Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog
His desire to outflank the Tories on the right has distorted Gordon Brown's thinking
It has become something of a sport for the tormentors of the Prime Minister to pick apart his speeches for borrowings from across the water.
So it was that Gordon Brown's speechwriters were revealed by the Times to have lifted a few key phrases and ideas from Al Gore, Bill Clinton and John Kerry for his first Labour conference address last September in Bournemouth.
This time it was Barack Obama's turn to provide the inspiration. Brown's claim, in his speech at Labour's spring con ference a few days ago, that he would bring "a new politics that places power and the opportunity to change things in the hands of people themselves", was identified by the Telegraph as coming straight from the cheery lexicon of the young senator from Illinois. This is undoubtedly diverting, but does it really get us anywhere? It's only a month, after all, since Obama himself was accused of plagiarising a 2006 speech by a friend of his, the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick.
Political speechwriting is the art of projecting optimism - making your audience believe your candidate represents the sunny uplands of the future. There are only so many ways you can say the same thing, as students of rhetoric know full well.
In reality, what is striking about the language used by Brown is that it is almost completely anodyne. What's more, it could just as easily have found its way into a speech by Nick Clegg or David Cameron. "Opportunity", "aspiration", "change", are all concepts that would be difficult not to sign up to. They are specifically designed to be stripped of any suggestion of political ideology or commitment. In the stampede for the centre ground, it's important not to scare the horses.
Although in themselves there is no great scandal in these minor acts of political theft, Brown's borrowings from US Democrats reveal a greater truth about the origins of his political philosophy. Brown has always been the arch-"triangulator" of British politics. Triangulation is now so embedded in our political culture that it is difficult to remember that it is a relatively recent innovation. Usually attributed to Bill Clinton's political adviser Dick Morris, it was designed initially as a strategy to outflank the Republicans on the right and persuade the American electorate that the Democrats were distancing themselves from their liberal past. But it soon became second nature to Clinton.
According to the investigative journalist Bob Woodward, Clinton gave an impromptu, sarcastic speech to his staff in April 1993 in which he said: "I hope you're all aware we're Eisenhower Republicans. We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?" Yet his sarcasm hid a deeper reality.
Toffs and Thatcherites
Triangulation, that most pernicious of political imports, has so infected Brown's mind that, like Clinton, he can no longer help himself. In his early months in office, the desire to wrong-foot the Tories has dominated his thinking. The arbitrary desire to increase detention without charge to 42 days, the retention of the ID card scheme, "Titan" jails, the plans to remove benefits from drug offenders and housing from the work-shy, the latest crackdown on immigration - the list just goes on. Add to these the retreat on inheritance tax and the failure to face down the "non-dom" lobby, and we find ourselves in a near-perfect Clintonian moment.
The trouble with moving so far into enemy territory is that you risk leaving yourself exposed on home ground. It may well be that the Labour government, in its desire to outflank the Tories on the right, has lost its grip on core Labour policy areas such as health and education, about which voters are already beginning to ask where all the money has gone.
So it is that the latest Labour attacks on the Tories nationally and in the London mayoral elections have amounted to little more than a statement of the obvious - if you don't vote for Gordon or Ken, you will end up with David or Boris. This may well be a horrifying prospect for Labour activists and most readers of this magazine, but it is no longer quite sufficient for the government and its cheerleaders to dismiss the Tories as toffs with no policies who would take the country back to the Thatcherite dark ages. The Tories have been doing some reverse triangulation of their own in an attempt to rebrand themselves as green civil libertarians with a new-found empathy for the poor. Cynical as this may seem, it is beginning to pay dividends.
It is not insignificant that three icons of liberal Britain have given a cautious welcome to Conservative ideas in recent days. Trevor Phillips had already praised Cameron in November for breaking with reactionary Tory tradition on immigration. The chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has long shared some of Cameron's concerns about multiculturalism, and at the end of last month hosted a debate at which the Tory leader delivered a speech on the issue. Meanwhile, the Tories' recent ideas on the penal system were not met with the usual barrage of contempt from liberal Britain. Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust welcomed the new emphasis on rehabilitation and challenged the government to rise to the challenge. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics, doyen of the liberal commentariat, was similarly generous in response to Boris Johnson's detailed transport proposals for London. Writing in the London Evening Standard, Travers hinted that the Tories are beginning to out-triangulate Mayor Livingstone: "Taken together, the Boris transport manifesto is mildly 'right-wing' on law and order, in that there will be additional policing, live CCTV and new punishments. But apart from that, it is without political leanings. The contents are designed to convince voters that Johnson has joined the sensible party." The polls suggest they are beginning to be persuaded.
Mrs Triangulation
In response, Labour is giving the impression that it is running out of ideas, falling back on the debased politics of the "lesser evil". This was evident at the spring conference, as speaker after speaker warned of the dangers of Johnson winning London. This boiled down to the fact that the Tory candidate is posh and possibly a racist. Attacks on Cameron often amount to little more than an observation of his class background.
To be fair, I have to say this is not an entirely original idea. "Lesser evil calculus" was coined by Christopher Hitchens in his 1999 book on the Clintons, No One Left to Lie To. Anyone wishing to understand the politics of new Labour should re-read this evisceration of the New Democrats.
This brings us once again to what Hitchens referred to as America's "worst family". Tellingly, Hillary Clinton was given the nickname "Mrs Triangulation" as far back as 2005, thanks to her flawless right-wing approach to politics.
There is now the real possibility that the politics of triangulation has run its course on the left of British politics. At the same time, the possibility has emerged that the Conservatives' rather sophisticated version is allowing them to beat Brown at his own game. In response to this, it is no longer sustainable for the Labour Party simply to raise the bogeyman of the decadent Etonian fop. This is just not a grown-up argument. It is as if Labour Party strategy is now inspired by Hilaire Belloc's morality verse for children "Jim", which contains the lines: "Always keep a-hold of nurse/For fear of finding something worse." The British electorate has been duly warned. But can it be convinced it really needs to keep a-hold of Nurse Gordon any more?
Post this article to
89 comments from readers
-
TheElitesWin
06 March 2008 at 09:56 Politicians in this country are put their by the people for the people, and when an important national issue like the Lisbon treaty is to be endorsed, "HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT IGNORE THE PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR A REFERENDUM. We no longer have a democracy in this country anymore, just a tyrannical dictatorship government. I will certainly not vote for any of these main stream parties, and will no doubt vote BNP.
-
Martin Bright
06 March 2008 at 11:33 Then there is no hope for you
-
knave
06 March 2008 at 20:30 What did say in an earlier post. The Thatcherite Brightie starts his Brown bashing.
-
knave
06 March 2008 at 20:48 Martin one of the more promising programmes introduced by Brown is surestart. The problem is that you and the PEU want Brown out all costs and give any positive Labour policies a good kicking. Cameron is your man but you are too gutless to admit the obvious.
