26 March: Three different protests, one inevitable right wing media shitstorm

On Saturday, along with more than 250,000 other people, I attended the March For The Alternative in London. Like the vast majority of the people who attended, I found it to be an overwhelmingly good natured event, full of friendly smiling people from all walks of life marching under many banners and in the name of many different causes, all linked by the broad desire to press the government to pursue an alternative to George Osborne's programme of deep and rapid cuts. While there were many union banners and plenty of Socialist Worker types, I was definitely struck by the diversity of those who were protesting. We saw a lot of pensioners, a lot of families, and, contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe, a lot of middle class, 'Middle England' types. The messages on the placards ranged from the witty to the frankly slightly unhinged and hysterical, but I thought this guy (on the right) best summed up the current situation:

I know that stressing the peaceful nature of the demonstration to most of the people likely to read this blog is probably preaching to the converted, but I still feel I should add my voice to those who are speaking out against the way the media has reported the weekend's events. We did see one of the black blocs later in the afternoon, marching down Oxford Street in a hurry, but we didn't see any trouble. It's a shame that a few hundred people who smashed in windows and clashed with the police chose to make themselves the story, giving the media the excuse to gloss over the grievances of the tens of thousands on the march. Personally I am a pacifist, I believe violence should always be a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted, when there is no other way to protect oneself or to protect others. I don't feel we have reached that point in the UK, and contrary to what some protesters were calling for, Trafalgar Square is a far cry from Tahrir Square.

I do, however, feel that the non-violent direct action of groups such as UK Uncut should be supported, and so I am also disappointed that the black blocs tarnished their protest and again handed the right wing media a propaganda gift, giving them an excuse to lump their peaceful civil disobedience in with the same category as the people who were putting road signs through shop fronts. UK Uncut has rapidly built up a grass roots movement by channelling popular anger at banks and tax-dodging corporations into a co-ordinated and effective series of innovative actions against a carefully chosen selection of high profile targets. The black blocs, by contrast, seem either unable or unwilling to communicate what exactly the alternative for which they're fighting consists of, and they elicit little sympathy from the public. I don't want to tell anyone what they should think, but personally I believe their actions only harm the progressive, liberal cause.

But hey, look, I've ended up spending half of this account of Saturday talking about the black blocs. I'm as bad as the right wing media (and the BBC, and actually quite a lot of the left wing media), giving them far more attention than they merit in relation to the main protest. So I will finish with a photo which gives a good representation of the diversity I was talking about earlier. In this picture you can see old people, children, students, union members, a man in a blazer, and, if you look closely at the centre of the picture, a midget in a beret. If anyone knows about the problems a big society can bring, it's him.

UK Uncut Shopping List

I've made a handy cut-out-and-keep shopping list for the next time you're out shopping, to remind you which shops and products are likely to cost you the most. Feel free to share and circulate.

Libya: Blair and Bush continue to cast a shadow

The situation in Libya is a tough one to call, and it remains pretty unclear as to how this is all going to end. The debate over whether the West should become involved, either through the imposition of a no-fly zone or through other measures, has been indicative of a shift in our attitude towards military intervention in the Middle East. That the idea of another conflict in the region should prove an uncomfortable prospect for western governments is no surprise. The legacy of Bush and Blair-era foreign policy is a poisonous mix of resentment, distrust and regret that has, in my opinion, greatly reduced the ability of the West to use its power and influence in a positive way in the Middle East, which in turn is likely to condemn the people of the region to suffer for many more years to come, in spite of the current optimism generated by the flowering of democracy in Tunisia and Egypt.

Western attitudes to possible intervention in Libya, and indeed regional sentiments regarding such a move, are inevitably coloured by the still open wounds of Iraq and Afghanistan. But there are several crucial differences with the crisis in Libya. In Afghanistan, the US went to war to avenge the victims of 9/11, with the avowed aim of eliminating the Arab militants holed up in the mountains and the Taliban government that allowed them to operate with impunity. The idea of implanting democracy, and of freeing Afghans from oppression, came only as an afterthought. In truth there was nothing to distinguish Afghanistan, pre-9/11, from the repressive regimes in Burma, Zimbabwe or Rwanda, places where the US never felt the need to intervene, since its interests had never been threatened.

