So that’s a No vote in the referendum and I hear people from both sides of the debate already looking to the future, a future in which the Scottish Parliament is to be given greater powers. People in England too are talking about change. Everyone remarks on how the turnout was a great thing for democracy and involvement (I agree) and on how change is now inevitable. I suspect radical change is inevitable but these may not constitute the change voters in Scotland wanted or expected.
I think we have a massive problem. David Cameron, far craftier than he often appears, has immediately shifted talk of (unidentified) powers for Scotland to talk of federalism in England and to deny votes for Scottish MPs on English matters. Initially this sounds reasonable. It will form part of a populist agenda, delivering on those rather oblique ‘vows’ (isn’t it easy to deliver something when no one really understands what was promised in the first place?) and making out that the Scottish vote has galvanised support for radical change in England. However, this is a right-wing Conservative government, propped up by the dead-men-walking Liberal Democrats, and their sudden enthusiasm for constitutional change should be ringing alarm bells in our heads. Loudly. Conservatives do not tend to put power in the hands of the people. Naturally, they tend to consolidate the status quo and strengthen power in the hands of those who already have it i.e. people like themselves.
Let’s imagine the scenario of the next election being won by Labour with a small majority. However, they are unable to pass any laws on health, education etc because Scottish MPs cannot vote on these issues, which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Despite the Labour majority, the Conservatives would have enough MPs to pass a law effectively destroying what’s left of the NHS. This would slash state health funding throughout the UK. The Barnett formula, or whatever disadvantageous variation remains, would allocate a now much smaller sum to the Scottish Parliament health budget, and the NHS would therefore become unsustainable in Scotland even though Scottish MPs had no say in the matter at Westminster. Labour would find themselves unable to pass laws on all kinds of vital services. Only a very big majority for Labour could guarantee a stable Labour government. Whether New Labour would protect the health service even with a large majority is (shockingly!) open to question in any case.
Federalism in England may also give Conservative-held councils the ability to slash social services, while councils presiding over areas of significant deprivation will see their budgets proving even more inadequate than at present.
Many people in Scotland are suspicious that Westminster will not deliver the ‘powers’ they promised. I think they will deliver alright, with gusto, at terrible cost both for Scotland and for the cause of social justice in the rest of the UK. In Scotland, we will complain, of course, but we have no legs left to stand on. It’s what a majority of people voted for in the referendum, whether they realised they were voting for it or not.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2014
Monday, September 15, 2014
Late Reflections on the Scottish Independence Referendum
1. We are asked whether we want to be an independent country. Someone from the Conservative Party says we’d be better with the UK’s “safety net”. He likes being safe and is very worried about all that... stuff out there. Like bewildering trapezes, perhaps. Really, how you vote may depend on how scared you feel. But the safety net is mythological. There is no real safety net.
2. It’s interesting to hear that some Conservatives appear to support a dependency culture when it comes to Scotland. They complain about subsidies we are supposedly being given and then do everything in their power to keep us, to make sure we keep receiving them. What’s the logic in that?
3. Actually Scotland isn’t being subsidised at all and the extent of currently untapped oil reserves are unclear. That could be one reason why the main British parties are keen to resist separation. Oil! Who would have thought?
4. Many friendly people from England say “Don’t go. Stay with us.” But we are with you. We’re not actually going anywhere.
5. One English person was saying, “But what about us if you become independent?” Well, that is up to you and the people of England and I hope you make positive choices. Some people have suggested the entire population of the UK should have had a vote in this referendum as it affects everyone. I presume they also believe that every citizen in the whole of Europe should have a vote in the proposed referendum to decide whether the UK should stay in the EU?
6. I am not a nationalist and dislike flag waving. I describe myself, when asked, as “Scottish” rather than “British”. It annoys me when people on TV talk about British culture when referring to aspects of English culture. It happens very often! But I do not “love” my country: neither Scotland nor the UK. Anyone like David Cameron, who feels “heartbroken” over a change in a country’s constitutional affairs, needs a psychiatrist.
7. I was watching that awful Better Together video with the patronising BT lady and then watching one of the versions with subtitles inserted by very witty, creative people from the Yes campaign. And I thought, “Who would I most like to have a pint of good Belgian lager with? The makers of the video or the makers of the subtitles?” The answer is easy.
8. Some people might think it rather glib that I'd consider voting Yes because of a campaign video, but I don’t think it is glib. It’s to do with vision. The people I’d like to hang about with are the people most likely to want to build the kind of nation I’d want to build. They get my vote.
9. The Yes campaign has been characterised by wit, creativity, artistic flair and positive vision. The No campaign has been negative, scaremongering and gloomy. It basically says, "We love Scotland. But we can't make decisions for ourselves." I find it depressing even to think about it.
10. Sometimes Yes propaganda has gone over the top. I don’t really believe we’re going to create this new society founded on peace, justice and solidarity, complete with unfathomable riches. But the alternative is the terrified, doom-laden purveyors of No, and, to that I say, No thanks!
11. Apparently we are the 14th or the 49th richest country in the world, depending on how you calculate it. Needless to say, a Yes supporter calculated 14 and a No supporter calculated 49, roughly equal to Ireland. That sounds OK to me, either way.
12. Supporters of the status quo are often concerned for what they might personally lose. They are especially worried about their property. I heard today of one couple who made an offer on a house but had a clause inserted in the contract that they could back out if there is a Yes majority on Thursday. What do they think is going to happen? Is Scotland due to slide into the sea?
13. Think of your pension, I am told. Think of your savings. What currency are you going to use anyway? Well I certainly don’t trust the UK Government to protect my pension or non-existent savings and anyone who does, post-financial-crisis, is a prize idiot. And I’ll use whatever currency we end up deciding on.
14. And that reminds me – Standard Life? Are you reading this? My pension scheme is with you. It’s not going to be with you for much longer. Cheers!
15. Various businesses and banks threaten to leave Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. Some No voters get hysterical and actually argue this as a reason to vote No. I have never witnessed such pathetic capitulation before power in my life. For goodness sake, let's show an ounce of courage here! An ounce of moral fibre, even! People who use threats clearly do not have the interests of Scotland, or you, at heart. In the unlikely event that they do move out, I’m sure someone will move in and take over all their customers.
16. “Vote Yes and get away from the Tories!” some urge. That has appeal, but wouldn’t swing it for me. The problem for me is that in the UK there is no visionary alternative. The Lib Dems have lost all credibility. The Labour Party in Westminster doesn’t stand for anything worthwhile. And then there’s UKIP whose racist, nationalist agenda I really find disturbing. I much prefer the Scottish Parliament. Even some of the Tories there don’t come over as horrible, obnoxious, uncaring people, unlike the entire Westminster cabinet. A recovery by the Tories in Scotland, which might even happen in an independent country, would be a good thing for democracy. Strong oppositions are always a useful check on those in charge.
17. I am still waiting for any serious political party to tackle the issue that 432 people own half the land in Scotland. However, as unlikely as anyone having the courage to tackle it might be, it’s more likely to happen within an independent Scotland than from the corrupt London parliamentary elite.
18. Why does anyone want to stay with a Parliament that lied to us to justify an illegal war at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of pounds; that stands accused of covering up an organised paedophile network within its own ranks; that fiddled ridiculous levels of expenses at our expense; that gives itself a 9% pay rise during a period of austerity and then tells us that “we’re all in this together”?
19. “Don’t build walls! Break them down!” say some of the more persuasive supporters of No. They are good, liberal people who believe in sticking together for the good of all. I see their point and it does make some sense. But there are walls all over British society and they are becoming higher every day. In an independent Scotland I hope we might at least have a shot at breaking down some of those.
20. Ed Miliband had an idea. He thought (very mistakenly) that it would really appeal to the Scottish electorate to have a Saltire flag hoisted above 10 Downing Street, currently the home of an extreme right-wing Conservative prime minister. The Saltire had other ideas. I’m with the Saltire.
21. What it comes down to: if you have the choice between making decisions for your life or allowing other people to make decisions for you, often not in your interest and often against your will, what do you choose? It’s not rocket science! At least if we as Scottish people make bad decisions on our own behalf, we’ll be able to blame ourselves rather than the English. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?
2. It’s interesting to hear that some Conservatives appear to support a dependency culture when it comes to Scotland. They complain about subsidies we are supposedly being given and then do everything in their power to keep us, to make sure we keep receiving them. What’s the logic in that?
3. Actually Scotland isn’t being subsidised at all and the extent of currently untapped oil reserves are unclear. That could be one reason why the main British parties are keen to resist separation. Oil! Who would have thought?