-
knave
06 March 2008 at 21:13 Strange thing about this article is Brights inconsistences.
1. He states that the Labour party should replace Livingstone with another labour candidate and he would be happy with a Brownite.
2. Then he states in this article that Labour is not the party to vote for even though he states Brown isn't a political extremist like Livingstone and the Tories are more to his taste.
3. Logical falacy
-
knave
06 March 2008 at 21:29 The other point Martin is that every government, left or right plays the lesser evil card. Your Tory governments of Thatcher and Major played the union, swamping by immigrant (vote Labour for a black neighbour) and financial mismanagement card. Your mate Johnson's campaign is mainly negative and so is your groups (PEU) attacks on Brown in trying to get Dave in power. A typical hypocritical PEU article from one of their ubermensch.
-
knave
07 March 2008 at 05:06 You mention that there are no new initiatives in education and health. What about surestart, extended schools programmes, new key stage 2 and 3 curriculums based on the Finnish comprehensive programme, strategies on academies, studio schools and inclusion,revamping GP hours, new super clinic based on the french system. I I know you don't like Ed balls but he is introducng many ideas to help poor familiies. These are just to name a few policies. You may not agree with them but they are new initiatives. The problem is that Martin you are a right wing PEU dinner party journalist with a closed maind and a narrow agenda
-
Martin Bright
07 March 2008 at 13:05 I think you are the only person who reads my blog
-
AlanBrownfield
07 March 2008 at 14:23 Did you even have to leave your desk for this one Bright?
It's amazing what you can do with cut and paste.
-
knave
07 March 2008 at 17:03 I do Martin because as the political editor of NS you hold a central role in leftist politics in the UK.
-
knave
07 March 2008 at 17:03 Plus your an entertaining chap.
-
redharry
07 March 2008 at 17:26 'Trevor Phillips had already praised Cameron...'
Another reason for Livingston to attack Phillips, who Martin failed to point out accused Ken of racism for offering him the job of running mate.
-
knave
07 March 2008 at 22:02 No but you set up the mechanism for the hatred Martin.
-
TheElitesWin
08 March 2008 at 10:42 Martin Bright
06 March 2008 at 11:33
Then there is no hope for you
Then Martin, do you think that the government of this country or the other mainstream parties have a right in lead us all to a NEW WORLD ORDER regime, were we all are governed by a banking cartel elite. At least a BNP vote would not be in the clutches of those freemason dictators
-
Nick Cohen
08 March 2008 at 12:56 This is worth reading from Prospect. Not very well written but right
Email
Pdf
Print
March 2008 | 144 » Web exclusive » Staggering on
Why can't the New Statesman hang on to readers or editors? The magazine's difficulties are symptomatic of broader problems within the British left
David Herman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Herman is a television producer and writer
Discuss this article at First Drafts, Prospect's blog
Is the New Statesman in crisis? The departure of its editor John Kampfner means that the political weekly has had seven editors in just over 20 years and its circulation is still hovering close to 23,000—the figure in 1996 when Geoffrey Robinson bought the magazine. Perhaps most serious of all, the Statesman has ceased to matter. When was the last time you heard someone discussing an article they had read, or the magazine itself?
This may seem severe. After all, since its redesign in 2006, the magazine looks more inviting than it has for years. More than 60 pages, full of colour, with a lively arts section, it boasts some excellent contributors. Hunter Davies, a long-time columnist, is one of the best sports writers around. Andrew Billen, now writing on "performance," is a fine television critic. A recent issue included book reviews by Hanif Kureishi, John Sweeney and Alex Brummer and arts pieces by Colin McCabe and top-rate music writer, Simon Broughton. There is a polemical piece by William Dalrymple on Pakistan and a solid article by David Marquand calling for a new progressive alliance. The magazine is an easy and informed read.
So why isn't this enough? Why can't the magazine hang on to editors or readers? In a long piece in the Media supplement of the Guardian, Peter Wilby (a former editor and still a contributor) argued that the magazine’s problems are largely to do with its fusty image of a dry magazine founded by Fabians and still smacking of an old agenda: all nationalisation, Hampstead socialists and CND marches. He makes it sound as if you're about to see Beatrice Webb poking out of the op-ed pages.
This is hardly fair. Under Anthony Howard in the 1970s, the Statesman team included young tyros Martin Amis, Julian Barnes, James Fenton and Christopher Hitchens, all barely out of university. Thirty years ago, you could find pieces by AJP Taylor and JK Galbraith, the young Alexander Cockburn and Neal Ascherson, book reviews by John Bayley and Christopher Hill, Craig Raine, Tom Paulin and Hermione Lee, the sort of contributors today's Guardian Review would be happy to offer any time. Ten years on, under John Lloyd and then Stuart Weir, the magazine could boast pieces by Paul Foot on the Birmingham six, Chomsky on US foreign policy, Susan George on third world debt, a tribute by Stuart Hall to Raymond Williams, regular columns by Ben Pimlott and Francis Wheen and even a piece by Jean Baudrillard on Heidegger's flirtation with Nazism. This is surely the kind of agenda you would expect from a serious left-wing magazine and the sort of names you would expect to find there.
What has changed is not so much the magazine as the world around it, especially the culture of the British left. Marxism Today under Martin Jacques seemed far more in tune with the culture of the 1980s and set a more distinctive agenda. In particular, it dominated three debates: the future of Labour, which started with Eric Hobsbawm's article "The Forward March of Labour Halted?" (September 1978); the nature of Thatcherism, with a series of incisive articles by Jacques and Stuart Hall, starting with Hall's "The Great Moving Right Show," in January 1979, in which he coined the term "Thatcherism"; and what Jacques called "New Times"—that mix of post-Fordism, globalisation and postmodernism. Marxism Today stopped in 1991, but it did a lot to change people's expectations of a left-wing magazine. The Statesman never seemed to have its finger on the pulse in the same way, either politically or culturally. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, everyone could tell old Labour was in trouble and that a new form of Conservatism was on the move. But Jacques, Hall, Hobsbawm and others offered an analysis which made sense of other issues of the moment (race, law and order and so on).
Far more troubling for the Statesman, though, has been the changing nature of the broadsheet. The rise of the Saturday multi-section newspaper, thick with book and arts reviews as well as cultural and political analysis, and the rise of the pullout inside section have challenged the very idea of a weekly magazine. And now the internet offers more up-to-date news and analysis than even a daily newspaper can cope with, never mind a weekly with tight deadlines.
Yet the Spectator still manages to pull in more readers than the Statesman. Yes, it's better funded, but isn't it also a better read? It still seems to remain relevant in a way the Statesman has not for some time. Wilby says the problems at the Statesman are a symptom of a larger problem of the British left, but doesn't really go on to develop the point—and for a very good reason, because his kind of leftism is itself a key part of the problem.
