David Aaronovitch's personal mythology

David Aaronovitch is hard to take at the best of time but his performance tonight on BBC 4, decrying his former 'left-wing' self was particularly risible (if not a little nauseating). Most ridiculou s of all is Aaronovitch's claim to be a stalwart of the left. Those of us who remember Aaronovitch and his Eurocommunist pals in the CP and the YCL know what a joke that was. If there was any group that helped drive the rightward drift of Labour (and the eventual demise of their own organisation) it was this bunch. What's worse is the BBC's determination to indulge Aaronovitch in his posturing and misrepresentation of the left. You may think you moved rightwards David, those of us around at the time knew you were already there.

US witch-hunting tradition alive and well

Very good - although disturbing - article by Gary Younge about witch-hunting in US academia. Okay, it's not entirely new - Horowitz and his barking buddies have been at it for some time and most of us will be familiar with the nonsense hawked on Frontpage and Horowitz's other sites, but Younge's report highlights how the US culture wars are far from abating.

The Prison Letters

A little late this link, from last week's Gruaniad on Gramsci's Prison Letters. Of course, a piece on the Prison Notebooks would have been more illuminating, although harded to reconcile with the biographically-fixated editorial values of the broadsheet literary sections. Still, that's not to say the letters are not worth reading, they are but they remain a footnote to Gramsci's political and cultural writings.

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.

Well that's alright then ....

Bush's illegal bugging of US citizens is nothing new and follows the illustrious example of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the internment of Japanese during the Second World War and spying on anti-war activists during Vietnam, that's according to one Republican supporting 'security consultant' speaking on Channel 4 News. By their own words.......

We're all middle class now - apparently

One can get very bored of a select group of hate figures - Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Ann Leslie - so it's good when another one comes along, especially one as cretinous as Deborah Moggach. According to Moggach we are all middle class now; the working class has all made so much money from council house sales or the rise in taxi fares (they all drive black cabs don'tcha know) that is has decamped to the Costa del Sol. Of course, concedes Moggach, one shouldn't forget there is an underclass and let's not leave chavs out of the equation (great, let's get all the snobbish bases covered). Moggach - in a way that seems typical of simpering upper middle class pundits - finds the first appearance of 'chavs' in the work of Jane Bleedin' Austen.

Shut the fuck up. Wittering, solipsistic arseholes like Moggach make me want to throw up ( or seek out my nearest AK-47 vendor). Only those whose social orbit is restricted to Radio 4 studios, independent production companies, the Groucho and being flown Virgin Upper Class to New York - for a premiere of Pride and Prejudice as Moggach crows on her website - could come out with this crap. Has she never been further East than Farringdon Road, further south than the Embankment?

Bastard.

John Fowles

Like many adolescent boys I was captivated by John Fowles's The Magus. The mixture of psychological thriller, romance, fantasy and would-be existential fable pushed all the right buttons.

Fowles latterly saw the book as a somewhat juvenile work and indeed, went as far as rewriting the novel. With the passing of time The Magus waned in my estimation, although not necessarily in my affections. Even now I would recommend it to any teenager (or adult for that matter). Whatever Fowles's view of its merits it at least does not qualify for the 'kidult' category.

If the appeal of The Magus declined, my estimation of other Fowles works - most notably, The Collector, The French Lieutenant's Woman and (best of all) Daniel Martin - increased.

Both of the latter two books experimented with form in intelligent and entertaining ways. The multidimensional Daniel Martin was clearly marked by the 1970s upsurge in the interest of English departments in the works of Gramsci and Lukacs, but was none the worse for that. For me, Daniel Martin was an admirable work.

Fowles's later novels were less satisfactory, the inventiveness more strained, and a certain prurience - if not misogyny - crept in. However, taken as a whole, Fowles leaves a strong body of work informed by a progressive sensibility, and for those who are not familiar with his work or have only seen the films, he is well worth investigating. Suffice to say, the film of The Magus, - unlike the Pinter-scripted French Lieutenant's Woman - is not.

Who needs Parliament?

So now Blair tells us that 'complacent' MPs should think carefully before ignoring the views of those who know better. Rather than questioning the wisdom of the police and meddling in things of which they know little, our elected representatives should fall into line and give unalloyed support for the chief constables' preferred anti-terrorism measures.