4. Many friendly people from England say “Don’t go. Stay with us.” But we are with you. We’re not actually going anywhere.
5. One English person was saying, “But what about us if you become independent?” Well, that is up to you and the people of England and I hope you make positive choices. Some people have suggested the entire population of the UK should have had a vote in this referendum as it affects everyone. I presume they also believe that every citizen in the whole of Europe should have a vote in the proposed referendum to decide whether the UK should stay in the EU?
6. I am not a nationalist and dislike flag waving. I describe myself, when asked, as “Scottish” rather than “British”. It annoys me when people on TV talk about British culture when referring to aspects of English culture. It happens very often! But I do not “love” my country: neither Scotland nor the UK. Anyone like David Cameron, who feels “heartbroken” over a change in a country’s constitutional affairs, needs a psychiatrist.
7. I was watching that awful Better Together video with the patronising BT lady and then watching one of the versions with subtitles inserted by very witty, creative people from the Yes campaign. And I thought, “Who would I most like to have a pint of good Belgian lager with? The makers of the video or the makers of the subtitles?” The answer is easy.
8. Some people might think it rather glib that I'd consider voting Yes because of a campaign video, but I don’t think it is glib. It’s to do with vision. The people I’d like to hang about with are the people most likely to want to build the kind of nation I’d want to build. They get my vote.
9. The Yes campaign has been characterised by wit, creativity, artistic flair and positive vision. The No campaign has been negative, scaremongering and gloomy. It basically says, "We love Scotland. But we can't make decisions for ourselves." I find it depressing even to think about it.
10. Sometimes Yes propaganda has gone over the top. I don’t really believe we’re going to create this new society founded on peace, justice and solidarity, complete with unfathomable riches. But the alternative is the terrified, doom-laden purveyors of No, and, to that I say, No thanks!
11. Apparently we are the 14th or the 49th richest country in the world, depending on how you calculate it. Needless to say, a Yes supporter calculated 14 and a No supporter calculated 49, roughly equal to Ireland. That sounds OK to me, either way.
12. Supporters of the status quo are often concerned for what they might personally lose. They are especially worried about their property. I heard today of one couple who made an offer on a house but had a clause inserted in the contract that they could back out if there is a Yes majority on Thursday. What do they think is going to happen? Is Scotland due to slide into the sea?
13. Think of your pension, I am told. Think of your savings. What currency are you going to use anyway? Well I certainly don’t trust the UK Government to protect my pension or non-existent savings and anyone who does, post-financial-crisis, is a prize idiot. And I’ll use whatever currency we end up deciding on.
14. And that reminds me – Standard Life? Are you reading this? My pension scheme is with you. It’s not going to be with you for much longer. Cheers!
15. Various businesses and banks threaten to leave Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. Some No voters get hysterical and actually argue this as a reason to vote No. I have never witnessed such pathetic capitulation before power in my life. For goodness sake, let's show an ounce of courage here! An ounce of moral fibre, even! People who use threats clearly do not have the interests of Scotland, or you, at heart. In the unlikely event that they do move out, I’m sure someone will move in and take over all their customers.
16. “Vote Yes and get away from the Tories!” some urge. That has appeal, but wouldn’t swing it for me. The problem for me is that in the UK there is no visionary alternative. The Lib Dems have lost all credibility. The Labour Party in Westminster doesn’t stand for anything worthwhile. And then there’s UKIP whose racist, nationalist agenda I really find disturbing. I much prefer the Scottish Parliament. Even some of the Tories there don’t come over as horrible, obnoxious, uncaring people, unlike the entire Westminster cabinet. A recovery by the Tories in Scotland, which might even happen in an independent country, would be a good thing for democracy. Strong oppositions are always a useful check on those in charge.
17. I am still waiting for any serious political party to tackle the issue that 432 people own half the land in Scotland. However, as unlikely as anyone having the courage to tackle it might be, it’s more likely to happen within an independent Scotland than from the corrupt London parliamentary elite.
18. Why does anyone want to stay with a Parliament that lied to us to justify an illegal war at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of pounds; that stands accused of covering up an organised paedophile network within its own ranks; that fiddled ridiculous levels of expenses at our expense; that gives itself a 9% pay rise during a period of austerity and then tells us that “we’re all in this together”?
19. “Don’t build walls! Break them down!” say some of the more persuasive supporters of No. They are good, liberal people who believe in sticking together for the good of all. I see their point and it does make some sense. But there are walls all over British society and they are becoming higher every day. In an independent Scotland I hope we might at least have a shot at breaking down some of those.
20. Ed Miliband had an idea. He thought (very mistakenly) that it would really appeal to the Scottish electorate to have a Saltire flag hoisted above 10 Downing Street, currently the home of an extreme right-wing Conservative prime minister. The Saltire had other ideas. I’m with the Saltire.
21. What it comes down to: if you have the choice between making decisions for your life or allowing other people to make decisions for you, often not in your interest and often against your will, what do you choose? It’s not rocket science! At least if we as Scottish people make bad decisions on our own behalf, we’ll be able to blame ourselves rather than the English. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
A Neutral Post on Scottish Arts
Jonathan Mills, director of the Edinburgh International Festival, has said that the festival next year will not feature events concerned with the Scottish referendum on independence, so as to preserve the festival’s political neutrality.
This announcement has come as a great relief to everyone. The idea that the arts might have any connection to the world around them was obviously absurd. The idea that people might be influenced by anything other than professional politicians and opinionated journalists was clearly to be resisted in the name of common sense. The festival next year will feature only artists who have nothing to say about anything, which is as it should be.
Already booked to appear is George, infant son of Edward and Kate. His (ghostwritten by Justin Bieber) autobiography, ‘First Months as a BRITISH King-in-Waiting’, is set to become a bestseller. George, named after the patron saint ofBritain England, has the middle name, James, and will be known as ‘Jimmy’ when he comes north in an attempt to simulate stimulate political neutrality.
Of course, it is not just the festival that aspires to neutrality. No one in Scotland ought to have thoughts about anything in the lead-up to the referendum. Ideas are dangerous! In the name of neutrality, television stations in Scotland will be required to broadcast only an endless loop of repeats of ‘Eastenders’, ‘I Love My Country’ and Jessica Ennis being presented with her gold medal at the London Olympics. Such neutral programmes will keep Scottish people from dwelling too much on the independence question. This is for our own good. To ask why it is good is an invalid and biased question. It is clear that the only people who know what is good are (a) people who do not live in Scotland, and (b) people whose bodies exist in Scotland and whose souls navigate a parallel universe.
Finally, the entire population of Scotland will be enlisted during September 2014 to re-enact the First World War in celebration of its centenary. George Square in Glasgow will be the venue for the Battle of the Somme, and similar battles will take place all over Scotland with live ammunition until most people have been wiped out. The Edinburgh International Festival will stage a patriotic operatic war jamboree, heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, at the end of which an empty tram will glide down Princes Street and the union jack will be raised from Edinburgh Castle by David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage, who will join to sing the national anthem, 'We're All in This Together' – all in the name of neutrality...
This announcement has come as a great relief to everyone. The idea that the arts might have any connection to the world around them was obviously absurd. The idea that people might be influenced by anything other than professional politicians and opinionated journalists was clearly to be resisted in the name of common sense. The festival next year will feature only artists who have nothing to say about anything, which is as it should be.
Already booked to appear is George, infant son of Edward and Kate. His (ghostwritten by Justin Bieber) autobiography, ‘First Months as a BRITISH King-in-Waiting’, is set to become a bestseller. George, named after the patron saint of
Of course, it is not just the festival that aspires to neutrality. No one in Scotland ought to have thoughts about anything in the lead-up to the referendum. Ideas are dangerous! In the name of neutrality, television stations in Scotland will be required to broadcast only an endless loop of repeats of ‘Eastenders’, ‘I Love My Country’ and Jessica Ennis being presented with her gold medal at the London Olympics. Such neutral programmes will keep Scottish people from dwelling too much on the independence question. This is for our own good. To ask why it is good is an invalid and biased question. It is clear that the only people who know what is good are (a) people who do not live in Scotland, and (b) people whose bodies exist in Scotland and whose souls navigate a parallel universe.
Finally, the entire population of Scotland will be enlisted during September 2014 to re-enact the First World War in celebration of its centenary. George Square in Glasgow will be the venue for the Battle of the Somme, and similar battles will take place all over Scotland with live ammunition until most people have been wiped out. The Edinburgh International Festival will stage a patriotic operatic war jamboree, heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, at the end of which an empty tram will glide down Princes Street and the union jack will be raised from Edinburgh Castle by David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage, who will join to sing the national anthem, 'We're All in This Together' – all in the name of neutrality...