First, there is the way the British left split in response to Thatcherism and the changes in Britain over the past 25 to 30 years. If we look again at the Statesman in the 1960s and 1970s, what is immediately noticeable is what a broad church it was. In February 1968, exactly 40 years ago, we find Leonard Woolf on Lytton Strachey, VS Pritchett and Kingsley Amis, Clive James and AS Byatt, all cheek by jowl with old leftists like James Cameron, AJP Taylor and Claud Cockburn. There were Clause IV socialists, anti-bomb pacifists, but also writers concerned about capital punishment, Vietnam and apartheid. Today that kind of coalition is harder to sustain. Yes, there's Hunter Davies and Andrew Billen, but the political core of the magazine is dominated by writers like John Pilger, Darcus Howe and Peter Wilby (on why "democracy at work ought to be a human right").
Iraq, Islam and Blair's foreign policy were the faultlines that split the old left coalition of the post-Callaghan years. On the one side you have writers like Pilger and Howe, on the other Ignatieff, Hitchens, Rushdie and Amis. Or if we take the personalities and names out of it, on the one hand we have the anti-Blair left at the New Left Review, London Review of Books, the Statesman, the Independent, parts of the Guardian (especially the opinion pages under Seamus Milne). On the other side, you have the Observer under Roger Alton, or those leftists who write for Prospect.
There are symptoms of this fallout everywhere. In the crazier reviews of Amis's new book of essays, The Second Plane, and his strange spat with Terry Eagleton; in the debate about Flat Earth News, Nick Davies's book on the state of journalism (which is as much about the battle between Rusbridger's Guardian and Alton's Observer over Iraq); or in the different way people responded to Adam Curtis's documentary series The Power of Nightmares. If you want to know on which side someone stands, just say Amis, Guantánamo, multiculturalism or comprehensive education. You will know in approximately 0.03 seconds. At a recent party, made up largely of foreign journalists, I started talking to one news producer about Iraq. "Are you for the war?" she asked, as if I had come out in favour of eating small children. Other clues are more subtle. Does someone mention Joseph Conrad approvingly (Amis and McEwan do in recent books)? Or what do they think of Salman Rushdie?
These are deep divisions and are not likely to be healed any time soon. So, to get back to the Statesman, how can a magazine bridge them? Once you are committed to Pilger, Wilby and Howe, you are either politically correct or you are barking. There is no middle way. If a magazine asks you to pay £2.95 to read such journalists, they are not just asking you to make a small financial transaction. They are asking you whether you consider yourself sane or mad, and you will pay up (or not) accordingly. Clearly, there is a solid core of just over 20,000 leftist readers who are happy with this political line. Others, however many brilliant columns you have by Hunter Davies, however glossy the pictures, will not touch the magazine for fear it might be infectious.
The difficult problem Geoffrey Robinson faces is whether he wants to reach out to a larger audience or whether he can face jettisoning some of the key voices of the British left. There is only one alternative: to find an editor who is prepared to redefine the left and force it to move to a less dogmatic and predictable agenda. Someone who wants to reach out to other people and concerns, to offer something to readers who don't wish to be defined by one word or name. Otherwise, this is one crisis the Statesman will not recover from.
Discuss this article at First Drafts, Prospect's blog
-
redharry
08 March 2008 at 13:09 "Are you for the war?" she asked, as if I had come out in favour of eating small children.
No, like Nick Cohen, you were in favour of bombing small children.
-
knave
08 March 2008 at 13:16 Cohen wants to turn the NS into the daily hate. While you here Nick can you tell me the difference between yourself and the Tories Michael gove and Charles Moore.
-
knave
08 March 2008 at 13:24 Also Cohen about Grammar schools.
Three questions
1. What will happen to the 80% of kids who don't get into Grammar schools.
2. Will not the grammar schools suite middle class parents who can afford one to one tutoring for exams
3. You believe in open thinking what about looking at the Finnish comprehensive system. This beats very system in the world. Open mind Eh !
-
knave
08 March 2008 at 13:53 Cohen I also feel It is you and Harman who have the closed mind.
I have lot of time for Amis and his book , which is a good read. It is anti religeous generally not just Islam. Although I do feel he goes over the top with the topic. I also think it is important to have the Pilgers, Howe's, Wilby's and Milnes, but also the David Aaronovitch's, McShanes and Amis. It is good to have a debates and ideas from all avenues.
The article you have placed on this site and your beliefs have very un democratic strand to it. Remember Cohen and Bright your right wing politics control every press outlet. Surely your views can be examined by people like Milne and Pilger.
The trouble is Nick that you are a very thin skinned individual who takes critism badly. For instance your spat with Hari. Who by the way murdered you in the debate. Then calling a Hari a Maoist. Laughable.
Your hate for Brown, who by the way David A complemented for his ethical approach to foreign policy, and your love for the PEU Tories shows where your are on the political spectrum. You were a right wing when writing for the Birmingham Mail and you haven't changed. Mate.
Your problem is you lack personal integrity and more imporantly honesty. You and have always been a south park US republican. Admit it.
I ask you one question how do differentiate your views from say Michael Gove. He is the shadow education spokesman. if you have the same views why not say I am a PEU "compassionate" conservative. Honesty Nick is always the best policy not deceit
-
knave
08 March 2008 at 14:45 "Yet the Spectator still manages to pull in more readers than the Statesman. Yes, it's better funded, but isn't it also a better read?"
Only for Nick and Harmen
-
knave
08 March 2008 at 16:10 Can I ask why the comment about the bullet and Brown has been removed. It is important to challenge such comments. Bright has created a climate of right wing hatred and it is important to show the consequences.
-
knave
08 March 2008 at 17:45 Also Nick your article tommorow I bet it's a suck up to Migration watch and Powell. Just a guess because it was on the PEU website earlier.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
09 March 2008 at 17:41 What's PEU?
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
09 March 2008 at 19:19 Herman/Cohen: Only a bloody idiot would approach any document in such crass manner. It says much more about your own biased positions than it does about anything else.
-
AlanBrownfield
10 March 2008 at 12:05 Does anyone who isn't a journalist read this blog?
-
Martin Bright
10 March 2008 at 12:39 Does anyone who isn't "knave" read this blog?
And yes, BegbiesEvilTwin, what is PEU?
-
knave
10 March 2008 at 19:19 Policy exchange unit.
You should know Martin you work for them.
Also I owe you an apology about the Any questions soldiers question.
You are not the same as Anthony, Cohen and Browne in regards to immigrants and Powell.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
10 March 2008 at 21:21 Alan: For the record I am not and never have been a journalist. Nor do I wish to be one. Wouldn't mind working in Conservative Party HQ though. There's some real cuties in there.
You see Nick we NS readers are even happier than the Labour Leadership to get in bed with the Tories.
