Against All Odds

Could this be the next Labour Party political broadcast?

I thought it was good until Kinnock and the architects of New Labour came into view, their stories undo the victories of the past. Did the producer see the irony?

Aside from that some interesting images, and it's got Lansbury in it!

Some Other Blogs

Not a carnival or anything like that I'm afraid, just some links to other blogs that I inflict upon this interweb.

So this one you're at now is all about my politcs, knocking capitalism on the head and creating a fairer world.

For my technical ramblings there's Plans to Prosper.

And for my thoughts on faith in today's world there's a new one called The Sign Of The Cross.

Enjoy. Or not as the case may be.

The Times They Aren't A Changing

Just been looking back at one of my old sites on the wayback machine. What stands out is a posting I made in June 2001.

Surely I can't be the only person on this planet who's bored to tears with the glut of reality tv programmes at the moment?

I still feel the same nowadays. :(

I'm with Alan

To date two of the panel that were appointed by the Government to advise the Government on drug policy have handed their cards in. Seems that there's a bit of bad feeling over Alan Johnson's decision to give Prof Nutt, the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs his P45.

So what's it all about? The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is a panel of experts that advise the Government on Drug policy, providing evidence and expert opinion which will assist the Government in putting together a coherent and viable policy. Lately the panel have been advising the Government on the reclassification of Cannabis from a Class C to a Class B narcotic. But the Government have decided to continue with the reclassification which goes against the provided evidence from the panel.

So certain members of the panel, specifically Prof Nutt have decided that they will try and alter Government policy by acting outside of the panel. He had criticised the fact the Home Office had moved cannabis back to Class B, against the ACMD advice, and warned alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than both it and ecstasy.

In other words Prof Nutt has crossed the fence and entered the dirty world of politics. So Alan Johnson has put the mockers on Nutt's attempts to influence policy by sacking him.

So I'm with Alan.

Whether weed needs to be a Class B or a Class C has become irrelevant and not really something I care about. But I do care about democracy and that the formulation of policy has to lie with our elected leaders, not with scientists. How we live goes beyond science, beyond things that are black or white. I want to know that should I disagree with those who rule over us and create policy, that my vote can build them up or knock them down. Appointed scientists are beyond my reach.

Prof Nutt needs to understand that he was brought on board to advise, not create policy. Prof Nutt was appointed, he was not elected and his required impartiality was undermined by his own actions. And the other members who are jumping ship need to get a sense of their own importance or lack of it in the democratic process and stop throwing their toys out of the pram.

Plus ça change

Rummaging through the online version of Hansard looking at the questions asked by George Lansbury, like one does and I came across this little gem:

ROYAL AIR FORCE (BOMBING ATTACKS).
HC Deb 12 April 1923 vol 162 cc1300-1 1300

§ 60. Mr. LANSBURY

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many punitive expeditions have been undertaken by the Air Force during the year ending 28th March against tribesmen in India and Arabs and other nationals in Iraq and countries adjacent: how many casualties have been suffered by our airmen; how many persons of other nationalities have been killed or wounded; what damage has been inflicted on villages or towns; and will he state what bombs were used?

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare)

During the year ending 28th March last, bombing attacks were carried out in connection with the various military operations in Waziristan, but there were no independent punitive expeditions carried out by the Royal Air Force against tribes on the Indian frontier. In Iraq and Southern Kurdistan, where no military operations comparable with those, undertaken in Waziristan have been carried out, there have been nine punitive air expeditions. The casualties to personnel of the Royal Air Force in these operations were in India, 3 officers and 1 airman killed, 2 officers and 1 airman injured; in Iraq, 3 officers killed and 1 injured. It is not possible to give particulars of the casualties sustained by the tribes against whom the operations were directed or of the extent of the material damage inflicted; it seems certain, however, that the use of air action in place of ground operations has resulted in a 1301 decrease in the loss of life incurred. The bombs used have been 230 lbs., 112 lbs., 20 lbs. and incendiary bombs.

I would remind the hon. Member that upon the North-West frontier air operations form part of the general military operations against tribes with which the Government of India have been in a state of war, whereas in the case of Iraq punitive air expeditions are only undertaken at the request of the civil authorities in cases where ground expeditions would otherwise have been necessary.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

May I ask whether the people who are bombed are able to retaliate? [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] I will put the question in another way— whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not think that the time has arrived to stop this Hunnish and barbarous method of warfare against unarmed people?