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Romney for Scotland
Fix News have sensationally named failed U.S. presidential candidate, Mitt Romney as hot favourite to take over as manager of Scotland’s international football team, following the departure of Craig Levein. Romney is said to be excited at the prospect of moving to Scotland. “Donald [Trump] says the golf is good there and the land is anyone’s for a price. Sounds like my kind of place.”
Romney confessed that Obama’s election was the best thing that could have happened. “Now I’m freed up for the Scotland job, and I have plans. First of all, I want to make sure the players wear sacred underwear so as to hide their nipples. I don’t want those huge crowds of scarf-wearing men to be tempted into becoming homosexuals due to nipples showing through shirts. Secondly, I’ve noticed that the team are good at kicking high into the crowd. That’s good, but they need to learn to pick the ball up and run with it more. I haven’t seen them touchdown yet.”
Concerns have been raised over Romney’s promise to scrap the women’s team (“these women, as a minority group, ought to practice minority pursuits more suitable for their status – like preparing modest refreshments and not giving opportunities for abortion”) and by his insistence on bringing Sarah Palin over as his “running mate” (“She gives good tea parties”).
The Scottish Football Association were unavailable for comment, but a spokesman for something or other said that Romney’s interest was welcome, although he would face stiff competition from Barbie, from ex-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and from pop star PSY, who promises a new brand of “gangnam style” tactics.
Romney confessed that Obama’s election was the best thing that could have happened. “Now I’m freed up for the Scotland job, and I have plans. First of all, I want to make sure the players wear sacred underwear so as to hide their nipples. I don’t want those huge crowds of scarf-wearing men to be tempted into becoming homosexuals due to nipples showing through shirts. Secondly, I’ve noticed that the team are good at kicking high into the crowd. That’s good, but they need to learn to pick the ball up and run with it more. I haven’t seen them touchdown yet.”
Concerns have been raised over Romney’s promise to scrap the women’s team (“these women, as a minority group, ought to practice minority pursuits more suitable for their status – like preparing modest refreshments and not giving opportunities for abortion”) and by his insistence on bringing Sarah Palin over as his “running mate” (“She gives good tea parties”).
The Scottish Football Association were unavailable for comment, but a spokesman for something or other said that Romney’s interest was welcome, although he would face stiff competition from Barbie, from ex-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and from pop star PSY, who promises a new brand of “gangnam style” tactics.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
A Politically Correct Nativity
Mary and Joseph, this time in order of age at the time of travelling – remembering that ageism is wrong and that if a three-year-old proved able and willing to do the job of an atomic physicist, that’s OK – were going to Bethlehem because Augustus, democratically-elected Enabler of the People, had suggested that, if people were so-minded without any coercion on his part, there would be a census; a census that asked no invasive personal questions and gave full protection under current privacy and civil liberties regulations, which are fine as they go but are always open to suggestions for improvement.
Joseph and Mary – in order as their names appeared when written on rubber balls, spun around in a machine and drawn by electronic means live on BBC television with an independent arbiter present at all times in a manner acceptable to the International Code of Ethics and Fairness, directive 5/1.237 – were promised in marriage to one another. Marriage was not the only solution for them to work towards the aims and goals set out in their pre-birth, ideology-free mission statement, nor are religion, politics, gender, love, attraction, faithfulness, compatibility, or a shared interest in the scientific preservation of corn in tin ever relevant in discussion of marriage or its equal and entirely acceptable alternatives. Staying single, through choice or necessity, is also an equally valid lifestyle and we aim to affirm those lifestyles and all variations thereupon. A recently excavated document whose complete historical authenticity is maintained by formerly down-on-his-luck and now best-selling author, Bran Down, suggests that the ‘couple’ were in fact known to one another only through social networking opportunities and travelled virtually as tenuously-linked avatars.
Mary and Joseph – in the order necessary to balance up the ‘Joseph and Mary/Mary and Joseph’ thing, as we are committed to equal opportunities for all men and women and women and men, no matter what gender the men and women and women and men are or claim to be – travelled to Bethlehem and were in possession of the correct license and necessary permissions as recorded under the Freedom of Movement Act, section 4, part 3 sub-section 759. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the time came for Mary to have a baby. It would have been equally acceptable for Joseph to have had the baby or indeed for any other man or woman present in the town or other towns without reference to age, race, gender or other arbitrary measures of suitability, to have had the same baby.
There was no room at the inn, so Mary gave birth to the a baby in a stable, which had undergone the relevant health and safety checks as required under the Health Act of a non-specific year; non-specific to avoid offending individuals who prefer their own methods of calculating time, space and distance and who alone know where and when they are in relation to everything else. And that’s OK... We aim to meet the academic and emotional needs of anyone who evidences a challenging way of life. The stable’s work surfaces, appliances and hygiene were deemed to be of an acceptable standard, and a fire inspection and drill also took place several times during the labour.
A son was born, although it could have been a daughter or perhaps neither or both, and in no sense implies preference for one gender over another or any difference between genders. The child was wrapped in strips of cloth, and a social worker was appointed due to concerns over the parents’ inability to provide generally accepted accoutrements necessary in today’s competitive childcare market. A contract of care was agreed between the family and the Department of Community Education committing the parents to attend Government-sponsored parenting classes over a fifteen month period.
Angels appeared and sang a joyful song, although this part of the story has now been recognised as unacceptable to tone-deaf, depressed creatures without wings or halos. The term, ‘angels’, has been replaced in the story’s most recent editions with ‘journalists’ and the over-emotional reactions have become tabloid headlines which, as ever, maintain a careful neutrality in all matters. The music is now handled by the X Factor crew, featuring Little Mix's live concept album of Leonard Cohen covers.
The journalists soon left the couple and child to pass their days making sure they didn't get on the wrong side of anybody. At one point, the son, aged 12, got ideas above his station, but parents and child created a mutual agreement in which they agreed to tow the prevailing line, whatever that was at any given moment. They regularly visited the non-denominational and/or secular temple, in which all religious and/or humanist symbols were banned, and sat between the whitewashed and blackwashed walls thinking about nothing much until it was time to go home again. No one knew how it was all going to pan out.
*
(photo from the photoscreen of Klearchos Kapoutsis, used under a Creative Commons License)
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Do We Need the TS Eliot Prize?
I’ve been watching the furore around the TS Eliot Prize develop and have been wondering what’s it’s all really about. The administration of the prize is funded by Aurum (it used to be funded by the Poetry Book Society, whose arts council funding was abolished earlier this year), an investment company which specialises in hedge funds. Two shortlisted poets have pulled out in protest: first to go was Alice Oswald, closely followed by John Kinsella. The other eight nominees have stayed in.
Alice Oswald gave her views here in The Guardian. Gillian Clarke, head of the panel of judges, responded. John Kinsella released a manifesto in the New Statesman to outline his own position. In the Independent, David Lister attacked those who had pulled out (in what I'd regard as a rather bad tempered article).
Now, I am no fan of the banks or investment companies or hedge funds, particularly those individuals and groups whose recklessness, greed, and desire to win bonuses by meeting short-term targets have largely caused the current crisis, which we are now all paying for. So my instinct is to support the two poets who have pulled out, and I can understand their reasons for doing so. However, I am equally sure that poets such as Carol Ann Duffy and Sean O’Brien will feel similarly to me about the crisis and yet don’t feel any need to pull out of the TS Eliot Prize. I can understand their reasons too (of course, I am guessing those reasons).
I don’t care about the TS Eliot Prize, and my support (or lack of it) will make no difference to anyone. It’s easy to be a cheerleader for one side or another and quite another thing to play for real. Not that I am suggesting anyone is “playing” here, and those who accuse Oswald and Kinsella of pulling out simply to create publicity for themselves and their books are, frankly, talking bollocks. Some people do still have principles, y'know! Equally, those who say Aurum’s money is inherently “dirty” better remove all their money from their personal current accounts right now. All banks deal in dirty money, some to an alarming degree.
Some commentators have asked who would fund poetry if the financial sector walked away (tacitly criticizing Oswald and Kinsella for putting such funding at risk). I’d ask, in reply: would we miss the TS Eliot Prize if it weren’t there? Do we need a prize propped up by private funds now that a government hostile to poetry (hostile to thought of any kind, it seems to me) has pulled the plug? I think most people, including most poets and readers, wouldn’t miss it in the slightest. It does, of course, mean a nice surprise and a £15,000 payout for one lucky poet, a rare moment of recognition – but, in years to come, no one will miss it if it doesn’t exist, and we may even have a healthier poetry scene as a result.
