Collateral damage

America may have killed as many as 17 Pakistani civilians in a missile attack on village in North West Pakistan according to the New York Times today. Again, the US shows itself prepared to pursue what it deems to be its interests regardless of the potential ‘collateral damage’ and regardless of the fact that the village targeted is within the borders of a supposed ally.

The attack, launched in all probability from a Predator drone, was undertaken without the knowledge of the Musharraf regime and was apparently targeting Al-Qaeda No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Predictably, The New York Times prefers to emphasise the apparent failure of the attack rather than the murder of innocent civilians.

The SWP and the House

The unease in Respect ranks over GG's sojourn in the Big Brother house has not, it seems, been limited to the pages of Gramsci's Grill. The unease detected at certain SWP-aligned blogs came bubbling to the surface at the SWP conference which recognised that Galloway's decision (it was, it seems, his own) has been poorly received by Respect members and supporters. John Rees says: "what matters is the stand George has taken against war and neo-liberalism. That’s why we continue to support him and Respect. We stick by our allies, even if we feel they have made a mistake." That's broadly true and one can only concur with the conclusion that, "come May, people will not decide to vote Respect or New Labour on the basis of Big Brother. Our main job is to stick to the perspective we put forward when we formed Respect and concentrate on the preparations for the May elections."

That will be true if George and the rest of Respect can go forward in tandem and not pull in opposite directions or undermine good work done in the past.

Galloway in the House

Respect and Gorgeous George have issued a statement explaining the reasons for participating in this year’s Celebrity Big Brother. Galloway’s first reason for wanting to participate, raising money for Palestinian charities is commendable. His second, that of wanting to reach a wider audience and win new people to radical politics is more of a step in the dark. As I have said before I have my doubts on this one but I’d love to be proved wrong.

Galloway has also be accused of neglecting his constituents during this period. Respect has issued the following rebuttal to such claims carried in today’s Guardian:

“George Galloway’s office was dealing with constituents’ problems on Friday just as we do every day of the week, including Christmas and New Year. Our office was, to my knowledge, unable to respond to only two calls from people saying they wanted to raise constituency problems - one who did not leave a phone number to return their call on and one where it was not possible, despite repeated attempts, to hear the number left. And this despite the fact that we were bombarded with dozens of fatuous calls from journalists like Dodd and that BT, unfortunately, failed to install the phones in our new office which was due to open on Friday.

Most MPs did not hold surgeries on Friday because of the parliamentary recess. But we did. A dozen constituents came to the surgery which we hold every Friday from 4pm to 7pm. The issues were predominantly the same as they always are - appalling housing conditions resulting from the year’s of neglect and lack of investment by the New Labour government in Whitehall and the New Labour Council in Tower Hamlets, and immigration and asylum problems arising from this government’s iniquitous, racist immigration and asylum legislation.

It was New Labour’s propaganda before last May’s election that George would not represent his constituency properly and it has remained so ever since. And yet not only has George held surgeries almost every week since his election and taken up and vigorously pursued hundreds of constituents’ problems, he has spoken at more public meetings on campaigning issues around the constituency than his New Labour predecessor did in all the eight anonymous years of her incumbency. He has combined this with taking the Respect message around the country speaking to thousands and playing a very significant role building the international anti-war movement.”

This does not address the fact that George will not be available for parliamentary votes.

Of greater concern is Dodd’s other article in which Channel 4’s spokeswoman stated that it was obliged by Ofcom to ensure ‘due impartiality.’

This requirement is derived from Section 5 of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code which is in turn based upon requirements in the Communications Act 2003 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

If Channel 4 moves to gag Galloway on these grounds it will, in my view, be both acting dishonestly and going beyond the requirements of the Code. Of course, the Act provides Ofcom with a degree of discretion and the regulator may decide to intervene (although under the new arrangements this would take place after transmission unlike arrangements under the old ITC).

‘Due impartiality’ allows a degree of judgement to be exercised and a light entertainment programme like Big Brother is clearly not the same as a news or current affairs programme. Ofcom’s own guidelines make it clear that context is important. Galloway is not there as a reporter or a presenter and his views are clearly intrinsic reasons for his prominence as a public figure.

Section 5.11 does require broadcasters to show ‘due impartiality’ on matters of current policy and controversy. Clearly the War and Palestine would fit within this ruling. However, ‘due impartiality’ is typically measured over a series taken as a whole and any measure would have to apply to both the full coverage and the edited highlights.

Ofcom’s rules also cover authored programmes and personal views. These must be highlighted but is there any doubt that Galloway has a partisan perspective. As far as ‘identification’ is concerned he does that himself. It also has rules covering 'undue prominence' and Galloway may fall foul here.

I suspect that Channel 4 is trying to cover itself. From a programme-making point of view they would be foolish to extract all controversy from the programme and knowing the organisation I expect that they will push the regulations as far as they can. We’ll see.

There’s no upside to this one….

Despite the best attempts of some comrades to put a positive spin on Gorgeous George’s latest stunt it’s hard to see what good can come from spending two weeks with the C-listers of the Celebrity Big Brother Household. While some over at the Tomb have been trying to see the bright side – a higher profile for GG and Respect, a chance to reach new audiences – many of the rationalisations ring hollow.

Party discipline has its place and it is true that Galloway has his share of critics on the right but the desperate determination to constantly talk the man up can be hard to take and, I suspect, does not wash with those outside of the core membership. So it is refreshing to detect a faint note of unease at sites like Dead Men Left and a implication – however muted – that this might figure amongst Galloway’s poorer judgement calls.

No one can take away the fact that Galloway put Respect on the map and no one was more delighted than me with the Bethnal Green and Bow result. Yet Galloway is a complex, contradictory character whose strengths are twinned with often serious weaknesses. His courage and ability to present the anti-war case is twinned with a residual Stalinism and a taste for poorly considered phrase mongering. His style is often explained as a manifestation of an ego out of control (although it is arguably this egotism that drives his forceful presentation of arguments).

I am not sure that this fully explains it. Galloway belongs to the school which maintains that ringing phrases are important because they strike a chord with the public and persist in the collective memory – the key objective is to always to make an impact. What better way to make an impact than through what remains one of the most popular programmes on television.

Except that impact isn’t everything, not if the price includes a loss of credibility and trust amongst one’s electorate. Even if Galloway does raise the profile of the campaigns and the party he represents he is also there to represent his electors: that needs to be seen as his principal priority. This is not to suggest Galloway has not shown himself to be a good local campaigner but that is not enough. He has to be both an extra parliamentary campaigner and a constituency MP who actively represents his constituents within parliament. Galloway cannot afford to be complacent and take his constituents for granted.

I hope George proves me wrong but whatever the outcome, Respect has to stop being seen as the Galloway party and stop relying so much on the power of stunts and rhetoric. .

Their man in Jerusalem

The quality of the BBC's reporting from Israel and the Occupied Territories has always been uneven (and that's being charitable). I have rarely seen reporting and vox popping as clueless as that undertaken by the Beeb's correspondent outside of the Dome of the Rock following Friday prayers today. The hapless reported - whose name escapes me for the moment - was bemused to hear speaker after speaker state that no, they did not expect there to be any breakthroughs in the 'peace process' and indeed, that they did not expect anything from the Israeli's.

"But surely," our correspondent plaintively asked, flailing around for a new angle, "Sharon had become a man of peace." The expression of incredulity on the face of the Jerusalem shopkeeper indicated the perspicacity of his interlocutor.

Questioning like this gives the lie to the claim that the BBC is pro-Palestinian. Instead they cannot even begin to understand the depth of Palestinian grievances. Pitiful.