-
Neill
11 March 2008 at 02:00 I'm neither a journalist nor 'knave' and I've just read the blog for the first time. I would have to admit though it had everything to do with having been to school with Martin Bright and just found out what he does for a living rather than being interested in NS. I'll go away now.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
11 March 2008 at 02:20 Neill: Got any incriminating evidence on Martin?
-
Neill
11 March 2008 at 14:00 Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but no
(Bristol connection)
-
Chas
11 March 2008 at 16:00 I don't care who Brown steals his speeches from, it is the breathtaking falsehood of what he says compared with what he does that bothers me. Read this phrase from his speech again: "...a new politics that places power and the opportunity to change things in the hands of people themselves." This from the man who would make Stalin blush. For ten years we have known he is a control freak. That he is a pathological liar is only just coming to light.
Chas
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
11 March 2008 at 16:25 That new politics phrase...didn't it originally come form Marxism Today? It's a device similar to Obama's "change" mantra. Can mean anything to anyone.
-
gnuneo
11 March 2008 at 19:10 nick cohen: i will take pilger's, wilby's and bright's humanity over yours any day of the week, and if the price of "expanding readership above 20,000" is to lose those crucial and honest voices, apparently merely in order to hear *yours*, then that is a price that is NOT worth the paying. In fact, i wouldn't even bother reading you for free, so please take your keyboard elsewhere.
the NS is an excellent magazine, and is clearly (from some of the international commentary) read far beyond what its subscription receipts indicate.
no doubt you are of the notion that your worthless opinions would somehow be more 'salesworthy' for the NS, after all you are largely in line with the murdock press, no?
a left-wing Imperial apologist? Well, you're not the first, but it would be nice if you were the last. You are not fit to lick dog-shit off the boots of John Pilger.
actually, i take that back - in fact you are.
------
as for triangulation - is it not the exercise of what was once giddon's '3rd way'?
ie the left gets words, and the right gets action?
whatever. The fact is the brown govt will fall if he continues to maintain his right-of-centre policies.
and is not not extraordinary, how much effort is being put into forcing certain policies upon the British people, who are very clearly opposed to them?
for a second, lets ignore illegal international Imperial adventures, and look at other policies.
UKID cards - who in hades is actually in FAVOUR of them? I've never met a single person who thinks they will cut crime, or do any of the other 'benefits', but everyone who has a brain realises that they are a massive imposition upon the rights of the British, and a ludicrously expensive one at that, with the price tag at £20,000,000,000 - and lets face it, it WILL overrun, not least because it will be farmed out to a multi-nat or two.
EU referendum: everyone knows this is the exact same document that was thrown out by European populations just a couple of years ago, not because they were anti-EU, but because the document was a clear move to putting international capital above the lives of citizens, and eroding democracy at core.
so unsurprising it got thrown out - and what does the govt do? Decide to re-offer the document, but this time prevent us from rejecting it. This stinks, and will only harm the pro-EU camp more in the long run.
and who is opposed to any referendum of the People?
...so why aren't we getting one...??
then there are new aircraft carriers, not to mention a new generation of trident.
who the blue blazes wants to waste such a ridiculous amount on armaments (and BTW, most of the systems will be built in the US, so we're just handing over our hard-earned tax-payer monies to the US military-industrial complex), when even a fraction of that money could build a UK windpower industry from the bottom up, creating thousands of new jobs and securing to a large degree our energy base.
and then yes, there are a couple of wars we are involved in, that the British People certainly didn't have a hand in deciding upon...
in fact it can seem most often, that 'our' Govt seems to spend its entire time thinking up bad policies that reduce our freedoms, or will cost us vast amounts of money, or lives, and then pondering how it can enforce these changes upon us!
honestly, isn't this the case?
this more then anything demonstrates the true nature of Brown and the New-Labour Project - and the words that spring to mind are not "democracy, liberal, enabling and pro-freedom", but are in fact "autocratic, enslaving, and high modernist".
the only thing that keeps brown from losing his job at the earliest available moment, is that the camoronites and cleggies are absolutely NO different.
it is past time for a new political force, and one that does not rely upn 'triangulation', but open, decent and liberal policies, that the People will actually support for once!
-
writeon
11 March 2008 at 21:23 Wow, I actually made it to the end! Whilst I'd like to think that words in magazines like the New Statesman had the ability to change society in the short term, I have my doubts. I tend to think it works the other way around. Society changes magazines like the New Statesman.
I've been reading the magazine since I was twelve and I think the changes I've noticed over the decades reflect the trials the 'left' have gone through during the same period. Times change and so do people. There are pivotal moments in history when the balance of power in society is tipping. For me the miner's strike was one of those moments. When the Labour Party refused to really support and defend the miners against Thatcher's attack, and the TUC balked at the idea of calling a General Strike, it was clear the miners were doomed to defeat. Allowing the miners to be defeated, was, in the long term far more than a defeat for the miners. It was a demoralizing defeat for the entire Left. A profound defeat leading to fragmentation.
Then we jump in time to another pivotal moment in history, only this time it isn't the 'enemy within' who are attacked and destroyed by the state, this time the state attacks the enemy without - Iraq. I believe it's hard to over-estimate the intellectual and moral disaster that the unprovoked attack and occupation of Iraq represents. Once again the Left fragments over another war, though Thater's class war pales into insignificance compared to Blair's complicity in genocide in Iraq.
Now genocide is a very loaded and emotive concept, yet I'm not sure what else covers the massive destruction and loss of life that's occured in Iraq. When one factors in the siege and the war and the occupation, one is talking about millions of dead Iraqis. One cannot just forget such a monumental crime, wash ones hands and move on, any attempt to do so only compounds the crimes we have been involved in, one adds insult to injury.
Iraq has split the Left, though in my opinon New Labour has little to do with any recognizable party of the left. Iraq wasn't a mistake, it was a crime, a war crime of the most impure kind imaginable, a crime worthy of a fascist regime, and maybe that's the kind of society we're moving towards, especially now the years of plenty are definitively over, perhaps never to return in our lifetime.
Why is the Left so weak? I believe it's because one has accepted the blatant falsehood and illusion that Capitalism and the market society works. The last thirty years have been a party for lots of people, at the expense of lots of other people, people who didn't count, people who were pushed out to the margins and left to rot.
We are now leaving the comforting glow of Thatcherism behind and entering a very different era, and era most people can hardly imagine, a strange and harsh era of scarcity, deprevation and want. An era where the wheels will begin to drop off the Capitalist wagon.
After the years of illusion, the party years, reality is returning with a vengence and the bill has to be paid. We are facing enormous challanges; climate change, destruction of the environment, the mother of all energy crisis... the list is long and we're acting like the market will solve these problems, it won't. The creation of the market society has created the problems we face.
Put very simply the Rights answer to the challenges outlined above is violence and war. Iraq isn't an aboration, it's the model for the future, the West's answer to its power and dominance slipping away.