I was struck (and I’m sure I’m not the only one) by Gillian Clarke’s insistence that the TS Eliot shortlist represents the 10 best books published this year. That is also complete bollocks. I really like some of the books, and I’m sure advocates could be found for every one of them, but the choices represent such a small range of titles and publishers that it’s impossible to take her statement seriously.
Alice Oswald gave her views here in The Guardian. Gillian Clarke, head of the panel of judges, responded. John Kinsella released a manifesto in the New Statesman to outline his own position. In the Independent, David Lister attacked those who had pulled out (in what I'd regard as a rather bad tempered article).
Now, I am no fan of the banks or investment companies or hedge funds, particularly those individuals and groups whose recklessness, greed, and desire to win bonuses by meeting short-term targets have largely caused the current crisis, which we are now all paying for. So my instinct is to support the two poets who have pulled out, and I can understand their reasons for doing so. However, I am equally sure that poets such as Carol Ann Duffy and Sean O’Brien will feel similarly to me about the crisis and yet don’t feel any need to pull out of the TS Eliot Prize. I can understand their reasons too (of course, I am guessing those reasons).
I don’t care about the TS Eliot Prize, and my support (or lack of it) will make no difference to anyone. It’s easy to be a cheerleader for one side or another and quite another thing to play for real. Not that I am suggesting anyone is “playing” here, and those who accuse Oswald and Kinsella of pulling out simply to create publicity for themselves and their books are, frankly, talking bollocks. Some people do still have principles, y'know! Equally, those who say Aurum’s money is inherently “dirty” better remove all their money from their personal current accounts right now. All banks deal in dirty money, some to an alarming degree.
Some commentators have asked who would fund poetry if the financial sector walked away (tacitly criticizing Oswald and Kinsella for putting such funding at risk). I’d ask, in reply: would we miss the TS Eliot Prize if it weren’t there? Do we need a prize propped up by private funds now that a government hostile to poetry (hostile to thought of any kind, it seems to me) has pulled the plug? I think most people, including most poets and readers, wouldn’t miss it in the slightest. It does, of course, mean a nice surprise and a £15,000 payout for one lucky poet, a rare moment of recognition – but, in years to come, no one will miss it if it doesn’t exist, and we may even have a healthier poetry scene as a result.
I was struck (and I’m sure I’m not the only one) by Gillian Clarke’s insistence that the TS Eliot shortlist represents the 10 best books published this year. That is also complete bollocks. I really like some of the books, and I’m sure advocates could be found for every one of them, but the choices represent such a small range of titles and publishers that it’s impossible to take her statement seriously.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Things That Happened When I Was In Turkey
Firstly, the death of Sam Hoare, the journalist who blew the whistle on the News of the World phone hacking scandal. It appears that his death was self-inflicted, according to police reports, but I believe investigations are still going on.
Secondly, the Poetry Society EGM. I had arranged my proxy vote before I left for Turkey. Since my return, I’ve been catching up with what happened. My jaw has dropped on several occasions. In a previous post, I asked whether the lack of transparency had been caused because either:
It now looks as though all three of these possibilities were accurate! What has happened has been much worse that I could have believed and several questions remain unanswered. The best (and most chilling) summary I have read has been that by George Szirtes. There is a petition to reinstate Judith Palmer as Director, which I have signed. Clearly, the PS needs to get back in line with what the Arts Council expected of it. Whether it can do this with the current board over the next couple of months is open to serious doubt. Also, the question of Poetry Review and of the Editor’s line management both clearly have to be resolved without delay, but I have no confidence in the current board to deal with these matters properly.
Thirdly, the death of Amy Winehouse. I feel sadder about this than some of my friends might expect. It is, of course, the death of a young person in circumstances common to many families and every one of those is a private grief and torment. But, in a more public sense, I feel sad because I don’t think Amy had reached her peak, in contrast, say, to Kurt Cobain – I doubt Kurt could have improved on the final two Nirvana albums if he’d lived to 100. Amy’s Back to Black, on the other hand, contained a few brilliant songs, showing immense talent, but also several fillers. She might have fulfilled her potential if she hadn’t fallen into bad company, bad drugs etc. We’ll never know now.
Fourthly, Norway was all over the Turkish TV channels, as elsewhere. Watching the reports in Turkish, not understanding a word but understanding the images all too well, was a sad and sobering experience.
Secondly, the Poetry Society EGM. I had arranged my proxy vote before I left for Turkey. Since my return, I’ve been catching up with what happened. My jaw has dropped on several occasions. In a previous post, I asked whether the lack of transparency had been caused because either:
1. The Poetry Society had something to hide
2. The Poetry Society was beyond useless at public relations
3. The situation was much worse even than it seemed, so bad that things couldn’t possibly be made public [without severe embarrassment]
It now looks as though all three of these possibilities were accurate! What has happened has been much worse that I could have believed and several questions remain unanswered. The best (and most chilling) summary I have read has been that by George Szirtes. There is a petition to reinstate Judith Palmer as Director, which I have signed. Clearly, the PS needs to get back in line with what the Arts Council expected of it. Whether it can do this with the current board over the next couple of months is open to serious doubt. Also, the question of Poetry Review and of the Editor’s line management both clearly have to be resolved without delay, but I have no confidence in the current board to deal with these matters properly.
Thirdly, the death of Amy Winehouse. I feel sadder about this than some of my friends might expect. It is, of course, the death of a young person in circumstances common to many families and every one of those is a private grief and torment. But, in a more public sense, I feel sad because I don’t think Amy had reached her peak, in contrast, say, to Kurt Cobain – I doubt Kurt could have improved on the final two Nirvana albums if he’d lived to 100. Amy’s Back to Black, on the other hand, contained a few brilliant songs, showing immense talent, but also several fillers. She might have fulfilled her potential if she hadn’t fallen into bad company, bad drugs etc. We’ll never know now.
Fourthly, Norway was all over the Turkish TV channels, as elsewhere. Watching the reports in Turkish, not understanding a word but understanding the images all too well, was a sad and sobering experience.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Ryan Giggs, Imogen Thomas, and Press Freedom
I’ve been following the Ryan Giggs/Imogen Thomas story without much interest in either of them, but with a real interest in the issue of superinjunctions and press freedom. Some people have positioned themselves as defenders of free speech, complaining bitterly about the gagging orders and demanding that the press should be able to print what they like about whomever they like. I take the opposite view, but with a twist.
I was disappointed that the superinjunction taken out by Giggs didn’t work, but I feel that Thomas should have been allowed one as well. They should be cheap, in fact they should be free. If they had been, the story wouldn’t have come to anyone’s attention and we would have been spared reading about it. I support free superinjunctions, but with one condition – that the media are not allowed to feature anything ever again about those who ask for one, except for stories with material connection to their profession.
Just think, we’d never have to read any story ever again about Imogen Thomas, although magazines would be able to print pics from her modelling work – a girl’s got to make a living after all. The same with Giggs – no stories about affairs, only those about football. Just think – if Katie Price, Paris Hilton, Kerry Katona or any Big Brother/X Factor-loser ‘celebrity’ had to resort to a injunction, under my proposals, we’d never hear anything from them ever again! Max Clifford, (inevitably) Thomas's publicist, is arguing that superinjunctions should be removed so that newspapers can print more of these stories. No, let's have less. In fact, let's have none. Let's put Clifford and his like out of business for good!
If my proposals are accepted, think how little celebrity gossip there would be. People would be taking out injunctions all over the place to protect themselves from damaging revelations about their private lives but, afterwards, the papers couldn’t print stories on their inane opinions, their nights out at society parties, the people they’re seen with etc. All those horrible celebrity gossip rags would go out of business overnight, the newspapers would have to print er... news, and the TV companies wouldn’t be allowed to follow people around with a camera 24 hours a day.
Some people might miss this for a few weeks. There might be withdrawal symptoms, but we’d all end up far happier as a result – of that, I’m confident.
As for press freedom? Well, the press has enormous power and they often use their freedom to curtail the freedoms of others, to destroy lives - often unnecessarily – to publish highly slanted political opinion masquerading as news, and to print stuff simply to make a great deal of money for themselves, at the cost of not printing stuff that actually matters.
