risible, racist Avatar film while the UK is faced with its own version of a blue, overhyped, and much-moneyed individual, David Cameron.

Happy New Year to all.

Merry Christmas to war criminals

2009-12-16T09:28:00.002Z

This has been a bad week for war criminals.

First Tony Blair is caught off guard in an interview with Fern Britton, admitting that he would have pushed for invasion irrespective of WMD.

Then Silvio Berlusconi is hit in the face with an object of irony, a mini Milanese Cathedral.

Finally, Tzipi Livni cancels her trip to Britain due to a possible arrest warrant over her involvement in most recent assault on Gaza and its civilian population.

This is surely good news. For sure, none of this may come to anything more than inconveniences, but it does leave a glow of vague optimism: There is still some form of accountability.

Donald Rumsfeld no longer leaves the US, as he fears legal actions of the kind Tzipi Livni encountered this week. GW Bush has been reduced to telling jokes on stage in Texas. With some perseverance, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and the rest will come to feel some form of retribution and accountability for their power-crazes interventions abroad.

Merry Christmas to all of them...

Streets ahead

2009-11-30T09:50:00.003Z

The Guardian has published one of a million definitive guides to the music of the decade. The Streets' Original Pirate Material was named album of the decade. It's a good choice. Whilst much of the decade of the noughties has been dominated by meaningless tat - either an 'ironic' 80s feeling or the whinging indie scene - The Streets genuinely represented something new.

When I first heard Don't Mug Yourself on radio in 2002, I remember feeling that this was something quite new and different. And indeed, both the first and second album were full of gems, often quite radical pieces of music that made much of its contemporary music sound like Barry Manilow reheated.

It's always artificial looking back on a decade and imagining there is some kind of story to be told. Still, humans make sense of the world by labelling, tagging, and identifying trends and currents that define certain periods and time frames.

The noughties have not been great for music. The Streets aside, I can only think of a few mainstream acts that deserve mention. Jarvis Cocker made an impressive comeback with his first solo album. Dizzee Rascal, similarly to The Streets, introduced something quite new. LCD Soundsystem from the US made both the current generation and not current generation feel 'edgy'. There are probably others that deserve a mention.

Of course Simon Cowell and the overt music industry have further eroded and destroyed the music industry (as if the mid 80s weren't bad enough). But there was another telling development:

The demise of so-called indie music.

If there is one type of music I can no longer listen to at all, it is so-called indie music. From raving egoists and heroine addicted poets in the early 1990s, the term indie has now morphed into meaning either vacuous 'fun music' or - worse still - whinging. It is the latter that has utterly relegated 'indie music' (and perhaps the 'classic' guitar-based band setup) to the fourth division of music.

Coldplay, Stereophonics, Oasis, Keane, David Gray, The Strokes, The Zutons, Muse, The Kaiser Chiefs and so on and so forth, all represent the most meaningless, dated form of music. If the 1990s witnessed the commercialisation of what had been a subversive name, the noughties surely have seen the end of guitar-based bands as we know them. Just like Rock'n'Roll died in the 1960s (to be continued in embarrassing form only by the most hideous bands like Bay City Rollers or Shakin' Stevens), so too has indie guitar music come to its end. Not before time.

Liar's Bar

2009-11-27T21:09:00.002Z

Yes, yes, his name's somewhere there in the title.

But there are more people at it this week. Of course Tony is back in the news, as he chooses a new colour for painting his living room. Thanks to Neil Clark, we know which colour he has chosen (no surprise there then).

But he's not alone. Franz Josef Jung, the minister for work in Germany, has now resigned following his persistent lies about the bombing in the Afghan raid in September. 142 civilians and 'insurgents' (i.e. civilians) died in this deadly bombing raid by German NATO troops. All the while, spineless Franz Josef Jung denied that civilians were amongst the casualties. All this follows the resignation of the chief of staff, Wolfgang Schneiderhan, and defence ministry state secretary, Peter Wichert.