In Iraq the pretext for war was rather different, and altogether more murky. Attempting to link Saddam Hussein with his enemies in Al Qaeda, through shaky intelligence warning of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, was just about able to succeed as public opinion continued to be carried on the emotional tidal wave that flowed outwards from Manhattan in September 2001. While many opposed the invasion of Iraq at the time, it is only in the years since that it has really become apparent how far Bush and Blair were prepared to go in their deception. As the lack of post-invasion planning was exposed by the descent into sectarian violence, as western corporations began hoovering up reconstruction contracts and redirecting the flow of oil revenues, as tensions between the West and the Muslim world were ratcheted up still further, and as bombs went off in Madrid, London, Mumbai, Islamabad, Sana'a and even Stockholm, we collectively, and quite understandably, said: "never again".

And yet Libya is different. The eyes of the world have been fixed on North Africa since Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire, triggering a wave of protest that has brought down Ben Ali and Mubarak, and shaken autocratic regimes from Rabat to Riyadh via Baghdad, Bahrain and Benghazi. In a world still downtrodden and floundering in the wake of the global financial crash, here was the blossoming of something positive and hopeful at the dawn of a new year, a sign that a new day was dawning in a part of the world more in need of it than most. But then Colonel Gaddafi started dropping bombs on his own people. Refugees started pouring into Libya's still shaky post-revolutionary neighbours. And the price of oil started to sky rocket.

Libya needs our help because thousands of innocent people are being massacred by an egotistical lunatic who has little regard for the desires of the people he claims he is protecting. This crisis has more in common with Kosovo, a mission that is regarded by many as a rare success of the Blair doctrine of humanitarian intervention, than it does with Iraq or Afghanistan. And yet our efforts to help are now hamstrung by the last ten years of disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia. There are many who will, like Gaddafi himself, point to Libya's oil as the real motivation for the West. And I cannot deny that the price of oil may well be what eventually galvanises our leaders into action, particularly in these times of fragile economic recovery. But equally, many people who are only worried about helping the people of Libya, and who believe that a more altruistic, less self-interested foreign policy is possible - people like me - feel that they just don't know whether a successful humanitarian intervention in Libya is possible, whether our governments can be trusted to go about it in the right way, and whether it may turn out to be as counter-productive and as toxic to East-West relations as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Something has to be done, of that I'm sure, but it's so difficult to say with conviction what that something should be. Had we never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq it's quite possible that we wouldn't even be having this debate, and that our planes would already be patrolling Libyan airspace. But we did, and as a result many more Libyans will now die before anything is done, if indeed the world can reach a consensus before Gaddafi and his murderous henchmen reassert control of the country. For that reason, I think it's important that we don't forget about George Bush and Tony Blair, and that we don't let them off the hook just because they have now left office. They continue to cast a shadow over the Middle East, their legacy continues to shape the lives of millions of people across the region, and they will continue to find fresh blood on their hands.

Picture from telegraph.co.uk

Assange

A man in chains knows he should have acted sooner for his ability to influence the actions of the state is near its end.


State & Terrorist Conspiracies / Conspiracy As Governance

Next Labour?

Seeing as the rest of the country is doing a fantastic job of not really giving a shit about the Labour leadership battle, I thought that I would give my own mildly disinterested analysis of the contenders who have so far announced that they are standing.

David Miliband

The bookies' early favourite, former Foreign Secretary David has already distinguished himself by portraying Labour as the victims of the Iraq war (er, dead Iraqis etc..?) and backing out of a plot to unseat Gordon Brown as Labour headed for certain defeat in the 2010 election. Working in his favour is the current vogue for youthful Oxbridge-educated media whores as leaders of British political parties, and at the moment he is probably the only one you could actually imagine becoming Prime Minister.