We need to preserve a lack of interference/censorship from politicians etc. That’s what matters as far as freedom of the press goes. The media have enormous freedom to publish what they want in the UK and they choose to serve up a constant diet of inane celebrity gossip. That choice has enormous impact on our society – its awareness, intelligence, and ability to make coherent choices. Other people do their jobs according to rules and regulations and I don't see why journalists should expect themselves to be some kind of hallowed exception. A celebrity news black-out might lose them some sales, at least for a while, but they’d be able to use their massive freedom to print other stuff, stuff that really counts.
I was disappointed that the superinjunction taken out by Giggs didn’t work, but I feel that Thomas should have been allowed one as well. They should be cheap, in fact they should be free. If they had been, the story wouldn’t have come to anyone’s attention and we would have been spared reading about it. I support free superinjunctions, but with one condition – that the media are not allowed to feature anything ever again about those who ask for one, except for stories with material connection to their profession.
Just think, we’d never have to read any story ever again about Imogen Thomas, although magazines would be able to print pics from her modelling work – a girl’s got to make a living after all. The same with Giggs – no stories about affairs, only those about football. Just think – if Katie Price, Paris Hilton, Kerry Katona or any Big Brother/X Factor-loser ‘celebrity’ had to resort to a injunction, under my proposals, we’d never hear anything from them ever again! Max Clifford, (inevitably) Thomas's publicist, is arguing that superinjunctions should be removed so that newspapers can print more of these stories. No, let's have less. In fact, let's have none. Let's put Clifford and his like out of business for good!
If my proposals are accepted, think how little celebrity gossip there would be. People would be taking out injunctions all over the place to protect themselves from damaging revelations about their private lives but, afterwards, the papers couldn’t print stories on their inane opinions, their nights out at society parties, the people they’re seen with etc. All those horrible celebrity gossip rags would go out of business overnight, the newspapers would have to print er... news, and the TV companies wouldn’t be allowed to follow people around with a camera 24 hours a day.
Some people might miss this for a few weeks. There might be withdrawal symptoms, but we’d all end up far happier as a result – of that, I’m confident.
As for press freedom? Well, the press has enormous power and they often use their freedom to curtail the freedoms of others, to destroy lives - often unnecessarily – to publish highly slanted political opinion masquerading as news, and to print stuff simply to make a great deal of money for themselves, at the cost of not printing stuff that actually matters.
We need to preserve a lack of interference/censorship from politicians etc. That’s what matters as far as freedom of the press goes. The media have enormous freedom to publish what they want in the UK and they choose to serve up a constant diet of inane celebrity gossip. That choice has enormous impact on our society – its awareness, intelligence, and ability to make coherent choices. Other people do their jobs according to rules and regulations and I don't see why journalists should expect themselves to be some kind of hallowed exception. A celebrity news black-out might lose them some sales, at least for a while, but they’d be able to use their massive freedom to print other stuff, stuff that really counts.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Why the Liberal Democrats Got a Drubbing at the Elections 2011
Nick Clegg, apparently, has said that the Lib Dems have been punished at the polls because they are bearing “the brunt of the blame” for the coalition spending cuts.
Nick, that’s bullshit. Let’s get this straight, OK. You are not being blamed directly for spending cuts. What voters have against you and your party is that you didn’t stand up for your principles. You broke promises and sold things you were supposed to hold dear down the river for a sniff at power.
Someone said to me that, at the British elections of 2010, the Lib Dems were stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they hadn’t gone into coalition with the Tories, people would have blamed them for the lack of a stable Government in a time of crisis. So they went in, hoping to get AV and maybe a few more concessions. They had lost seats, after all, and weren’t in a strong bargaining position.
Well, yes. But going into the coalition has lost them all respect, especially among members of their own party, most of whom are extremely hostile to Tory policies. That’s not easily recoverable either. If they had forced a new election by not offering stable coalition, they may have suffered a short-term backlash, inspired by the right-wing press. But people would have remembered their principled stand, and that goes a long way in politics these days. I guess they would have ended up stronger as a result. Not any more.
My feeling is that Clegg should resign from the Government along with all the other Lib Dem Cabinet members. It would be damage limitation, too little too late, but late is better than never. At least it would be better for them, as well as for the country...
Nick, that’s bullshit. Let’s get this straight, OK. You are not being blamed directly for spending cuts. What voters have against you and your party is that you didn’t stand up for your principles. You broke promises and sold things you were supposed to hold dear down the river for a sniff at power.
Someone said to me that, at the British elections of 2010, the Lib Dems were stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they hadn’t gone into coalition with the Tories, people would have blamed them for the lack of a stable Government in a time of crisis. So they went in, hoping to get AV and maybe a few more concessions. They had lost seats, after all, and weren’t in a strong bargaining position.
Well, yes. But going into the coalition has lost them all respect, especially among members of their own party, most of whom are extremely hostile to Tory policies. That’s not easily recoverable either. If they had forced a new election by not offering stable coalition, they may have suffered a short-term backlash, inspired by the right-wing press. But people would have remembered their principled stand, and that goes a long way in politics these days. I guess they would have ended up stronger as a result. Not any more.
My feeling is that Clegg should resign from the Government along with all the other Lib Dem Cabinet members. It would be damage limitation, too little too late, but late is better than never. At least it would be better for them, as well as for the country...
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
The Scottish Election 2011: Edinburgh West
Has it really been a month since I last blogged? It would appear so. I really ought to say something about my reading tour south (for two days) with Andrew Philip, but that will have to wait until tomorrow, at least.
On Thursday, there are elections for the Scottish parliament. My constituency, Edinburgh West, is normally a safe Lib Dem seat, one in which no one would seriously expect an upset. But these are not ordinary times. I was surprised to get a letter posted by hand through my letterbox this morning – a handwritten envelope with my name on it. Inside was a letter from my Lib Dem MSP, Margaret Smith, asking for my vote.
The letter suggests that the key challenge in Edinburgh West comes from Labour. The Conservatives can’t win, she says, and many people are backing the Lib Dems to stop Labour from winning the seat. So the idea of the letter, it appears to me, is to persuade Conservative voters to vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out.
But wait a minute! The results of the last election tell a different story. The Lib Dems won with a handsome majority. But in second place were the SNP, not Labour! It seems obvious to me that the SNP are the main challengers in Edinburgh West and that this letter shows how desperate the Lib Dems are. They do face annihilation in Scotland, and many previous Lib Dems have switched to the SNP since the Lib Dems’ betrayal of voters in Westminster, entering into a coalition with the Conservatives.
So the tactic of the letter is to presume people aren’t going to check the result of the last election and will assume that the SNP aren’t in the picture for Edinburgh West. Conservatives reading the letter might vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out, and tactical voters might vote Labour if they are too lazy to have done their research.
The letter is a clever tactic, but... it doesn’t seem quite right to me. It seems to me like the kind of thing Nick Clegg would do, the kind of thing that’s going to see the Lib Dems wiped out in this election. I hope voters in Edinburgh West come to a similar conclusion.
***Edit: and indeed they have! The SNP have taken the seat from the Lib Dems. I must admit, even I am just a little surprised, but it goes to show - if you treat the electorate like idiots, as people who are too stupid to check the implications you make to them in a letter, they will treat you as you deserve.
On Thursday, there are elections for the Scottish parliament. My constituency, Edinburgh West, is normally a safe Lib Dem seat, one in which no one would seriously expect an upset. But these are not ordinary times. I was surprised to get a letter posted by hand through my letterbox this morning – a handwritten envelope with my name on it. Inside was a letter from my Lib Dem MSP, Margaret Smith, asking for my vote.
The letter suggests that the key challenge in Edinburgh West comes from Labour. The Conservatives can’t win, she says, and many people are backing the Lib Dems to stop Labour from winning the seat. So the idea of the letter, it appears to me, is to persuade Conservative voters to vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out.
But wait a minute! The results of the last election tell a different story. The Lib Dems won with a handsome majority. But in second place were the SNP, not Labour! It seems obvious to me that the SNP are the main challengers in Edinburgh West and that this letter shows how desperate the Lib Dems are. They do face annihilation in Scotland, and many previous Lib Dems have switched to the SNP since the Lib Dems’ betrayal of voters in Westminster, entering into a coalition with the Conservatives.
So the tactic of the letter is to presume people aren’t going to check the result of the last election and will assume that the SNP aren’t in the picture for Edinburgh West. Conservatives reading the letter might vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out, and tactical voters might vote Labour if they are too lazy to have done their research.
