The Fisk

Phil Hendren: Independent, yet biased

Where would we be without a newspaper like the Independent? The paper that is the official home to Robert Fisk, the man who became a verb? This morning they have outdone even themselves with what must surely be a candidate for "Deliberately misleading headline of the Month". On page 20, blazoned across the top of the page readers are presented with the following: "US troops surge into Iraq as death tool mounts".

It's an interesting juxtaposition to be sure, accompanied by a photo of a burning bus. What inference is the reader to make from such a headline? Well, burning bus, deaths increasing, US troops "surge" in. It doesn't take a genius to work out what is being implied by the headline. The casual reader is left under no illusion.

And yet, a quick look at the article itself and you discover that the "death toll" being referred to is in fact that of US soldiers, and the "surge" refers merely to increasing numbers, rather than sudden violent action of movement.

Phil Taylor: Fisking fiction

Sunday night's Waking the Dead was a great example of the BBC view of the world, ie Tory government bad.  It featured a murder on Black Wednesday which most commentators identify as the point at which the Tories lost their reputation for economic management.  It also happens to be the foundation of the UK's relative outperformance economically speaking for the last fifteen years - an inheritance from the previous Conservative administration that Chancellor Gordon Brown has never had the good grace to acknowledge. 

 

Trevor Eve's character Peter Boyd filled his young assistant in on what Black Wednesday meant - it cost taxpayers £4 billion and there were £3 million unemployed. 

 

Let's look at this in more detail. In 1997 the Treasury totalled up the cost of Black Wednesday. This came out a £3.3 billion.

 

Sure this is a lot of cash but just about everyone in the commentariat thought that we should be in the ERM, even Gordon Brown (see what Sam Brittan has to say).  So this was a decision taken with the grain of pervading expert opinion that turned out wrong.  The current Chancellor Gordon Brown never got such a bad press for his decision to sell gold.  This was taken against the grain of expert opinion and cost £2 billion .  In terms of financial loss pretty much an equivalent cock up.  Brown got away with it. Lamont did not. 

 

As Samuel Brittan wrote in a paper for The Institute of Economic Affairs in October 2004 (Page 62):

"One favourable surprise after Black Wednesday was the speed with which an alternative policy was put together.  Nearly all of the characteristics of the present - and so far successful - stable monetary regime were announced within a few weeks of the exit from the ERM.  These included the inflation target; the Bank of England's quarterly inflation report; the formal monthly meetings, followed, when Kenneth Clarke became Chancellor in 1993, by publication of the minutes of these meetings.  These paved the way for operational independence of the Bank and the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee.  Many of these policies were first contained in embryonic form in a letter dated 8 October 1992, from Norman Lamont to the Conservative chairman of the House of Commons Treasury Committee.  They apparently emerged from a meeting between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and senior Treasury officials in Brighton, on the fringes of the Conservative party conference."

A quick trip to the National Statistics website reveals the numbers behind the 3 million unemployed claim.  The September 1992 figure was 2.85 million.  So rounding it up you do indeed get to 3 million.  By the May 1997 election the figure was down to 2.06 million and the latest figure stands at 1.70 million but the direction of travel is upwards again.  The reality is that unemployment is an intractable problem but it got a lot better in the four and a half years after Black Wednesday, it improved at a slower rate for 8 years under New Labour but the trend has been in the wrong direction for 18 months now.

 

Anyway our fictional copper Boyd doesn't know much economics.

Phil Hendren: Loving, then hating, then loving again

Polly has decided today that her target will be GPs. Apparently, they're all money-grabbing scumbag heroes of frontline NHS service provision who deserve to be spat on. Honestly, that's essentially what she says.

"What is a GP worth? There is no answer in this gold-rush decade when the government shies away from even thinking about worth.  The public sector is nailed to 1.5% pay increases boardrooms soar by 30% and the Pay Commission is rowing about whether to defy the Confederation of British Industry and raise the minimum wage a measly 25p ..... No wonder this year's GP negotiations have run into the mud, suspended in anger."

