A Nation Enthused, A Pussy Riot and A Violent Slaughter

As I sit here writing my first blog entry for weeks, the world's Paralympians are smiling and waving to the assembled media in London. The Paralympics is a wonderful addendum to a massively successful summer of British sport, although there is less of the glitz that was seen in the opening ceremony of the Olympics proper a few weeks ago. There's a different mood to these games, one less to do with political arguments about playing fields, sport funding and infrastructure investment than it is to do with unique individuals who have overcome tremendous struggles simply to be here at all.

Of course, the Olympics were a complete success - though no thanks to the sponsors, or to the private companies who continue to fleece the taxpayer in the name of enterprise. Team GB surpassed all expectations, nailing down gold after gold. The Tories antipathy to the modern NHS was exposed by Danny Boyle's deviously clever opening ceremony, which won over journalists worldwide with its simple, understated charm. It turns out that Britain still does a few things well - and it's cheering to think that the army, the volunteers and the athletes all played a part in something that has been central to restoring the national pride.

There has been other news too. In Russia, the decision to imprison anti-Putin musicians Pussy Riot has been condemned worldwide but most curiously by the US, whose administration see no hypocrisy even though they have now kept Bradley Manning, the soldier suspected of releasing information to Wikileaks, in custody for over 800 days without trial. The decision by Ecuador to offer political asylum to Julian Assange is now unavoidably tied into the rape accusations from Sweden that he will not be able to answer without risking extradition to the US. These incidents, coupled with the British establishment's response to the peaceful Occupy movement in the UK, continue to raise questions about freedom of speech and human rights advocacy in the West.

In perhaps the most appalling news of the summer, a number of South African miners have been shot dead in a pay dispute at a Lonmin mine in Marikana. The events have been condemned by unions worldwide.

The strike began on August 10, with ten deaths, including police officers and mine security staff, reported within days. On August 16, following fruitless attempts to control the crowd with tear gas, barbed wire and water canons, police hit back in a three-minute live fire barrage that constituted the deadliest force used since the end of apartheid in 1994.

34 men died in that murderous barrage, and the police's use of deadly force is now being questioned as it has emerged that many of the miners may have been shot in the back while facing away from police. The time has come for a full public investigation into the events that transpired at the protest, and all sides to immediately move back to negotiation to resolve the dispute. If necessary, the government needs to become involved and mediate - there can be no acceptance of violence from either side to resolve a pay dispute. If it subsequently transpires that the police acted without due cause, murder charges should be brought against those responsible.

The dispute raises urgent questions about how to address inequality in the Rainbow Nation, questions that will also be asked in other countries as the economic fallout of the worldwide banking crisis continues to spread.

A Right Royal Hoo-Ha

So I've kept quiet about it this long, not least because I reached the point where I was sick of hearing about it. For the most part, I don't read papers or watch TV, and a lot of the time I go out of the my way to avoid talking to other people, but try as I might, I couldn't avoid hearing about the Royal Wedding.

If it wasn't internet articles telling me about the expected audience of 2 billion people or grandiose pieces written by foreign journalists claiming that 'everyone' in Britain is looking forward to it, it was scathing socialist rhetoric about £48 million of wasted public money or the normally excellent Johann Hari conjuring an unconvincing piece about how royalists should frankly be a little bit ashamed of themselves.

Hari makes the point in his article that most of the people in Britain are ambivalent towards the Royal Wedding but regrettably a straw poll of the people I know shows, as ever, that in fact everyone seems to have an opinion. Some think it's a beautiful example of pageantry and will be going down to Westminster Abbey to wave a Union Jack and shed a tear with Her Maj. The ultra-left of my social circle will be holding anti-wedding parties where the curtains are drawn, the TV is unplugged and anti-establishment music is played. Moderates may lament the silence in the streets but they'll happily take the day off work and comment on Kate's dress.

Me? I really don't mind. If Kate and Wills are happy together (and let's face it, none of us really has any clue if they are or not) then I wish them all the best. Be true to each other, I'd say, and let the media machine that supports the monarchy go to hell.

My theory is that Royal Weddings represent a microcosm of that desire for happiness we see in ourselves. There are those who are curious about the inherent possibility, those who reject it beforehand for reasons best known to themselves, those who fall upon it and embrace it like it might be the last chance. Then there are those who stand to one side and observe it, and despite the best will in the world, write about it regardless of how many times they told themselves they wouldn't.

March for the Alternative, 26th March 2011

I have a confession to make - despite my unerring belief in the cause promoted by yesterday's March for the Alternative in London, I didn't attend the event myself. Today, as I watch coverage of the event on the news and read the stories of those that marched, I realise that I have missed out on something very special and something that I had a great responsibility to be a part of.


As I know I have a few overseas readers, I realise that I may need to explain a little about yesterday's event. Put simply, the coalition government in Britain is utilising a number of questionable fiscal justifications to privatise institutions that are central to Britain's culture and living standards, such as the National Health Service. Rather than examine in detail the root causes of our financial crisis, they have sought to address the deficit issue at a breakneck speed, despite evidence suggesting that this is not the best way to support the fragile economic recovery. Using the deficit as an excuse, they have introduced policies that benefit the largest companies in Britain while penalising and marginalising the poorest and most vulnerable individuals.