The letter is a clever tactic, but... it doesn’t seem quite right to me. It seems to me like the kind of thing Nick Clegg would do, the kind of thing that’s going to see the Lib Dems wiped out in this election. I hope voters in Edinburgh West come to a similar conclusion.
***Edit: and indeed they have! The SNP have taken the seat from the Lib Dems. I must admit, even I am just a little surprised, but it goes to show - if you treat the electorate like idiots, as people who are too stupid to check the implications you make to them in a letter, they will treat you as you deserve.
Friday, April 01, 2011
New Poetry Anthology
Breaking News. The Government have announced that, as part of their ongoing commitment to literature and the arts, a new anthology called 'Undersize Sock Poems' has been produced for compulsory daily use in all schools and universities, featuring poetry written by current Cabinet ministers. Each poem is accompanied by a short paragraph of explanation. Kate Middleton writes in her specially commissioned introduction, “We want to get away from elitist poetry that only rich, privileged people – y’know, the corduroyed luvvies – can understand. We’ve included explanations so that no one, not even council house dwellers and other minority groups, will feel excluded.” According to a parliamentary spokesman, “Some of the poems are juvenilia, written as school assignments or, in Jeremy *unt’s case, when he was suffering from a curious bout of Reverse Tourette’s Syndrome, but others are far more recent and will shed light on how coalition brains work.”
Prime Minister David Cameron’s poem is called ‘Last Night I Dreamt that Somebody Loved Me’ and although all the words are the same as The Smiths’ song of the same name, the emphasis is different and ‘somebody’ is written (and sung on the accompanying DVD) in italics. “Basically, we all want poetry we can relate to and we can all replace that ‘somebody’ with our own name,” writes Cameron. “I want this anthology to be firmly democratic.”
Other ministers featured include Nick Clegg (‘Elegy for a Dead Duck’), Vince Cable (‘Would I Lie to You?’), Theresa May (‘God bless Theresa. She lived like a rat...’), Michael Gove (‘No Ideas About the Thing’), George Osborne (‘Send in the Clowns’) and Ian Duncan Smith (‘Why Should Not Old Men Be Mad?’).
Proceedings from the anthology will be split between two charities. A proportion of the money will fund a new scheme, at a cost of £120,000, to allow poets to say they are published by Faber when they are in fact posting work to an unsearchable page on the Internet, and the rest will commission some random lottery winner to write a poem titled ‘Kate and Wills from My Perspective’, which will be read on royal wedding day from an exclusive soapbox erected for the occasion at the top of Ben Nevis.
Prime Minister David Cameron’s poem is called ‘Last Night I Dreamt that Somebody Loved Me’ and although all the words are the same as The Smiths’ song of the same name, the emphasis is different and ‘somebody’ is written (and sung on the accompanying DVD) in italics. “Basically, we all want poetry we can relate to and we can all replace that ‘somebody’ with our own name,” writes Cameron. “I want this anthology to be firmly democratic.”
Other ministers featured include Nick Clegg (‘Elegy for a Dead Duck’), Vince Cable (‘Would I Lie to You?’), Theresa May (‘God bless Theresa. She lived like a rat...’), Michael Gove (‘No Ideas About the Thing’), George Osborne (‘Send in the Clowns’) and Ian Duncan Smith (‘Why Should Not Old Men Be Mad?’).
Proceedings from the anthology will be split between two charities. A proportion of the money will fund a new scheme, at a cost of £120,000, to allow poets to say they are published by Faber when they are in fact posting work to an unsearchable page on the Internet, and the rest will commission some random lottery winner to write a poem titled ‘Kate and Wills from My Perspective’, which will be read on royal wedding day from an exclusive soapbox erected for the occasion at the top of Ben Nevis.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Three Snippets
I have two reviews in the latest issue of Sphinx online, issue 16, both of pamphlets from the ‘innovative’ or ‘radical’ or ‘experimental’ (or whatever word is being used these days to pin down what can’t be pinned down) end of the poetic spectrum: here’s my review of Ralph Hawkins’s ‘The Size of a Human Dawn’ and also this one on Nathan Thompson’s ‘A Haunting’. Both are published by Gratton Street Irregulars.
*
I’m spinning out the theological implications of a very different WS Merwin poem to ‘Home for Thanksgiving’, which I wrote about on this blog on Saturday. In the same book, he has a one-liner called ‘Savonarola’, which goes, “Unable to endure my world and calling the failure God, I will destroy yours.”
*
Yesterday, it appears my daughter left a message, in a very posh voice, on her friend's parents’ answerphone:
If only it were that simple.
*
I’m spinning out the theological implications of a very different WS Merwin poem to ‘Home for Thanksgiving’, which I wrote about on this blog on Saturday. In the same book, he has a one-liner called ‘Savonarola’, which goes, “Unable to endure my world and calling the failure God, I will destroy yours.”
*
Yesterday, it appears my daughter left a message, in a very posh voice, on her friend's parents’ answerphone:
"Hello. I'm the prime minister, David Cameron. Can I help you? If I can, press 9. If you don’t want my help, press 0.”
If only it were that simple.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Nick Clegg and Gary McKinnon: Before and After
Ah yes, here is an article in the Daily Mail, (not a paper I habitually read but now and again it comes in useful for something, as here) written by none other than Nick Clegg on 4th August 2009. Clegg is writing about the planned extradition of Gary McKinnon by the then New Labour administration. McKinnon was due to be deported to the USA to face trial for computer hacking, despite the fact that he has Asperger Syndrome.
Here are a few choice quotes from Clegg’s article:
Well, OK, that was Mr Clegg back in 2009. He obviously felt very strongly about the case. In fact, here he is with Janis Sharp, Gary McKinnon’s mother, at a demonstration calling for McKinnon to be tried in the UK (photo from the Free Gary McKinnon campaign site).
So, you’d assume that Nick Clegg would now be using his influence as deputy prime minister to influence the coalition on Gary McKinnon’s behalf. After all, he had called the previous administration’s attitude “an affront to British justice,” and talked about “compassion, knowing the difference between right and wrong” – strong words from a politician.
Unfortunately, and this may not exactly be a surprise, Nick won’t now meet with McKinnon’s mother even to discuss the case. Photos with her were fine before the election, but now he won’t even talk to her. But don’t worry, his parliamentary spokesman is on hand to clear things up:
So it’s not allowed for you, Nick, to meet in private with the mother of someone you're on record as supporting to discuss a case that someone else, the Home Secretary, is dealing with? Yeah, right... Looks to me as though Clegg has abandoned both the "courage" and the "moral compass" he demanded of the previous government. Pathetic.
Janis Sharp says it for us all:
Here are a few choice quotes from Clegg’s article:
“It appals me that, so far at least, no one in government seems prepared to lift a finger to help him. You can be sure that if the situation was reversed, American politicians would be moving hell and high water to protect one of their citizens from such a gross injustice. It is an affront to British justice that no one in the Labour Party has the courage to do the same.”
“...this case is about more than legal technicalities and political treaties. It is about compassion, knowing the difference between right and wrong - and the sorry truth is that the Labour Party lost its moral compass long ago.”
“It would be fair and it would be right to try Mr McKinnon in Britain. But the clock is ticking. The Prime Minister just needs to pick up the phone to make this prosecution happen. I urge him to do so, before it is too late.”
Well, OK, that was Mr Clegg back in 2009. He obviously felt very strongly about the case. In fact, here he is with Janis Sharp, Gary McKinnon’s mother, at a demonstration calling for McKinnon to be tried in the UK (photo from the Free Gary McKinnon campaign site).
So, you’d assume that Nick Clegg would now be using his influence as deputy prime minister to influence the coalition on Gary McKinnon’s behalf. After all, he had called the previous administration’s attitude “an affront to British justice,” and talked about “compassion, knowing the difference between right and wrong” – strong words from a politician.
Unfortunately, and this may not exactly be a surprise, Nick won’t now meet with McKinnon’s mother even to discuss the case. Photos with her were fine before the election, but now he won’t even talk to her. But don’t worry, his parliamentary spokesman is on hand to clear things up:
"As these are live legal proceedings the Deputy Prime Minister has been advised that it would not be appropriate to meet Gary's mother and discuss the details of the case."
So it’s not allowed for you, Nick, to meet in private with the mother of someone you're on record as supporting to discuss a case that someone else, the Home Secretary, is dealing with? Yeah, right... Looks to me as though Clegg has abandoned both the "courage" and the "moral compass" he demanded of the previous government. Pathetic.
Janis Sharp says it for us all:
"I trusted Nick Clegg to the core - I really believed in him. The Lib Dems used my son's case pre-election and as far as I am concerned it was 100% commitment to him. How can we have any trust in politicians when they behave like this?”