The main question for the Left, the question for the new era we're entering is stark and simple, are we going to support more war, or are we going to resist, with all that implies. It's perfectly possible for the Left to become relevant once more and present and work for an humane and just alternative to war, and it's possible that a magazine like the New Statesman can find the courage to reflect the politics of this new era too.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
11 March 2008 at 21:48 Agreed.
(Back to the Herman article pasted into the thread). Some of Pilger stuff isn't my bag but when he's on form there's no-one that can match him. His work on Cambodia, East Timor and Diego Garcia are still utterly stunning to watch. I would take his journalist critics more seriously if they ever got out of their fat arses and did some work to half the quality of Pilger's.
The thing that really hacks me off about the Herman cut'n'paste job is he and Cohen have taken the names of the people they object to and omitted all of the other writers. For example take Lynsey Hilsum -brill. Julian Clary's column is a complete hoot and Roger Scrutons lays out some wonderful prose. I may disagree with his politics but that's not the point. He's a beautiful read.
IMHO Pilger and Wilby's views give the NS an extra bit of breadth. I enjoy the fact that Wilby unlike most columnists usually links his work to some current policy paper or piece of social research. And let's not forget Ziauddin Sardar. He's truly one of the world's few liberal intellectuals. Any publication would be truly lucky to have such a great interlocutor.
It doesn't natter to me that Cohen and Herman's politics differ to my own. Listening to views that differ to my own can be refreshing and make you reconsider your own views. What really galls me is their shoddy bad faith.
-
Martin Bright
12 March 2008 at 12:28 Hello Neill. Just preparing to listen to the budget. How are you doing? I was doing a talk at our old school yesterday. Used some of the comments on this blog to talk about the instant scrutiny that journailsts face,
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
12 March 2008 at 15:49 Looks like we will have to give Neill a handful of used tenners to get him to spill the beans on you.
-
gnuneo
12 March 2008 at 16:42 just to add: with the introduction of the comment section, as can be seen above, the NS On-Line is easily one of the best places to go to for good to excellent political analysis.
let alone the rest of its social commentary.
the only thing i would ask for, is that the NS either creates a proper forum for discussions, or if that is too much, than has a decent Archive page, where all articles are listed chronologically (as they are published), and possibly even some form of indicator to see if someone has replied since the readers last visit.
could this be possible?
-
knave
12 March 2008 at 21:12 What is Cohen, Bright and Harmens problem. They have 95% of the press, most of the broadcasting media, most periodicals (including private Eye) who spurt their form of conservatism (it is the same message but they like to call themselves different names). They even have their voice in the NS. Alice O keefe is neo con and economic liberal, bright is, brummer is, kampfner was, Cohen still writes for them, tara whathersname. If they cannot put up with the odd Pilger article, Howe's and Wilby's columns (which by the way are not extremist in any form, more non conformist left) then they have views that cannot stand up to debate.
It would be interesting to hear Brights thoughts on giving Wilby, Howe and even Pilger a voice in the NS. Or does he take the Cohen view that all critics of the neo con vision must not be given a platform to air their views.
Although Marty is bit evasive when asked a direct question.
-
Neill
13 March 2008 at 01:43 Hi Martin - it was because I saw you were doing a talk (along with Mike Smith) that I wondered what you were both doing. That along with facebook and fortieth birthday celebrations putting me very vaguely back in contact with people I'd hardly seen or thought about since leaving school (eg. Chris, Eddie and Hodge) and that wonderful stock taking (some) people do around the big four oh that made me curious. Impressed to see what both you and Mike have achieved. I'm trying to get my own business going after a series of redundancies and plenty of wonderful traveling. Howard is doing very well in wildlife nature programme making and back in Bristol. BegbiesEvilTwin - sorry no number of used tenners would get me to spill the dirt (if I had any) on a site full of journalists!!
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
13 March 2008 at 02:58 Gnuneo: I was wondering if the NS could do with an Editors blog.
-
Martin Bright
13 March 2008 at 16:40 BegbiesEvilTwin -- The NS could do with an editor
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
14 March 2008 at 00:02 True.
-
redharry
14 March 2008 at 09:14 Martin, when are you gouing to defend your links with the neo-con propaganda outfit the Policy Exchange Unit? Do you think they should be investigated for forgery given they haven't issued any writs against newsnight despite Dean Godson's blustering? Why don't you answer some questions for a change Martin, or are you just a cowardly hit-and-run merchant?
-
knave
14 March 2008 at 16:04 By the way Martin who is favourite to get the job.
One of your neo con buddies or somebody who actually has a leftist approach to politics.
I,m not been rude but I hope it isn't you.
-
gnuneo
14 March 2008 at 19:59 mr bright: i would consider applying myself, but for two reasons - 1, i haven't a snowballs chance of getting it :), and 2, it might limit my own commentary. And that's a loss of too much fun. ;)
but if the NSO-L ran a forum for debate, i would definitely apply for a moderatorship.
-
Martin Bright
17 March 2008 at 11:17 Ok. A few points to address here.
There is no such thing as the Policy Exchange Unit, but if you mean Policy Exchange, the centre-right think tank, then I have no links with it, other than having written a pamphlet for it. I think PX (as they call themselves) is probably the most dynamic think tank in Britain today (although the revived Demos under Catherine Fieschi's leadership is fast catching up). I don't know the latest on the Newsnight story, but it's an interesting one, that's for sure. It would be a shame if it was allowed to undermine their excellent work on exposing the Islamic extreme right in the UK.
As for the editor's job, I think the acting editor, Sue Matthias is doing a brilliant job, don't you?
-
knave
17 March 2008 at 18:58 PX is most dynamic think tank. Could that because Anthony Browne another of the PEU , sorry PX is your mate.
Why because it spews out your rightist views. I have never seen anything at the PEU , sorry PX that isn't recycled Thatcherism .
As a conservative journo no wonder i appeals to you.
You are a sliipery eel but I will ask you one question. How do YOU differentiate from the PX right.
You certainly won't answer his one.
-
redharry
17 March 2008 at 20:06 Martin bright fails to address any of the points put to him.
So 'PX' is probably the most dynamic think tank in Britain today. big deal Martin, Oswald Moseley was probably the most dynamic politician in Britain in the thirties. Why do you describe these extreme right-wing neocon forgers as centre-right? What makes neocon Tory voting banker, Oliver Kamm, left wing? Do you have problems putting your gloves on the correct hands?
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
18 March 2008 at 02:47 It's about time the sockpuppets decloak, make a their case in the cold, hard light of day.
Failing that their IP addresses should be made public and the NS online editor should use similar practices to Wikipedia and block any proxies from making comments. It's the very least they can do for an employee.
-
Martin Bright
18 March 2008 at 11:30 An interesting thought BegbiesEvilTwin. I would ask yopu to unmask yourself too if you didn't have such a brilliant name.