It's somewhat gratifying to see liars lose their political career, but what a light price to pay. Meanwhile the 'liberated' Afghanis and 'liberated' Iraqis - quite evidently - ought to be grateful for being liberated by the moral crusaders Tony Blair, Cheney, and the faceless and spineless NATO stooges from Germany to Italy.

All the while Chilcott prepares the old whitewash. It won't make a lick of difference that the evidence details the fact that war was not imminently necessary, justified, or even based on misunderstanding. Everything I've read so far shows precisely what many of us knew all along: It was all a lie. I knew it in September 2002, March 2003, and still know this in November 2009.

There is no solace or recompense for the countless dead Iraqis, Afghanis etc. But I am convinced that Tony Blair's name and his vile followers will mainly be associated with what most people recognise to be a crime: Liberal interventionalism.

I will

2009-11-12T22:57:00.005Z

Question Time throws up the usual question about 'our troops' without discussing the political issues that underpin the situation in Afghanistan. It's as if - by some inexplicable miracle - British troops happen to be in Afghanistan where they are (irregularly) being shot at and blown up. How come? Bizarre! The situation seems to exist in a historic and political vacuum.

Uber-Toff James Cracknell takes the usual jingoistic line of 'our lads and troops', referring to an uninteresting anecdote about 'his mates' in Afghanistan.

The three politicians (Pauline Neville-Jones, Shawn Woodward, thingrybob Goldsworthy from the LibDems) are equally falling over each other to outdo the other in meaningless jingoistic claptrap. The only one who understands is Will Self. He refuses to really answer the question of 'more equipment for troops', because - as he rightly says - the political issues are all important. He then shames Pauline Neville-Jones by pointing out that she is part of the political class pushing for the privatisation of public services - he refers to her own employment in 'offset' public services in the private sector. A painful yet satisfying moment.

Now Cracknell is back making some banal points about Brown's spelling mistakes. I'm losing the will to live.

Pauline Neville-Jones is putting on an awful performance. The first two questions have made her look like a bumbling, stuttering fool.

And again, Will Self gets to the point: It's not about the spelling mistakes in a letter, but about the political reasons behind this situation. Two members of the audience add to his poignant observations: Will the Prime Minister be sending letters of condolence to the countless dead Afghanis? And the other point by a member of the audience: Why are we there?

After the irony curtain

2009-11-10T10:24:00.006Z

A joke encapsulates the ambivalent attitude toward the communist past, as it exemplifies the traditional ironic response of Bulgarians both before and after the fall of communism. A woman sits bolt upright in the middle of the night. She jumps out of bed and rushes to the bathroom to look in the medicine cabinet. Then, she runs into the kitchen and opens the refrigerator. Finally, she dashes to the window and looks out into the street. Relieved, she returns to the bedroom. Her husband asks, "What's wrong with you?" "I had a terrible nightmare", she says, "I dreamed we could still afford to buy medicine, that the refrigerator was absolutely full, and that the streets were safe and clean." "How is that a nightmare?" The woman shakes her head, "I thought the communists were back in power."

This is a joke from Maria Todorova's article in the Guardian on remembering 1989 in Bulgaria. Both the article and the joke in question illustrate quite beautifully the contradictory nature of the past 20 years. The negative aspects of the communist era still loom large, but at the same time nostalgia for the past, for a sense of security plays a huge role for Bulgarians and other east-central Europeans to make sense of the present. In particular, it is important for them to make sense of the failures of the present.

The misty-eyed End of History readings of Europe, indeed the world, after 1989 look more and more like a Rumpelstiltskin-esque insistence that everything has turned out just fine under liberal democracy as the vanguard of neoliberalism. Of course it hasn't. And of course there are aspects of the present that contrast unfavourably with some aspects of the past.

But as Maria Todorova and other commentators and academics have been trying to explain, this isn't a longing for a return to communism, but rather a devastating criticism of the hollowing out of European societies under the mantra of 'choice and freedom'.