In other words, Polly thinks GPs are not worth what they get and she's "angry about it goddamit!". It's not however strictly accurate for Polly to say that the public sector is nailed to a 1.5% pay increase. According to the paper she works for it is actually anything up to 2%. Of course the big issue with that figure is that it's outstripped by the increasing inflation rate. Polly doesn't mention that though, after all, she's one of the chosen few in Gordon Brown's Smith Institute.

She's also repeating the generalised lie about so-called "executive cat fights". The problem is that the pay and benefits specialists, Croner, produced research at the beginning of this month that shows whilst there are undoubtedly some stupidly high earning execs, they are actually in a siginificant minority. But then facts don't make a good class war battle do they? As to the CBI and the minimum wage, there is no such row going on at all. The minimum wage was raised by 25p in October, I imagine what you are referring to is the CBI urging caution about further rates of rises in 2007 after that happened. Row there was not.  The GP negotiations haven't been suspended as far as I can tell either, the only people talking about things in such terms is Polly according to Google.

"GPs are visible frontline public heroes. They need four As at A-level and five years' hard training They are greatly respected: patients are attached to them with the loyalty of limpets. They top every poll for trust, so would presumably top public approval for generous rewards compared with, say, lawyers, let alone journalists  About 90% of NHS work happens in the community, via their clinics. As effective NHS gatekeepers they are the envy of many less efficient EU health services  Politicians love to "reform" hospitals with cunning market devices, but what matters most is the tricky business of micro-managing what GPs do."

See I told you she thinks they're heroes. You'll note though that whilst she acknowledges how popular they are with the public she concedes how unpopular she is with the public. Sadly Polly has not told us how much she earns, now you may think this is irrelevant, but as we read on it seems money, in relation to one's job is important. I am a little confused though about this idea of "micro-managing what GPs do", after all, GPs deal with disease which is complex and, like the world, quite random. How can you micro-manage the work of someone who deals only with random complexity? Polly goes on though to bemoan that,

"Bevan's great failure was to leave GPs as small businesses, so the NHS never controlled its key service."

Actually though, if you think about it, this was Bevan's great success. If he'd forced the issue all the doctors would've refused to play ball and we'd have had no NHS paid-for GPs at all. Polly now goes after her heroes in a big way though,

"Here is what [Alan Milburn's] new GP contract did, intending to encourage more preventative work: GP earnings rose 63% in three years. They gave up out-of-hours work, home visits are rare, and they work 44 hours a week - low for top professionals. Clinics stay resolutely shut on evenings and at weekends..... They earn more than the lord chancellor and circuit judges, which may be fine with the public. But while their pay soared, they took more NHS money into their own pockets and spent a lower proportion on their practices . They used to keep 40% for themselves, but in the past year that has crept up to 45%. As they're private businesses, no mechanism fixes how much they keep and what they invest in their clinics Patients are supposed to be the "market" that tests their quality, though patients neither feel nor behave like "customers" - and most don't know their GP is a business."

See, I did promise she would say that the heroes were money-grabbing scumbags. I wasn't being facetious or unfair to Polly at all. She really did it. Of course, her moaning about the "63%" pay rise over three years deliberately ignored the fact that meant they were being paid about £65K per year to work more than 44 hours a week, do home visits, answer calls in the middle of the night, and offer out of hours services. Now, putting aside Polly randomly throwing in irrelevant statements about how doctors now earn "more than the Lord Chancellor and circuit judges", she's decided to issue us with figures.

Figures always win the heart and minds, especially when you're talking about lowlife scumbag heroes like doctors. Sadly there is no evidence for the source of these figures, but Polly's argument that doctors are private businesses so there is no mechanism for financial control does somewhat contradict her figures. After all, if there are no mechanisms for financial control and the businesses are private, how on earth can she make a general statement about how much GPs choose to keep and how much they don't?