I don't really mind this ill-informed nonsense from redharry and knave. A simple Google search will show where my politics differs from PX.
-
redharry
18 March 2008 at 13:02 Ill informed, moi? It was you who described PX as 'CENTRE'-right, you who described Kamm as 'of the left'.
I think it is interesting where your politics doesn't differ from PX. i.e. your (and their) hostility to any form of Islam which stands up to imperialism and Zionism.
ps have you listened to Derek Pasquill's interview on Little Atoms? He comes across first as dishonest, (changing his sequence of events) then as a conspiracy theorist. The interviewers had to quickly shut him up before he embarassed them all .
-
Martin Bright
18 March 2008 at 15:31 My goodness, redharry, you are committed!
So it's Derek Pasquill who's the conspiracy theorist -- motes and planks, pots and kettles come to mind.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
18 March 2008 at 17:37 redharry: Please listen to Pasquill's interview again. He raised alarm bells about a specific extremist Islamist strand who are inspired by Sayid Qutb. Qutb was an oppressive imperialist freak. If his sect got control it would send Europe back into the Middle Ages. Jesus they make Ian Paisley look moderate. Most anti-imperialists normally realise there is no benefit in opposing the US only to allow an even more repressive hegemony to gain control. Thinking that the enemy of your enemy is your friend is a fatal mistake. By doing so you're only repeating the same mnumental error the US did in Afghanistan by arming the Taliban and fostering other extremist forms of Islam across the border in Pakistan to counter the Soviets.
If you are going to take anything away from this please remember there are plenty of exceptionally moderate strands of Islam that would make Rowan Williams look like Vlad the Impaler at his worst but Qutb's is not one of them.
For anyone that's interested you can listen/download the Pasquill interview below:-
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
18 March 2008 at 17:44 I wish this site had a bloody preview button so I could sort out typos before posting.
Martin: Decloaking isn't a big deal but my moniker is probably a better reflection of my disposition.
-
knave
18 March 2008 at 21:15 Martin now that is been unfair.
1. I cannot see any differences between your views and say Michael Gove.
If so there is a difference. Name ONE. I doubt you can.
2. The PEU/PX is admirable. Is this same organisation that wants to privatise the NHS and education, has links to the bigotted Migration watch, and in the main are Thatcher loving neo cons.
These are your friends.One of the directors is fellow ex Observer journalist Anthony Browne, a nasty little Migration watch Thatcherite. Do you know him ?
3. Now Martin lets be honest you don't want to see Brown re-elected. Which is fair position but don't give me this non aligned pinko nonsense. Your Camerons man.
4. Look Martin I just want you to be honest and there is nothing wrong in been a conservative journalist. Just own up.
-
Martin Bright
19 March 2008 at 12:33 Happy to answer your questions knave, in the spirit of transparency. But in return I hope you will furnish our readers with a full explanation of your political history and a full list of your friends on the Islamic totalitarian right and your connections to the Socialist Action cell that runs City Hall. Or would that be McCarthyite?
-
redharry
19 March 2008 at 15:58 Martin, what conspiracy did I theorise about? All I asked was how you could describe the neo-con PX as centre-right and Oliver Kamm as 'left'. You failed to provide any answers. I suppose you are still trying to think of one.
As for Pasquill, anyone who listens to the interview will find out the following
1. Pasquill is a bit weird
2. He changes his story about when and why he decided to blow the whistle.
3. He indulges in conspiracy theories to explain why the British government might want to talk to Islamists.
In the interests of transparency
A full explanation of my political history.
Labour Party member for thirty years and antiwar (they used to be the same thing)
A full list of my friends on the Islamic totalitarian right.
That's easy, none.
My connections to the Socialist Action cell that runs City Hall.
Just as easy, am not nor have I ever been a member of Socialist Action (or even a fellow-traveller)
'Or would that be McCarthyite?'
Now what could possibly have put that thought in your head?
ps I see your new editor is going to be Neal 'cash for access' Lawson, perhaps the excuse you'll need to move to the 'centre-right' Spectator.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
19 March 2008 at 16:46 How can anyone genuinely be antiwar in a party that has done little but impose military force on sheer whim?
Where has Neal said this? At least he describes himself as Democratic Left.
-
knave
19 March 2008 at 18:29 Martin of course I will give you my social and political background.
I am a ex serviceman who served in NI and the Falklands. I would say I am now a political slacker but I was Old Labour. My political hero was Denis Healey.
I don’t now live in London but when I did I vote for Dobson, did you. I am union man whose father was a shop steward.
As for political issues I would re nationalize the railways. For public utilities I would make them public service charities which EVERYBODY would have a stake. I still believe in the concept of public service unlike the NS. I despise religious extremists of all sorts including the Islamic right but unlike you I despise the evangelical right in the US. In fact I believed we were wrong to arm the Muslim Afghan fanatics in the 80’s and said so at the time. In fact if you look at recent history Martin it was people of your political persuasion, obviously not you personally, that armed Iran (Iran Contra), allowed Muslim terrorists in the country in the 80’s and set up HAMAS to screw Fatah. My wife and I will be voting Labour in the next election purely to a cancel out yours and Nick Cohen’s Tory vote.
Journalists and broadcasters who I admire are both the Hitchens brothers, Johann Hari, Pilger (why not), Stephen Fry, and Max Hastings. All honest and good writers
Journalists I despise are the type of dishonest untalented clowns that say they are one thing but are obviously the other (you, Cohen, Anthony , Lott, Parsons and Burchill).
Now I have been honest. What about you answering my question ?
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
19 March 2008 at 20:57 There's a lot of very emphatic claims that don't add up.
Why would any group -because you're acting as a group- criticise a journalist for reporting that the Government is making connections to another group with alleged extremist (in this case Islamist) leanings? Why are you annoyed with him? Are any of you associated with the MCB or similar groups? Or fellow travellers of any of these groups? It's the only conclusion that would make all this haranguing plausible.
Don't you think readers deserve you to come clean about what this is all about?
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
19 March 2008 at 23:18 Casually drumming fingers on the desk. Waiting.
-
redharry
20 March 2008 at 15:09 BegbiesEvilTwin. We are annyed with Bright because he is following a neo-con agenda in a left wing magazine - which is obvious from what we write. It is you who are reading into this support for Islamism.
The MCB represent a substantial number of Muslims in the UK and so the Government should make connections with them, just as they do with the Board of Deputies (who represent a minority of Jews). I don't happen to agree about much with either of them, but that's hardly the point.
I listened again to Pasquill on Little Atoms to check what he in fact said - and he suggested that the government talked to the MCB because they 'delivered the Muslim vote' or the 'facilitated business deals with Saudi Arabia'. Not a conspiracy theorist Martin? I think, case proven.