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
From John Tranter to Jennifer Aniston
February always makes me feel tired. It doesn’t matter whether the weather is stormy or simply chill, whether the sky is low and grey or high and blue. There’s just something about the month. It’s so relentless, a winter that lasts and lasts and lasts and has been lasting since last November and may well last until well into April if we’re unlucky.
Last night, I was reading John Tranter’s Selected, Urban Myths: 210 Poems, and was enjoying it, but there came a point when my brain wasn’t taking anything in and I did something I wouldn't have done at all if it had been summer – I switched on the TV, and there was Jennifer Aniston. As usual, she was playing Rachel from Friends, but in a movie about how some bride-to-be (Aniston) suspects that The Graduate had been based on her parents and goes around trying to find out whether the rumour is true or not. Somehow, I watched this for about half an hour. Complete nonsense. It’s hard to believe that so many millions can get poured into rubbish like this while virtually nothing is given to marketing and distributing poetry.
But this is the world and “we’re all in this together,” as Disney and David Cameron tell us, an alliance almost as unholy as the current coalition. Except we’re not in it together. There is plenty of room for opposition, for not playing. I switched off and went to sleep, wondering why it had taken me so long. There are worlds it’s best to have nothing to do with whatsoever.
Last night, I was reading John Tranter’s Selected, Urban Myths: 210 Poems, and was enjoying it, but there came a point when my brain wasn’t taking anything in and I did something I wouldn't have done at all if it had been summer – I switched on the TV, and there was Jennifer Aniston. As usual, she was playing Rachel from Friends, but in a movie about how some bride-to-be (Aniston) suspects that The Graduate had been based on her parents and goes around trying to find out whether the rumour is true or not. Somehow, I watched this for about half an hour. Complete nonsense. It’s hard to believe that so many millions can get poured into rubbish like this while virtually nothing is given to marketing and distributing poetry.
But this is the world and “we’re all in this together,” as Disney and David Cameron tell us, an alliance almost as unholy as the current coalition. Except we’re not in it together. There is plenty of room for opposition, for not playing. I switched off and went to sleep, wondering why it had taken me so long. There are worlds it’s best to have nothing to do with whatsoever.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Jeremy C***, Wikileaks, Katia the Spy, and Students: Just Another Week in Politics
It’s been quite a week in politics. First of all, there was the James Naughtie slip-up over Culture Minister, Jeremy C (see video above, as long as you are ready for 'strong language'). Really, he will never be known as Jeremy Hunt again and his political career is pretty much over. The damage done by such slip-ups is irreparable (e.g. when Michael Howard was tainted with having ‘something of the night’ about him, it marked the end of his parliamentary ambitions), although it would have been less catastrophic had the slip-up seemed less of a shoe-in.
Then we had wikileaks, the arrest of Julian Assange, and the hacking war by Anonymous on PayPal, Visa, Mastercard etc. I had a quick glance on 4Chan’s crazy ‘random’ board yesterday and noticed a few commenters seemed furious at all the publicity generated by ‘Coldblood’ at the BBC. They’re happy at the hacking attempts but not everyone is happy at people talking to the press about them.
Most of the leaked documents do seem to be very much in the public interest. Not the one on places thought to be of maximum strategic importance– I can’t see why it’s in anyone’s interest to make such documents public – but today’s one on how North Korea may be helping Burma to build nuclear facilities, for example, and the conformation that there was significant heated communication between Britain, USA and Libya over the release of Megrahi, accused of the Lockerbie bombing. This latter document shows, if we needed conformation, that Governments are happy to suppress information and lie to their voters. They will spin any story to their own advantage and deliberately mislead people as to how they arrived at their decisions. The US government were prepared to lie through their teeth to the very people they claimed to support – the relatives of those who had died in the bombing. That, surely, is disgusting, especially given the USA’s hard line on Megrahi’s release afterwards. The London government lied so that Megrahi’s release would seem like a purely Scottish decision. If you don’t believe me, read the link.
Now, I live in a democracy, a place people died so that everyone could have a vote. I’m fairly sure they didn’t die so that elected governments could treat their voters with complete contempt. That’s why the governments in Washington and London are so furious with wikileaks. It’s not because the documents ‘put lives in danger’ as they pathetically claim (they couldn’t care less about that) but because they have been embarrassed that their relationship with their own voters has been revealed as entirely duplicitous. Anyway, I also liked Dave Bonta's post about wikileaks at his Via Negativa blog.
Then, there’s the story of the 24-year-old beautiful Russian woman employed as a press secretary to a liberal democrat MP, who didn’t suspect for one minute that she might have other motives for having access to files etc. Of course, some people might get angry at this and ask why, just because a woman is beautiful, vivacious, young and Russian, they are necessarily also a spy. True. But we might also ask how many other male MPs have young, beautiful, vivacious, Russian aides, and, on the assumption there aren’t any, we might well ask if there’s a good reason for that!
Finally, the students. This story fits in well with wikileaks. Few people like to see violence on the streets. But I heard Michael Portillo a few weeks ago say that, when he witnessed the violence over the poll tax in the 90s, he knew the poll tax was dead. The trouble is – when governments treat their people with contempt, break promises to voters, and refuse to listen to argument, what else is left but violence? Last night, on This Week, I heard former Labour Cabinet minister (now part of a political ‘think tank’, supposedly on the left, but his record in the New Labour Cabinet somewhat contradicts that), James Purnell, say from his comfortable news studio that the students had to answer to the bare fact that, for all their protests, they had failed to prevent the increase in tuition fees. Well, of course they have, because politicians they voted for, who had promised not to raise tuition fees, now believe that raising tuition fees is an excellent idea. But Purnell’s complacent arrogance, of which he seemed not remotely conscious, is partly why people are angry, why they’re out on the streets, why violence is brewing. People feel betrayed. They feel democracy has become a sham, that the moral priorities of the nation haven’t changed in the slightest even after financial meltdown, that the rich and powerful will continue to become richer and more powerful, and everyone else will have to pay simply to make that happen. When Michael Portillo comes over as more humane and understanding than an ex- Cabinet minister from New Labour, it’s painfully obvious how out of touch politicians of all colours have become.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
The Suspended Bishop and the Royal Wedding
I know this is now old news, but I’ve been concerned about the fate of Pete Broadbent, the Church of England bishop who criticized, on Facebook, the forthcoming royal wedding. The BBC reported that he was suspended from his post, even though he had apologised for the tone he had used and for any hurt he had caused by the content of his remarks.
This seems all wrong to me. First of all, I know that, technically, the Queen is head of the Church of England, but that’s a historical accident. I don’t know any Anglicans who don’t believe that Jesus is the ‘head’ of their church. The Queen is head as a constitutional, legal arrangement. Secondly, Anglicans, even bishops, have a right to freedom of opinion on any matters outside the fundamental substance of the Christian faith (e.g. crucifixion, Trinity, resurrection etc), so republican views are not at all unacceptable.
Add to this what he actually said. Stating that the marriage would be over within seven years was a bit silly – how would he know? He could be right or wrong, but there’s no logical reason to suggest this. However, also, according to the BBC report at the link above, he said that:
So he attacked the media! No surprise that the gutter press have made so much of it. What is really pathetic though is the way the church has so easily caved in to media pressure and hasn’t vocally supported Mr Broadbent on some of his points, such as the way the media act around celebrity and royalty, and for the appalling effect such media obsessions have had on our lives and culture. The church has kept quiet on this and has suspended the bishop, someone whose contribution in all kinds of important matters it had previously valued a great deal (or he wouldn’t have been appointed as a bishop in the first place). Richard Chartres, bishop of London, said he was “appalled” at Mr Broadbent’s remarks. I am appalled that the church appointed a sham trial and judged it according to the rules of media circus.
This seems all wrong to me. First of all, I know that, technically, the Queen is head of the Church of England, but that’s a historical accident. I don’t know any Anglicans who don’t believe that Jesus is the ‘head’ of their church. The Queen is head as a constitutional, legal arrangement. Secondly, Anglicans, even bishops, have a right to freedom of opinion on any matters outside the fundamental substance of the Christian faith (e.g. crucifixion, Trinity, resurrection etc), so republican views are not at all unacceptable.