"In this era of mega-pay, it is unfair to begrudge the GPs their professional salary: there is a shortage of them. But it's also time to reopen the old Bevan settlement and bring the under-performers back in-house to be better managed as the NHS's most vital resource and key gatekeeper."

You have to admire her for her ability to switch from loving, to hating, to loving again! She doesn't begrudge them their money, she just doesn't want the bastards to have it.

"Polly Toynbee will be away until March"

Shame.

Donal Blaney: Gorbachev's still trying to rewrite history

"History is not preordained: a new cold war can be averted. US military arrogance has led to a global crisis. But there is still time to change course and build a democratic world order". So proclaims The Guardian as it proudly publishes an article by Mikhail Gorbachev, the man that Guardianistas believe won the Cold War.

In his article, President Gorbachev opines: 

"A watershed in international relations has occurred in recent months. Indeed, the past year may well have seen the end of an entire era in world affairs - the post-cold war period of unilateralism and missed opportunities."

It is precisely this wish to gloss over what really happened in the Twentieth Century – the sheer brutality of totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet regime that was presided over by Gorbachev himself – that has been Gorbachev’s sole purpose since he was ousted from power in 1991. The oft-repeated pronouncement that the end of the Cold War provided for the emergence of a "New World Order" was surely shown to have been misguided and utopian at best, and a betrayal of Western democratic hegemony and values at worst.

The fact that Gorbachev has repeated the line of the international liberal-left that the last few years has see a period of unilateralism on the part of the United States shows that Gorbachev has conveniently chosen to ignore the multilateralist dimension to US foreign policy (a multilateralism that saw a grand coalition of the willing liberate both Afghanistan and Iraq).

"When the cold war ended, avenues opened up for progress toward a better world. Major powers, particularly the United States, the Soviet Union and China, were working constructively together in the United Nations security council. International conflicts, including those in Angola, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cambodia, were brought to an end. Nuclear and conventional arms control agreements were concluded, and democratic changes were under way in dozens of countries in Asia, Latin America and central and eastern Europe.

Those democratic changes were not thanks to or because of President Gorbachev, no matter how much the Left would love to have everyone believe that the Cold War ended peacefully because of the statesmanlike behaviour of the Soviet leader rather than the vision and courage of President Reagan – the man who won the Cold War without firing a single shot.

"The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed in 1990, marked the beginning of a process that was expected to lead to a new, peaceful and democratic world order. But the movement in that direction soon stalled. The break-up of the Soviet Union was followed by changes in the political elites of the United States and other countries. The Charter of Paris was forgotten. Instead of moving towards a new security architecture, it was decided to rely on the tools inherited from the cold war. The United States - and the West as a whole - succumbed to the "winner's complex"."

This is a wonderful expression of sour grapes. It’s not just in the playground that the loser whines about losing. The suggestion that there was a dramatic change in the political elite of the United States after President George H W Bush was replaced by the even more mulitlateralist President Clinton is a weak attempt to rewrite history.

"Europe was shaken by the tragedies in the Balkans. Waves of instability swept through the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Africa as the struggles for spheres of influence, resources and markets gathered momentum.

Nato's promise to evolve into a primarily political organisation was not kept. Instead, it moved to increase its membership and expand its zone of operations. A new arms race is now under way. The problems of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation have taken on a new urgency, with the original members of the nuclear club bearing much of the blame for it."

There was never a suggestion or a commitment that NATO would evolve in the manner suggested by Gorbachev. It is fantasy to suggest there was. Indeed had it been merely a political organization, it would not have reacted with such speed as it did after 9/11 when the mutual defence clause was invoked in support of the United States. The real substance of Gorbachev’s complaint is that NATO – and the EU – expanded eastwards and now envelops a number of former Soviet republics such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. These were countries that Gorbachev and his Soviet allies oppressed ruthlessly even as late as 1991.