-
redharry
20 March 2008 at 15:09 correction,
they facilitated
-
knave
20 March 2008 at 16:56 Casually drumming fingers on the desk. Waiting.
perhaps dome us have lives and jobs.
Also BET I do not know ANYbody else who posts to the NS or any other site. If you don't believe that , well hard cheese, it is the truth.
The facts I wrote on my political background are correct. Now I know I can't prove that but who can on the blogosphere. You could be close friend of Brights.
I am not a muslim in fact I'm an agnostic. Although I do have slight methodist convictions, my Old Labour and union background I am afraid.
Nor I'm associated with the MCB or the MCC.
As for Bright's anti Islamic ideas believe it or not I'm not fussed as I explained in the earlier post.
What I despise about Bright and Cohen is their post Thatcher conservertism and there total dishonesty to admit what they really believe in.
I googled in Martin Bright and in 12 pages and in each article Martin expressed the Conservative view. From Education, NHS, welfare and economics.
As Bright is a coward and won't answer my question. I will ask you BET, as his spokesman. Name ONE difference between Bright and Michael Gove and Cmaeron conservatism.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
20 March 2008 at 19:21 Perhaps
There's nothing I can do to reassure anyone that I'm not associated with Brighty. All I can suggest is keep your eyes open on the NS site and you will over time observe I’m probably to the left of him and equal opps when it comes to dealing with people taking the piss.
Which brings me back to my previous post. Still, none of this adds up. Leaving real Tories out of the equation I can think on a myriad of individuals in the public domain who claim allegiance to the Labour movement who advocate views that Enoch Powell would have had creamed his underwear for. Yet you’re dwelling on MB.
Have you no idea that one of the preferred phrase of the BNP was: "British jobs for British people"? The fact that this discussion is occurring on a thread related an article Bright where is criticising Brown's triangulation only increases the irony. In the last ten years the Labour party has outflanked the Tories on virtually everything. Yet for some godforsaken reason you're dwelling on an NS columnist who has tried to hold Blair and Brown up to account. Is this really the action of a neocon?
Are you supporters of Gordon Brown?
You see your case just doesn't hold water. Just go on to blogs like Harry's Place or Labour Home and you will see plenty of views that would be to the right of many of the NS columnists. Except Roger Scruton obviously.
Knave: Can you provide the most pertinent links you found on Martin? If he seems to be of the right I will be only too happy to criticise him for those but so far all I'm reading is poorly targeted accusations.
I haven't questioned your background but there are real discrepancies and I'm asking you to be specific. It's like watching someone firing a shotgun in the hope that something will hit the target.
You made the accusation of him being a neocon so you need to distinguish between that his views aren’t just, say, a bog-standard Labour sympathiser with small “c” conservative outlook.
-
gnuneo
20 March 2008 at 19:49 there are many 'normal' British Muslims who find the MCB too elitist, too removed from what they experience on the streets of Britain daily.
i see no harm in talking to the communities directly, as well, in order to get a more balanced view.
does that make *me* part of this PX group too?
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
20 March 2008 at 19:54 I wasn't aware of the perception of elitism. Interesting.
-
knave
20 March 2008 at 20:28 "but there are real discrepancies and I'm asking you to be specific. It's like watching someone firing a shotgun in the hope that something will hit the target.
Fair enough BET tell me what are the discrepancies and I will answer them.
"You made the accusation of him being a neocon so you need to distinguish between that his views aren’t just, say, a bog-standard Labour sympathiser with small “c” conservative outlook."
BET, I believe in socialized medicine, comprehensive education found in countries like Finland, horrified by the facte that public utilities have become profit driven, inflation causing monopolies, and I still believe in the welfare estate.
If that makes me a Brownite, bog standard labour symphasizer.
Then I am and proud of it
You still haven't answered my question.
How do you differentiate between Bright and the Cameron right .
I think you wil find Martin, like his friends cohen and Gilligan, believes many of the views that Cameron holds
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
20 March 2008 at 20:37 You're making claims. Back them up that's all I ask.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
20 March 2008 at 20:40 This is like pulling teeth...
-
knave
20 March 2008 at 21:02 Thanks for the dental analogy
BET you still haven't answered the question.
Give one political difference. I'm waiting.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
20 March 2008 at 21:31 What I have been asking is for you and the others to give a decent case for your claims. If he's a neocon then get it out in the open.
-
knave
20 March 2008 at 21:43 BET we are getting into an impasse here. I respect your views and if you don't wish to answer the question, then that is your choice.
What I will say is that Martin is very, very ,very popular with many in the conservative press (Mel Phillips and the spectator) and right wing blogs such as Ian Dale. I can't remember Clement Atlee been the poster boy of the Mail.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
20 March 2008 at 22:52 I must admit the idea that anyone like Mad Mel having admiring anyone is enough for most sane individuals to reach for the bottle of cyanide. Does Martin have any thoughts about his greatest fan? Is it reciprocal?
However Gordon Brown inviting Margaret Thatcher to tea in Number 10? You have to admit, there’s something utterly perverse about that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6993269.stm
But then again, perhaps not. Brown supported the invasion of Iraq:-
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gordon_brown/kirkcaldy_and_...
He has never voted on a:
-transparent Parliament.
And voted strongly for introducing:
-ID cards.
-foundation hospitals.
-anti-terrorism laws.
And replacing:
-Trident.
Not quite welfare state if you ask me.
Clem Atlee was never a poster boy of the Daily Mail but Gordon Brown is fairly close. See Wikipedia on the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre:-
The new Prime Minister Gordon Brown is reportedly a personal friend of Dacre, however. In 2002, when Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dacre commented: "I have an awful lot of admiration for Gordon Brown. I feel he is one of the very few politicians of this administration who's touched by the mantle of greatness"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre
Mind you when the FT says the current reforms of the NHS:-
The real agenda? It’s a sell-off
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9fbf1c4c-e650-11dc-8398-0000779fd2...
Do you *really* think there will be any public services left for the Tories to sell?
Now can you tell me what the differences between Gilligan and Bright? I listened to Gilligan at last year's Media Workers Against the War conference taking the piss out of the mainstream media for slavishly taking the most incredulous government propaganda (his words) to justify invasion of Iraq. Gilligan and Nick Davies were utterly entertaining.
Knave the thing to remember is that just because someone opposes a so-called Labour government doesn't mean that they're Tories, never mind neocons. Nor does it mean that a government sporting a Labour logo will carry out any policies that are compatible with any part of the Labour movement. Gilligan may well be a tory. Truth is I don't care but be fair, there's many worse tories than him. And some carry Labour Party membership cards.. Even if Bright is a tory (seems doubtful) how much in the current climate does it really matter? After all as Martin is trying to suggest in the above column the current Labour leadership works hard to go even further to the right than the Conservatives. That's what triangulation is all about.