Add to this what he actually said. Stating that the marriage would be over within seven years was a bit silly – how would he know? He could be right or wrong, but there’s no logical reason to suggest this. However, also, according to the BBC report at the link above, he said that:
'Marriages should be about family, not “some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes, for a couple whose lives are going to be persecuted and spoilt by an ignorant media”. He criticised the monarchy for a history of broken marriages and a "corrupt and sexist" hereditary principle, before going on to attack the "gutter press" for "persecuting" the Royal Family.'
So he attacked the media! No surprise that the gutter press have made so much of it. What is really pathetic though is the way the church has so easily caved in to media pressure and hasn’t vocally supported Mr Broadbent on some of his points, such as the way the media act around celebrity and royalty, and for the appalling effect such media obsessions have had on our lives and culture. The church has kept quiet on this and has suspended the bishop, someone whose contribution in all kinds of important matters it had previously valued a great deal (or he wouldn’t have been appointed as a bishop in the first place). Richard Chartres, bishop of London, said he was “appalled” at Mr Broadbent’s remarks. I am appalled that the church appointed a sham trial and judged it according to the rules of media circus.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Don't Sleep
No, don’t sleep while the governors of the world are busy!
Be suspicious of the power they claim to have to acquire on your behalf!
Stay awake to be sure that your hearts are not empty, when others calculate on the emptiness of your hearts!
Do what is unhelpful, sing songs from out of your mouths that go against expectation!
Be ornery, be as sand, not oil in the thirsty machinery of the world!
(from Dreams by Gunter Eich, in Angina Days: Selected Poems (Princeton University Press, 2010), translated by Michael Hofmann)
Friday, November 27, 2009
More on Gary McKinnon
Great article by Katy over at Baroque in Hackney on the pathetic decision by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, not to stop Gary McKinnon’s extradition. That’s despite the fact that earlier this month, the Commons' Home Affairs Committee said the move should be halted owing to McKinnon’s "precarious state of mental health."
I dealt with the extradition treaties here a few months ago. Basically, no matter how often Alan ‘poodle’ Johnson says he can’t halt the extradition on medical grounds, what he means isn’t “can’t” but “won’t”. Johnson clearly sees himself as a future Labour leader, perhaps even a future Prime Minister and doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of the U.S.A. He seems to me to be a typical New Labour politician – without principle, ready to act as far as possible purely to his own advantage, and governed by faith in fudge and soundbite. His predecessors of decades ago must be spinning in their graves.
Let’s hope the European Court of Human Rights makes the correct decision.
As an aside: some of the comments on Katy’s post, however well argued, seem to me to betray a cluelessness about Asperger’s Syndrome. Yes, Gary McK has had a job, girlfriend etc and wasn’t formally diagnosed with AS until adulthood, but he was born in days when people weren’t diagnosed until adulthood. He’s obviously a highly intelligent individual with lots going for him. The job, the girlfriend, home, and all the rest of it combined to give necessary routine and stability. But these things, and his coping mechanisms (he’s clever enough to have devised plenty), will simply conceal the extent of his difficulties, which will be very real. Take that all away and you’ll have a very different scenario, but that’s what the U.S. prosecutors want to do.
Also the point isn’t that Gary McK is incapable of making a plea at a trial. It’s that the stress and the removal of all his support networks will be catastrophic and could result even in suicide.
The people who should be prosecuted are the idiot U.S security team who didn’t bother to create login passwords and enabled hackers around the world to look in on top secret data. No one in the prosecution team has suggested prosecuting them. Odd, that!
I dealt with the extradition treaties here a few months ago. Basically, no matter how often Alan ‘poodle’ Johnson says he can’t halt the extradition on medical grounds, what he means isn’t “can’t” but “won’t”. Johnson clearly sees himself as a future Labour leader, perhaps even a future Prime Minister and doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of the U.S.A. He seems to me to be a typical New Labour politician – without principle, ready to act as far as possible purely to his own advantage, and governed by faith in fudge and soundbite. His predecessors of decades ago must be spinning in their graves.
Let’s hope the European Court of Human Rights makes the correct decision.
As an aside: some of the comments on Katy’s post, however well argued, seem to me to betray a cluelessness about Asperger’s Syndrome. Yes, Gary McK has had a job, girlfriend etc and wasn’t formally diagnosed with AS until adulthood, but he was born in days when people weren’t diagnosed until adulthood. He’s obviously a highly intelligent individual with lots going for him. The job, the girlfriend, home, and all the rest of it combined to give necessary routine and stability. But these things, and his coping mechanisms (he’s clever enough to have devised plenty), will simply conceal the extent of his difficulties, which will be very real. Take that all away and you’ll have a very different scenario, but that’s what the U.S. prosecutors want to do.
Also the point isn’t that Gary McK is incapable of making a plea at a trial. It’s that the stress and the removal of all his support networks will be catastrophic and could result even in suicide.
The people who should be prosecuted are the idiot U.S security team who didn’t bother to create login passwords and enabled hackers around the world to look in on top secret data. No one in the prosecution team has suggested prosecuting them. Odd, that!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Megrahi And The UK's 'Overwhelming Interests'
When I wrote my post on Megrahi’s release, I didn’t think things would move quite so fast. Ten days ago, I wrote:
“‘UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband …rejected suggestions the UK pushed for Megrahi's release to improve relations as ‘a slur on both myself and the government’.”
Today we hear Jack Straw, negotiating with Libya in 2007, wrote to Scottish Justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, on the terms of the Prison Transfer Agreement with Libya:
“I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion. The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the UK, I have agreed that in this instance the [PTA] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Straw is now suggesting that this agreement had nothing to do with Megrahi and that the PTA agreement is “academic” in any case, given that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds. I don’t think it’s “academic” at all. Megrahi was the only Libyan prisoner in a British jail. And the reason there was no exclusion was because of the “overwhelming interests for the UK.”
So the slur on Miliband and the Government sticks. Or, rather, it doesn’t. A slur involves degrading someone in the eyes of others, it means casting serious doubt on someone’s good reputation. This Government of liars, spinners and cover-ups have no such reputation to lose. The new revelations are simply par for the course.
“‘UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband …rejected suggestions the UK pushed for Megrahi's release to improve relations as ‘a slur on both myself and the government’.”
Today we hear Jack Straw, negotiating with Libya in 2007, wrote to Scottish Justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, on the terms of the Prison Transfer Agreement with Libya:
“I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion. The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the UK, I have agreed that in this instance the [PTA] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Straw is now suggesting that this agreement had nothing to do with Megrahi and that the PTA agreement is “academic” in any case, given that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds. I don’t think it’s “academic” at all. Megrahi was the only Libyan prisoner in a British jail. And the reason there was no exclusion was because of the “overwhelming interests for the UK.”
So the slur on Miliband and the Government sticks. Or, rather, it doesn’t. A slur involves degrading someone in the eyes of others, it means casting serious doubt on someone’s good reputation. This Government of liars, spinners and cover-ups have no such reputation to lose. The new revelations are simply par for the course.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Scottish Literature Working Group
I was having a quick read through Product magazine the other day (summer 2009 issue) – good, stimulating stuff. I came to an opinion piece (written by someone on the editorial board, I guess) on the new Literature Working Group set up to examine “the future of literature and publishing in Scotland.” This section in particular caught my eye:
Scottish “publishing” and “literature” are not a seamless garment. Scottish publishing can make money pretty well without literature. Scottish literature is thriving – with London publishers. At present the Arts Council invests in writers (primarily through bursaries), publishers (primarily through grants), and publicity (primarily through projects and prizes).
It’s a matter of some concern that this sometimes translates into paying an author to write a book, paying the publisher to publish it, and then giving it an award at the end.
Well, put like that, it does sound somewhat absurd, doesn’t it? But it’s less easy to decide how public money should be used to benefit Scottish literature. I’ve just noticed that public response to the Working Group needs to be in by the end of this month (email address at the link). I suspect it would be good for people who don’t normally have input into such consultations to make a few points. Perhaps someone will take notice?
Scottish “publishing” and “literature” are not a seamless garment. Scottish publishing can make money pretty well without literature. Scottish literature is thriving – with London publishers. At present the Arts Council invests in writers (primarily through bursaries), publishers (primarily through grants), and publicity (primarily through projects and prizes).
It’s a matter of some concern that this sometimes translates into paying an author to write a book, paying the publisher to publish it, and then giving it an award at the end.
Well, put like that, it does sound somewhat absurd, doesn’t it? But it’s less easy to decide how public money should be used to benefit Scottish literature. I’ve just noticed that public response to the Working Group needs to be in by the end of this month (email address at the link). I suspect it would be good for people who don’t normally have input into such consultations to make a few points. Perhaps someone will take notice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)