Yesterday, finally, the government's plans were publicly opposed as more than half a million trade unionists, public sector workers, pro-peace groups and concerned individuals marched through the streets of London to a rally in the city's Hyde Park.

As anyone familiar with protests in modern Britain might have predicted, today's headlines are about the minority of violent thugs who descended upon Trafalgar Square well after the march had ended, and those members of protest group UKUncut who took direct action by occupying thirteen shops on Oxford Street that members believe are dodging corporation tax responsibilities. I cannot condone any of those actions and Trades Union Congress have publicly condemned those who have been involved in violent acts following the demonstration. Credit should go to Metropolitan Police Commander Bob Broadhurst, who was quick to state his belief that the destructive minority were not associated with the peaceful marchers who did so much yesterday to promote their genuine cause.

The march must be taken in context. Those on the route covered an entire spectrum of respectable society, including retired care workers, representatives of disability rights groups, middle class parents who purposely took their young children, and students burdened with debt as a result of the regressive policies of consecutive governments. More importantly, it represented the first genuine show of opposition to devastating coalition reforms. For me, it is a tremendous irony that opposition leader Ed Miliband did not make the march alongside the very people he will see as his natural supporters come the next general election.


The March for the Alternative was the largest march of its kind since the protest about Blair's war in Iraq. However, it alone will not be enough to derail a government who are gambling massively on economic growth paving the way to a stable future. Margaret Thatcher once famously stated that she was not for turning, and David Cameron will be keen to show that just because he does not have a mandate does not mean that he cannot seize an opportunity when one is presented to him.

It is a fact that strong opposition leads to stronger and more accountable government and this is the first evidence that the labour movement is stirring from its long slumber and preparing to face down the threat to its survival. 26th March 2011 will hopefully be remembered as a watershed for many reasons - it may be a day that prompted government supporters to consider the genuine consequences of their decisions, or a day which began a movement that successfully demonstrated the massively positive role that well-funded public services play in a healthy and vibrant society. Perhaps, most importantly of all, it will be remembered as the day that trade unions in Britain regained their pride.

A Rant About Ignorance (and the EU)

I'm starting to think I should have a snappy start for my postings. It could be a phrase that I use that captures that feeling I get when I see something, read something or do something, and the entry for the day begins to take form from the disorganised blurriness within my mind.

It could be something along the lines of 'An annoying thing occurred to me today as I read a British daily newspaper'. I'm starting to think that I could describe my country to someone who knew nothing about Britain by collecting up a copy of the Star, the Sun, the Mail and the Express, forcing them to read the whole mess cover to cover and then telling the poor soul that not only do people voluntarily pay money for these travesties against truth and taste, they actually form opinions based on the content.

I knew and indeed had warned some of my friends who are more susceptible to influence that in the weeks before the discussion about the Alternative Vote (AV) system, we could expect mainstream Tory and Labourite newspapers to attack the concept as being 'bad for democracy' (i.e. bad for those parties, as it reduces the likelihood of tactical voting, which both parties have been reliant upon in the past to secure their majorities.)

The Daily Express first posted a Tory MP's opinion of the Alternative Vote system in October 2010. Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, wrote in the Parliamentary House magazine that the proposals were 'unsatisfactory, un-British, and causing frustration and anger'. At first I agreed with him, but then I re-read his comments and realised that he was describing the AV system rather than the coalition government.

Mr Leigh also objected to the plan to hold the referendum on the same day as the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh elections, which is a manoeuvre that he felt would concern voters in England. He finished by saying, "a referendum should be held when conditions are consistent across the nation. I understand that a coincidence of dates will save us nearly £8 million, but let's not sell our political principles for the price of a nice house in Chelsea." He's certainly correct that political principles should not have a price, but £8 million would train a lot of nurses, and I left the comment in because his knowledge of Chelsea house prices neatly juxtaposes how he is obviously in touch with the average British voter.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that we currently have a government with no electoral mandate to govern, the Daily Express implied today that the average voter cannot be expected to know much about AV or the democratic process, and on that basis a referendum about electoral reform is entirely unnecessary. However, on the matter of the European Union, The People Have Spoken, and a referendum should be organised on the subject of Britain leaving the EU immediately.


In January, the paper submitted a petition containing 373,000 signatures with the aim of forcing the government to hold a referendum on the issue. Today it had this to say on the subject of the EU:

"The EU has already made a number of ludicrous decisions since the Daily Express delivered its historic 373,000-strong petition to Downing Street in January. Its judges were accused of “utter madness” this week after imposing new gender equality rules on pensions and insurance, leaving millions of Britons out of pocket. Women’s car insurance will rocket by up to 25 per cent after they ruled against discrimination in their favour. Men, too, will suffer with lower pension payments because providers will no longer be able to take into account that they die earlier than women."