Just because some of a wolf’s teeth fall out, it does not mean that the wolf is necessarily any less dangerous. Just because Gorbachev’s ideology was rejected by millions of European – and Russian – people in the early 1990s, it does not mean that such attitudes cannot reappear. Indeed President Putin has more in common in his attitude to his neighbours and to dissidents with Gorbachev than with Yeltsin.

"There is a real danger of a new division of the world; the possibility of a new cold war is being widely discussed. Without regard for the security council or for the opinion of other countries, including its partners and allies, the United States invaded Iraq with disastrous consequences. The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis - and to a decline of the United States' role and influence."

There is no such risk of division or of a new Cold War. The members of the UN Security Council have no interest in allowing rogue states such as Iran or North Korea having nuclear weapons. Likewise those nations do not want rampant Islamofascism to destroy the stability of their societies.

It is a fallacy – a distortion worthy of Pravda itself – to suggest that the United States’ "invasion" of Iraq was undertaken without regard for the UN Security Council or the opinion of the US’ allies. The UN made it clear that Iraq was required to comply with the Security Council’s resolutions or that it would face the consequences. Far from acting without regard to the opinion of its allies, the United States put together a coalition of more than 25 nations. The laughable assertion that America’s role and influence has declined is nothing more than wishful thinking from a man who barely registered in the polls when he last stood for the Russian presidency. It is rather like a fading actress decrying the talents or beauty of a rival from days gone by when that rival has continued to have a glittering career in her later years. American influence in the world remains just as strong as ever and its power is undiminished – just ask the Somalian Islamofascists who faced American wrath only last week. Libya and Syria certainly didn’t take the view that American might could be ignored when they shifted their positions in the wake of the Iraqi liberation.

"Another consequence of unilateralist policies and attempts to claim exclusive leadership is that most international institutions have not been able to address effectively the new century's global challenges - the environmental crisis and the problem of poverty. The unprecedented scale of international terrorism and the proliferation of ethnic and religious conflicts are disturbing signs of troubles to come."

The reason that America has acted – against Saddam Hussein and on a host of other issues – outside the international institutions in which Gorbachev seems to place so much faith is simple. Those institutions lack legitimacy or credibility. When President Bush makes it clear he will do something, it is recognized that he means business.

"Americans have also felt the effects of the administration's flawed foreign policies. In November the voters made their verdict known, delivering a defeat for the Republicans in the midterm elections. Yet that is a challenge to the entire US political establishment, for Democrats as well as Republicans. There is a need for a correction in the superpower's policies. Is the administration of George Bush capable of such a correction?"

This misrepresents the reasons for the Republicans’ defeat in November. The Democrats were only able to win control of Congress by running socially and fiscally conservative, pro-war candidates. They did not run on anti-war ticket. The Republicans lost control of Congress because they were rightly perceived as having failed to act with due propriety – conservatives, disgusted at the Republican Congress’ behaviour – stayed home.

"Both in the United States and elsewhere, the prevailing view is often negative. The administration gives ample reason for this view, because it seems to prefer the inertia of the old course. It would appear that all the Bush administration wants is to persuade the world that it is still firmly in the saddle. The president's recent statements and the plans being discussed in his administration are cut from the old cloth.

The Republican leadership clearly wants to leave to the next president a legacy that would tie him to its policies and make a change of course impossible. If so it is not just a tactical blunder but a recipe for an even greater disaster.

And yet I think the possibility of change is still there. The administration and Congress still have the time to forge it. They should begin with the Middle East. Not only should America start pulling itself out of the Iraqi quagmire, but it also needs to return to a constructive policy in the region. It is essential that the Middle East peace process be resumed, along with a serious dialogue with Iraq's neighbours."

Is Gorbachev seriously suggesting that America should cut and run? It is nice to know, at least, that once again Ted Kennedy and Mikhail Gorbachev are singing from the same hymn sheet (or at least they would be if either of them were true Christians and Gorbachev hadn’t prevented freedom of worship under his dictatorship). It is evidently not in America’s – or the region’s interests – for US troops to cut and run. While I can understand Russia’s desire to get its hands back on Iraqi oil, the suggestion that America should leave with its tail between its legs is nothing short of bonkers and wishful thinking. It ain’t gonna happen!