© Parliamentary copyright

Least we've stopped bombing India. Progress of sorts.

Mummy there's blood on my present!

I know Christmas is a while away yet but if my local supermarkets can have their Christmas goodies on sale in October then I can damn well post about Christmas. Actually the post isn't about Christmas, I'm just using it to emotionally blackmail you!


A recent edition of the Morning Star had a report on the deaths of some civilians in Guinea. Not an issue worthy of a report or mention in the more high faluting dailies unless I missed it?

Anyways, the government of Guinea, installed via a coup has been accused of killing civilians using equipment purchased under the pretext of it being used solely for 'border control'. They purchased the Armoured Personnel Carriers called Mambas from a company called Alvis OMC, owned by the world's favourite arms manufacturer BAE Systems

It's one of the odd things about capitalism - the separation of profit from conscience and morality. How we can make money from things we would recoil in horror from were we to witness them themselves.

I don't know why but the image when I read the Morning Star piece was of an angelic little cherub opening her presents on Christmas Morning, presents paid for by the blood of the innocents, fodder to increase shareholders' dividends.

The BBC, The BNP and No Platform

Yes I know I'm a bit late to the party on this but what the hell!

The appearance of Nick Griffin of the BNP on a recent edition of Question Time on the BBC has ruffled a few feathers in the political and activist landscape, particularly among those who subscribe to a concept known as 'No Platform'.

No Platform is a political position that actively opposes allowing alleged fascists to express their views in public. It basically means that the propogation of fascist ideas and concepts shouldn't be allowed to be vocalised using publicly funded platforms or in areas where the left controls the platform, such as student unions, trade unions and also the media organisations such as the BBC. Leastways that's what I can pin this concept down to.

So the BBC offering a platform to people like Nick Griffin goes against the principle of No Platform and will generate protests and action. Which is what happened at the BBC studios.

The supporters of No Platform include some surprising personalities such as George Carey, ex-Archbishop of Canterbury as well as a huge swathe of the left.

As for me I'm finding it very difficult to support the principle of No Platform. There are a number of reasons why.

• Whether we like it or not Griffin and Brons are democratically elected MEPs. Together with other BNP candidates in the Euro elections they garnered the support of just under a million voters in the UK.
• Those who try and implement a No Platform stance are in a way guilty of censoring free speech and debate in the public arena. The disgruntled right would cry discrimination as well. The left can claim it's not censorship but the general public are going to read it another way.
  
• We set a precedent for denying a platform on political grounds when there may come a time when the boot is on the other foot. Then we'd have to struggle under the banner of hypocrisy.
• We create right-wing martyrs. Martyrdom is very powerful.
• We set ourselves up as arbiters of what the public should be hearing in terms of democracy and the democratic process. The public hate the attitude of 'we know best' politicians, guaranteed to lead to an unwelcome reaction come polling time.
  
• To my mind it's an extension of what I've seen the left do in other public situations, such as with Rocco Buttiglione - the disenfranchisement of people because their particular beliefs don't fit in with what some see as acceptable.
  

So I do grudgingly support Griffin's appearance on QT but I think the way they prepared the event was atrocious and carried out in the worst possible way. There are a number of things which went very badly which gave succour to the BNP and their supporters

First off, QT became the Nick Griffin Show. Worse than that it became the Let's Beat Up on Nick Griffin Show. He was subjected to a lot of attack but it left him looking like the victim of bullying. At the start of the show it seemed they were all queuing up to smack him with a verbal brickbat whilst Dimbleby as head boy pinned him down. Chalk one up to the fascists there.

Secondly the choice of guests seemed designed to poke every facet of Griffin's fascism: Jack "I'm Not Going To Catch Eye Contact With Griffin" Straw, with Jewish descendants, Baroness Warsi, a muslim, Bonnie Greer, an African-American and Chris Huhne, well Chris Huhne.

Thirdly the inability of Jack Straw to actually respond to any question without doing his "I hate Nick" speech. It left him looking like a twerp at one point, with Warsi actually following on and answering the question. One down for the establishment.

Fourthly the stupid, stupid decision to limit the debate to things revolving around BNP policies. Where were the questions on Europe and the damned Constitution, where were the questions on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq?

Were there any good points to the programme? Yes, Bonnie Greer showed that it is possible to make fascists look stupid within a democratic framework.

So to sum it up I can't support the No Platform principal but God help us if we can't get together and show the policies of the BNP for what they are - fascist and racist.