Blair's latest remarks underscore both his natural authoritarianism and the deference to technocrats implicit in New Labour thinking. Given that the Party that now little more than a vehicle for the career ambitions of management consultants and lawyers it is hardly surprising that it should be so willing to defer to the 'professionals' of law and order. Framed within a Blairite logic the police are disinterested guardian's of public safety. The notion that the police (or army) might have a less benign agenda or have a natural predilection for heavy-handed solutions does not enter into this discourse.

I am not concerned here with questioning Blair's sincerity or whether he inhabits this ideological construct - he may do, he may not. What I am concerned with is its effect, a diminishing of the value and legitimacy of Parliament, its members and the democratic process. And for that Blair must be roundly condemned.

And the Man Played Waltzing Matilda

.... well actually he wrote a song that, with a nod to Australia's unofficial national anthem, stands as one of the greatest anti-war songs of all time. Most people know it via the Pogues whose marvellous version can be found on Rum, Sodomy and the Lash but it was Eric Bogle, profiled here who we can thank for a moving reminder, if any were needed, of the follies of war.

The last refuge of a scoundrel

.... analysed today by George Monbiot. I often find Monbiot's columns irritating - I am not sure entirely why - but today's is worth a look. As every liberal commentator works him or herself up into a lather over identity, nationalism and patriotism Monbiot advances the position that was once a commonplace on the left, that of internationalism.

It's all in God's plan...

Or at least it is according to Dubya. Fresh from having involved himself in mattes of medical ethics and adding to the misery of the husband of Terry Schiavo, Bush is now turning to education, suggesting that schools should include teaching 'intelligent design' alongside the theory of evolution.

Never mind the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both opposed any such move, having concluded that there is no scientific basis to the notion of intelligent design; for believers like George W the choice between evolutionism and intelligent design is a choice between equally valid stances.

It is good to see that this is one element of Christophen Hitchen's former belief system that hasn't been jettisoned in his drift to the right and into the embrace of the neo-cons. Hitchens is right to question John Roberts' nomination. Hopefully, we will see Hitchens also turning his fire on Dubya's intervention regarding the matter of scientific education.

McCarthyism redux

Last month I suggested that Charles Clarke's Spook's Charter would lead to radicals being persecuted simply because they oppose the New Labour orthodoxy on the 'War on Terror' (Jul 20 2005). It seems that the consequences of the government's announcement are already being felt with at least one Leed's bookshop being raided because it carried anti-war material.

First rule of interviewing: listen

One never expects much from BBC local news programmes, indeed they are best avoided, but Emily Witless, sorry Maitlis, provided an exemplary show of even handedness when interviewing a representative of the Muslim Safety Forum on Tuesday's programme. The Forum's representative was interrupted and hectored as he tried to explain some of the problems involved in persuading young Muslims to trust the police and join its ranks.

The Paxman-Essler technique is clearly becoming a standard part of the BBC's presenter toolkit and one can only assume that it is now mandatory within Beeb training programmes. Giving interviewees a tough ride and probing their arguments is one thing, talking them down and deriding their positions - an approach which suggests that the interviewer occupies a position that has a legitimacy the interviewee lacks - is quite another. Maitlis' interview subject was unable to advance his views, moderate though they were, without Maitlis continually interrupting.

BBC London has always been the home of poor interview technique, its reporters frequently substituting ill-informed posturing for objective reporting. There is a tendency in local reporting to frequently overegg matters in an attempt to create a story where there is none. Although there are exceptions many BBC London reporters default to this mode.

Terrorism, the state killing of innocent members of the public, and the concerns of our communities should be dealt with by a public broadcaster in a balanced fashion and with as much objectivity as is possible. That's not what is going on at BBC London.

Charles Clarke's Spooks' Charter

Charles Clarke’s announcement that he plans to introduce a global database of ‘extremists’ is worrying and the implications of such a proposal, potentially dangerous.

Clarke told the Commons today that he has asked the Home Office, Foreign Office and the intelligence agencies to "establish a full database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated relevant behaviours".