Can we call this off now? Give the guy a break.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
20 March 2008 at 22:55 How about a compromise? Let's go to some other websites and persecute some real tories instead?
-
knave
21 March 2008 at 08:29 BET I agree with your sentiments.
But is it's shame that Bright calls anybody who opposes his views a supporter of islamic terrorist which I find distaseful.
What I will say I think that Bright is part of what I call the "Observer circle". These are group of ex liberal journalists who are disallusioned with leftist thought and are drawn to the ideas of Kristol and neoconservatism.
BET I do feel what is wrong with politics today is the negativity. Bright is part of that negativity. I know the things he dislikes Brown, Livingstone, islam, comprehensive education, the NHS, tax and spend, but what policies does he want to bring in. Name ONE idea he brings to the table that will enhance socialist ideals.
But your are right . There is worse than Bright, just .
-
Martin Bright
21 March 2008 at 14:00 In answer to knave, (and thanks for your frankness about your political background) here we go:
1. I cannot see any differences between your views and say Michael Gove. If so there is a difference. Name ONE. I doubt you can.
I can't help you if this is the case. I disagree with Michael on pretty much everything, from education policy to Iraq. I agree with much of what he says on the Islamic religious right in Britain, although our approach on how to deal with it abroad is different.
2. The PEU/PX is admirable. Is this same organisation that wants to privatise the NHS and education, has links to the bigotted Migration watch, and in the main are Thatcher loving neo cons.
These are your friends.One of the directors is fellow ex Observer journalist Anthony Browne, a nasty little Migration watch Thatcherite. Do you know him ?
The word was dynamic. I don't agreed with them on any of the issues you mention and have written critically about Migration Watch, which is a one (or perhaps two-man) operation. I think Anthony Brown is wrong on immigration and have told him so.
3. Now Martin lets be honest you don't want to see Brown re-elected. Which is fair position but don't give me this non aligned pinko nonsense. Your Camerons man.
I do want to see Brown re-elected
4. Look Martin I just want you to be honest and there is nothing wrong in been a conservative journalist. Just own up.
I assume you mean "being". Is there nothing wrong with being a Conservative/conservative journalist? I wonder. Your comments above suggest otherwise.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
21 March 2008 at 17:15 Does it really matter who wins? There's currently little difference between Labour, Conservatives and the LibDems.
-
knave
21 March 2008 at 18:32 Martin thank you,
I have misjudged some your principles but I still don't know what you believe in and perhaps you and the NS need to give us ideas instead of sniping.
For example you say the gap between poor and rich is growing but you disagree with the Brownite idea of taxation and public spending.
So how do you suggest as a leftist we make society more equal ?
The Thatcherite / Moneterist drip down effect.
I have my reservations about Brown but he has tried to invest in public services and make them more accountable.
Also ideas like surestart are surely are the way forward. In which poor local communities are given the resources to plan their run their own adult education and community activities to try and make them more self reliant instead of the current tory idea of employing more middle class health visitors to lecture to the lower classes.
Surestart and extended schools programmes are Community based and are based on principles of cooperatism.
If you do believe in leftist ideas then don't just snipe at Brown and come up with workable alternatives
As a molecular biologist I must admit you are spot on about creationism with that article with McKie.
To paraphrase a Tom Cruise film "show us the leftie ideas".
Can I ask one question Martin.You say you want Brown elected but you have never written a positive article about the man or his government
PS I still haven't changed my mind about Cohen. He is a Tory .
-
knave
21 March 2008 at 20:19 BET you are an articulate poster but if we wan Brown to cahnge surely we must post ideas on how to change.
The trouble with the Britain is the tendancy to be so self pitying.
You seem a intelligent man, I assume your a man, how do want Brown to change.
Chavez has his faults but surely his basic concept of redistributing petro dollars from the middle class and oil companies to the poor is a good one.
I cannot understand why Martin, if he is a leftist, finds this unacceptable.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
21 March 2008 at 23:51 Haven't forgotten about you knave. On a deadline. Will get back to you in the wee hours.
-
knave
22 March 2008 at 08:44 Thanks BET,
I am a governor whose school was fortunate to visited by some head teachers from Senegal and Uganda. They went around the school and visited lessons. They remarked what great lessons, teachers and pupils, yes pupils we have. Our pupils are at the moment organising events to raise money for their sister schools in Africa.
What they did comment on was the negativity of the some British people and the press. We wallow in self pity. One remarked "You have a free health service and education but reading your press you seem to think of yourselves as a third world nation"
I am a socialist, yes I am not afraid to use the word because I am optimist and I am a scientist and believe in trying to solve a problem not just moaning.
That is why I don't like Cohen and journalists in general because they like conservatives think that human nature is bad and that policies and reporting should reflect that. My experience is that most people of all classes, all races and political creeds are generally decent and likeable. I know I sound like Dr Pangloss but i don't care.
-
knave
22 March 2008 at 10:53 On a deadline
Your not as journo are you. I hope not ,you seem such a nice individual
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
24 March 2008 at 17:43 Martin. As the NS doesn't have a print editor never mind an editor's blog I'm going to cross-post this. Does the NS wish to comment on it?
Thursday, March 20 2008
Purim Exclusive: Prince William Serves in IDF
Prince_william3It can be revealed that British editors are maintaining a self-imposed conspiracy of silence over the fact that Prince William volunteers for the IDF in the spokesman's unit.
Prince Harry, who just returned from 10 weeks in Afghanistan, exclusively told Backspin that his older brother gives regular press briefings under the pseudonym, Capt. Benjamin Rutland.
Senior IDF spokesman Charles Philip Arthur George Wales would neither confirm nor deny speculation that Prince William also authored an article in the New Statesman defending the IDF's Marva and Gadna programs.
Happy Purim to all our readers.
Original link: http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2008/03/exclusive-princ...
Link to NS article referred to in the above text: http://www.newstatesman.com/200709070002
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
24 March 2008 at 18:05 knave: We live in a culture that implies fairly infinite possibilities but in reality even the most super-rich may have problems achieving. The rich are even more aggressively marketed at than we are so it is understandable that they could feel even more impoverished. Many live in insulated environments that can ensure they never need to meet ordinary people. Or should I say ordinary people whose purpose in being in their proximity isn't entirely focused in serving their wishes. The degree we experience this mismatch almost regardless how much it is based in reality can only do us harm.
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Nope, I'm not a journo, nor harbour any desire to be one but I am a politics/media junkie. The reason for mentioning a deadline is that I had a massive workload hanging over me.
-
redharry
27 March 2008 at 12:57 I'd like to point out Martin's refusal to answer my main point put to him, namely why he regards the hard right, neo-con PX as 'centre-right'. His inability or refusal to reply says a lot about his politics. As for Kamm and Cohen being 'of the left' - that's just laughable.
-
BegbiesEvilTwin
31 March 2008 at 15:27 redharry: Do you have any evidence that Policy Exchange is neocon? It's generally accepted that they are centre-right.