Ed Miliband


As a friend of mine recently pointed out, Ed Miliband looks like a cross between David Miliband and the Count from Sesame Street.

There is definitely a cartoon element to his face which I find slightly unsettling. Also, I think his head is slightly too wide. Nevertheless, he seems to offer slightly more of a break with the previous regime, and as the rise of David Cameron has shown, a flabby cartoon dough face is no barrier to political power.

Ed Balls

Ah, Ed Balls. 

As churlish as it may be, you can't deny that Ed's name has got to be a major sticking point. Tabloid headline writers would have an absolute field day: BALLS UP; UNIONS HAVE LABOUR BY THE BALLS; BALLS BAGS LEADERSHIP etc. I just can't see the British public voting for Prime Minister Balls. Couple that with his slight speech impediment and I see our shallow and judgemental nation rejecting him without considering his actual policies. If you think such a superficial argument is no reason to rule him out, just consider some of the losing candidates in the general elections of the modern, media-driven era:

                            
                                      
                                        

John McDonnell

McDonnell represents the left of the Labour party, steeped in the tradition of the trade unions that are so popular with the British people and the newspapers that they read, dedicated to the working man's struggle as they are. His opposition to the Iraq war will win him admirers, but it is hard to see a candidate from the fringes winning out when today's political battleground is so firmly fixed in the centre.

Andy Burnham

He's a handsome fellow is our Andy, with his plastic Action Man face, complete with eyebrows drawn on with black marker pen. No idea who he is though.

                           

Diane Abbott

Anyone who's ever got home hammered on a Thursday night, stuck the TV on and found themselves inexplicably deciding to watch a programme about politics will be familiar with Diane Abbott and her cosy chats with Andrew Neil, the man with a face so big his hair hangs off the back of it like a flattened animal, and old rubber lips Portillo, everyone's favourite human disguised as a Tory. While the veneration in some quarters during the general election campaign of Nick Clegg as the 'white Obama' were somewhat wide of the mark, electing a black woman as leader of the Labour party would truly be a step in the same transformational direction as that taken by the US. 

Having cast my eye over the bland, identikit middle aged white men that make up the rest of the field, I have to conclude that while David Miliband looks the most likely and possibly the most sensible choice, if I had a vote I'd probably give it to Abbott, in a 'Dave and Nick' style coalition with Portillo as her deputy. My analysis may be a tad superficial, my investigation into the individual political philosophies of each candidate may be more or less non-existent, but having seen my preferred choice of Prime Minister coming a close second when the Cabinet jobs were handed out I'm quietly confident that this time I'm backing the winner.

The right thing for the left

So the man I have widely derided as a piece of ham with eyes has been installed, as I always feared he would, as our new Prime Minister. Clearly I didn't want this to happen, but I think all those on the left bemoaning this turn of events with such bitterness need to put this all in perspective. There are going to be reams written about the whole situation over the next few days, much of it making the same points over and over again, so I will keep my reasons to be optimistic brief.

1. A Lib-Lab coalition would have been torn apart by the right wing media and seen as illegitimate by large swathes of the public. Whether or not you approve of the way power and influence are concentrated in the British media, you have to concede that this would have happened and it would have dogged the government from day one.

2. As I said a few days ago, the Tories didn't win an overall majority, and this alone is cause for celebration. Cameron's administration will now be tempered by the deal made with the Lib Dems, and Lib Dem policies including the rebalancing of the tax system and a referendum on electoral reform now look like they will actually happen, while the wilder excesses of the Conservative manifesto such as the changes to inheritance tax and a vote on repealing the hunting ban are likely to be abandoned.

3. A new era of consensus politics, if it works, can only be good for a country that had become disillusioned by politicians in the wake of the expenses scandal and polarised during the election. It also offers a real opportunity to move away from a two party system, particularly if electoral reform opens up more seats to the Lib Dems and the smaller parties.

4. Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg can both be seen to have acted in 'the national interest', that phrase that keeps being bandied about, and both parties will, I believe, ultimately profit from this situation more than the Conservatives. The Lib Dems have the chance to prove they can govern, and in turn compete for a much larger share of the vote when the next election comes around. The Labour Party, meanwhile, have the opportunity to regroup in Opposition, heal their divisions and come back stronger under a new leader better suited for the media-driven politics of the 21st century.

So put aside your disappointment, your tribal rivalries and your cynicism, and give this a chance to work. Support and encourage Nick Clegg to fight for your progressive values in government, support and encourage the Labour Party as it seeks to put itself back together and work out what went wrong after 13 years in power, and support and encourage the movement for electoral reform which will bring about a fairer representation of your hopes and desires. You can always hit 'mute' whenever ham face pops up on the news.

Obamart

Barack Obama was always likely to cast a long shadow over this election in many ways. Like people the world over, many of us in Britain were caught up in the excitement of the American President's election, and the parties fighting our own general election were bound to have been influenced by his campaign, as were their supporters. The most iconic image from the Obama campaign was undoubtedly Shepard Fairey's 'Hope' poster, a stylised portrait of Obama that has arguably become as indelibly marked on our modern political consciousness as Alberto Korda's famous portrait of Che Guevara was for those who grew up in the 1960s and '70s.

So it was probably inevitable that the Obama image would be appropriated during this campaign by the parties and their supporters, in much the same way as Guevara's image has been exploited for both political and commercial purposes in the years since his death in 1967.

The first example of this happening that I witnessed was after the first televised debate, when the so-called 'Cleggmania' took hold and the Liberal Democrats surged in popularity. This was especially apparent in the, I think it's fair to say, predominantly liberal-minded world of Twitter, which is where I came across this image of Nick Clegg created by Ross Stalker.

The Liberal Democrat campaign certainly had echoes of Obama's Presidential campaign, with its message of change, of the outsider, and of a new fairer way of doing politics. In this poster the Lib Dem colours help distinguish it a little from the hundreds of other imitations of the original poster, and the central message of the party is crystallised in the single word 'fairness'. However, Clegg's story is clearly some way off Obama's meteoric rise. In many ways, having had a private education and fitting the overwhelmingly prevalent British political mould of being a white, middle-aged man, he is nothing like the outsider Obama could be said to have been. Nevertheless, the comparison is arguably more credible than that which The Sun offered up as their front page on the day of the election.

Socially conservative and born into a world of wealth and privilege, it is difficult to see the parallels between David Cameron and the American President. I will concede that, like Obama, Cameron campaigned on a message of change, as the leader of a party that had seen its bitter rival, in what has to all intents and purposes been a two party system, rule the country for many years. Yet Cameron never managed to build the wave of popular support to carry him over the finish line in the same spectacular fashion that Obama managed on the other side of the Atlantic. Perhaps the image better represents Sun owner Rupert Murdoch's 'only hope' of getting what he wanted out of this election.

Of course, the Obama image has not only been used for political purposes. Armando Iannucci's film In The Loop parodied the poster in its promotional material, substituting Obama with sweary spin doctor Malcolm Tucker and the line 'No you fucking can't'.

With the internet being the internet, there are of course, as I mentioned before, hundreds if not thousands more variations on the theme. Indeed, in the course of researching this (when I say 'researching' on this blog I generally mean 'Googling') I came across this site, which allows you to create your own 'Obamicons'. You can have hours of fun with this I'm sure, though I think it is perhaps also illustrative of a serious and interesting point, in that the internet has begun to really challenge the way political parties use propaganda images. You only have to look at the way every Conservative poster in this election immediately spawned dozens of parodies online, with the original message frequently being overtaken by the alternative versions, which were in turn widely reported in the traditional media. While the internet may not have played as important a role in the British election as it did in Obama's victory in the US, it is most definitely making it more difficult for our politicians to manipulate images to suit their agenda as effectively as they could in the past.