You'll notice that the paper doesn't actually note who made the accusation, and I'd be a little more sympathetic to the dewy-eyed bleating about how the decisions made in European Court leave my gender disadvantaged on the matter of pensions if the British government weren't making me wait three extra years to claim my pension in the first place (68 as opposed to the current 65.) Likewise, if Cameron and Co. are that concerned about drivers, they could always look at reducing the cost of road tax and the frankly obscene amount of tax levied on petrol. But here we come to the central tenet of this entry - this is not a call for a referendum on the basis of knowledge, but instead, one of ignorance.

What is the EU? The smart and well informed members of this blog will know that it is an economic and political union of 27 member states that operates through a hybrid system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmentally-made decisions negotiated by its members. But if you put those 373,000 petition signatories to the test, could they honestly name a single function that the EU performs?

I don't have a position on the EU. Fundamentally, I am willing to accept that as an intelligent and apparently well-informed member of society, I still don't understand enough about how it operates to determine if it offers us (as UK citizens and voters in MEP elections) value for money. I do know, however, that if any such referendum occurs, I will endeavour to educate myself on the subject and learn more so that at least my vote is cast from a position of relative understanding. I rather fear that my measly single vote will be drowned out by countless others that have the neither the wherewithal or the inclination to do their own fact-finding.

Should the UK cease production of arms and their sale to foreign powers?

I'm going to polarise opinion today. I apologise in advance but I have to do it once in a while or otherwise the doctors won't give me my pills.

I was watching the Ten o'Clock Show on Thursday night (sad that a comedy show should be the best way to educate people about politics, but never mind) and there was a very interesting debate about Britain's role in supplying arms to foreign countries.

Britain has a long and proud history of supplying munitions to despots, and you may already know that in the last week alone, British tear gas was used on peaceful protestors in Bahrain, and British missiles supplied to Colonel Gadaffi are at this very moment killing innocents in Libya. UK readers, I hope you're forming an opinion on how you feel about this. It's being done in your name, and chances are you're barely feeling the benefit of the corporation tax.

Dominic Raab MP made the point that 55,000 UK jobs rely on the arms industry. War on Want's Yasmin Kahn made the counter-point that while these jobs may be important to the UK's commerical interests, this is not enough to justify the inevitable suffering and death that results from the sales.

This represents a massive dilemma for a union representative. I do not represent workers within the arms industry but unions are supposed to promote employment and I would not want to be the one telling these communities that they can expect their jobs to vanish and their standards of living to plummet. That said, 55,000 jobs is a relative drop in the ocean and there could be alternative job options made available to the redundant workers. This is, after all, what our current government is saying to the 500,000 public sector workers who will be jobless by the end of 2014 if events continue down their current destructive path.

On a personal level I am absolutely opposed to arms sales. As Yasmin Khan said on Thursday, we may be able to make even more money by dealing in crack cocaine, but that doesn't make it the morally correct thing to do (notice that a legal comparison is not the issue here.)

Of course democracies need to defend themselves but once we have handed over those tanks and sophisticated military aircraft, we have no way to determine whether they will be used for defensive or offensive purposes. I further believe that we shouldn't try to cloud the debate by saying that just because we sell guns doesn't mean we are the ones pulling the trigger. As far as I can see, that is an irrelevant debate. If we don't sell the gun, it will be sold by someone else and we will lose a competitive advantage while the recipient of the bullet will still be just as dead. However, at least then we can be sure that the blood is not on our hands and this would allow us to go some way towards setting a moral example to the rest of the world in the manner that we previously did with landmines.

Of course, the economic system in the UK means that each individual has the personal power to resolve their ethical dilemmas via the free-market system. You do not have to buy meat if you are a vegetarian, or petrol if you are an environmentalist. However, you cannot divorce yourself from the ethical implications of this debate, because the benefits that we receive from the industry are partly intangible (thinking back to those workers, their communities and their social cohesion rather than just the monetary consideration).

So the question I ask you is this: Do we, as Britons, want to be a producer of weaponry sold to other countries? In comparison, how do my US readers feel about their country selling weapons to others?

Getting the Message

One week to go before election day! If I wasn't such a stiff-upper-lipped type, there's the chance that I might just have weed myself with excitement. Tonight sees the last of the televised leaders debates but there have been two pieces of news in the political spectrum - the first that anyone British will have had to have spent the last 24 hours under a rock to miss, and the second which has been slipped under the radar in most of the mainstream press, which is a shame, because it's much funnier than the first.

The Bigot of Rochdale has of course dominated the news, with Gordon Brown's ill-timed vent about a widow concerned with immigration being caught on a Sky News microphone. It is clear Mr Brown is not keen on face-to-face contact with voters and finds the touchy-feely approach of this campaign uncomfortable to say the least. But then, not all great men are people people. As long as he can keep the economy stable, I'm with...oh.

In a hilarious event which has been mostly skipped in the press as a result of Bigotgate, Nick Griffin will be in the High Court today defending the BNP's use of Marmite in election campaign material. Like the love-it-or-hate-it yeast extract product, voter opinion is torn on Mr Griffin, but with an opportunity to get his party's central policy as the focus of national discussion, a genuine bigot will instead be in the dock defending a vigorous legal action from Unilever. Oh, irony, thou art more delicious than Marmite.