These relevant behaviours are yet to be defined. We are told that these measures are principally aimed to exclude those from the UK whose presence is deemed “not conducive to the public interest.” Targets for surveillance and listing include radical preachers, websites and articles intended to foment terrorism.

The Government also intends to introduce an offence of “indirect incitement to terrorism.” The UK already has an offence of direct incitement. The new measures would target those who, “while not directly inciting, glorify and condone terrorist acts knowing full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage them to turn to terrorism".

On the surface these proposals may seem reasonable. No one can or should support the targeting of innocent civilians and the ideas of the Islamist extremists this measure presumably targets – organisations such as former Al Muhajiroun and its cognates – must be countered, especially by the left.

It is likely that during the coming weeks, we will hear reassurances from the Government that the measures are not designed to stifle legitimate debate, or for that matter to bring all radicals – religious or secular – under a regime of surveillance and monitoring. The aim of these measures, we will be told, is to provide instruments which are wide enough in scope to enable the police and security forces to ‘do their job’ and protect society. Safeguards will be built into the system.

The track record of the security forces in these matters is not a good one. During the Cold War, MI5 and other security organisations dedicated considerable effort to infiltrating socialist organisations and unions. Margaret Thatcher made similar use of the security forces to further her domestic agenda, most notably crushing the National Union of Mineworkers. What hope, therefore, than a new set of powers will be used in a restrained and discriminating fashion? None at all.

Yet the problem with this whole approach goes wider. Indeed, reflecting the imperialist project of which it forms a part, the mechanisms of surveillance and the denial of legitimacy that form the essence of the Clarke proposals are part of a logic that seeks to cement the interests of the US and British (and by implication, Israeli) states as the only legitimate deployers of violence.

Marxists have historically opposed individual terrorism and condemn attacks on innocent civilians. We are not, however, pacifists. The left has a tradition of supporting liberation movements around the world and defending workers’ organisations right to resist oppressive regimes. In the Spanish Civil War and other conflicts, socialists have participates in conflicts, even when those conflicts are in foreign countries.

More recently, the left has supported the struggles of the Nicaraguan and El Salvadorean peoples against US-backed insurgencies and in struggles with US-backed dictatorships. Would the FMLN be proscribed under Charles Clarke's proposals?

Similarly, many young Muslims may be opposed to violence against civilians yet support military actions against those they see as their oppressors, whether that may be in Chechnya, Kashmir or Palestine.

The problem is one of drawing the line. For George Bush, forces that are opposed to US foreign interventions can be written off as terrorists or illegal combatants. Is the British government going to define those it disagrees with as beyond the pale? Must all resistance be passive? If it takes a hard line on such matters there will be many, and not just Islamists, who will come within the scope of the mechanisms of surveillance and find themselves on watch lists.

Now let’s not be naïve. Such organisations will already be under some form of surveillance.

However, the term ‘indirect incitement’ is very broad and would, I fear, in the hands of a zealous spook, encompass many of the radical weblogs now on the Web.

And one must also ask: will such measures actually work? Applied in too heavy handed a manner, constraining debate and vigorous opposition to government policies, it could even enhance the cachet of the lunatic fringe. The solution to beating the extremists is not to be found in overly sweeping measures such as these, it is in the provision of alternative avenues for protest and involvement, and in the removal the grievances that create wave upon wave of potential recruits. Unfortunately, the government has proved time and time again that it lacks the imagination and will to pursue such avenues.

Good riddance II

Already covered but when it comes to invective, nobody does it better.

Good riddance

There will probably be some idiot in the national press who will try and find some good in the tawdry, sordid, miserable life of John Tyndall, racist, fascist and leading figure within Nazi organisations stretching back to the Fifties. Unlike more recent leaders of the fascist right like Nick Griffin, Tyndall made little attempt to disguise the true nature of his politics and his bids for respactability were always less plausible, even to the more gullible elements within society.

The BBC's story lets the man off lightly and allows the British National Party to praise Tyndall as a 'great man.' The fact is that the man was scum and the world is better off without him. Tyndall was an anti-semite and was involved in the founding a number of openly Nazi organisations. One site quotes the BNP as saying that the CPS and police may have hounded Tyndall to death. If only.

Good riddance.