"If America's leaders have the foresight and the courage to look at the world as it really is, they would choose dialogue and cooperation rather than force. What is needed is not a worldwide web of military presence and intervention, but a restraint and a willingness to solve problems by political means.

After all, the world has changed dramatically even when compared to the early 1990s. It has become even more interconnected and interdependent. New giants - China, India and Brazil - have entered the world arena, and their views can no longer be ignored. Europe is uniting, and its economic and political influence is bound to grow."

Yes their views can be ignored, or at least those of Brazil and India can. If those two nations are anxious to pontificate on the world stage, they should start by addressing issues in their own back yards.

"Although the Islamic world is finding it difficult to adapt to new realities, its adjustment will continue and this great civilisation will insist on being treated with respect. Finally, the democratic transition of Russia (as well as the other former Soviet republics), for all its considerable problems, is bringing a new, strong player to the international scene.

During the 1990s, which were a difficult time for my country, I said that Russia's troubles would pass, that it would rise to its feet and forge ahead. This is what is happening now.

Russia's resurgence, its insistence on protecting its interests, and its ability to play a proper role in the world, are not to everyone's liking. Strangely enough, when Russia was mired in crisis, the west applauded it; today Russia is accused of rejecting democracy and of having imperial ambitions.

Still, there are no real reasons to fear Russia. My country is facing many problems. Learning new ways and building democratic institutions is indeed hard work. But Russia will never go back. The most difficult part of the road is already behind us."

It is hard to see what other view can be taken of Russia apart from that it is a menace and, once again, a threat. Its behaviour towards its neighbours has made it all too apparent to anyone with an eye on reality that the West needs to work towards energy security before countries such as Russia, Venezuela and the Gulf states work properly in concert to our detriment.

Russia is not a democracy. It is a thoroughly unpleasant oligarchy where debate is stifled. It is only because of its economic weakness arising out the dismantling of the Soviet Union and 75 years of communism that it is unable to challenge American and Western power. Russia is not as great a threat as it was in the 1980s – but it is not a trusty ally either.

Wat Tyler: Blair's commentary on inflation

Yesterday’s shock inflation figures were the subject of a typically misleading Blair commentary at his monthly press conference:

"Inflation has risen in most of the major countries because of rising energy prices, rising oil prices, which have doubled, tripled over the last few years. That, however, is expected to come down in 2007 and we expect to come back to 2% inflation."

It is completely untrue that "inflation has risen in most major countries". The reality is that Britain’s inflation rate has risen much more than elsewhere. 

Even sticking to the government’s preferred but rather narrow measure - the Consumer Price Index (CPI) - over the most recent twelve months, our inflation rate has increased by more than one-half, from 1.9% to 3%. In the US the rate is down by 1.5%, in Germany it’s down by 0.6%, in France it’s down by 0.2%, across the Euro area as a whole it’s down by 0.3%, and across the G7 it’s down by 0.6% (source ONS - January CPI Release and HM Treasury Pocket Databank - January). 

We’ve all heard of damned statistics, but most people would mark that down as an outright lie. And quite why wage negotiators would attach any credence to his 2% forecast for the rest of the year is a complete mystery. Blair went on:

"The underlying position of the British economy, even with the recent interest rate rise, is one of strong economic growth, historically very low interest rates, inflation under control and employment and living standards high,"

Again, the reality is different. Much of the growth Britain has enjoyed over recent years has been driven by public spending and debt, not by any fundamental improvement in productive potential. Indeed productivity growth has slipped markedly since he took over. And combined with higher interest rates, that debt is now starting to squeeze living standards.

What’s more, although employment has continued to rise, because of mass immigration, unemployment- the key component, along with inflation, of the traditional “misery index”- has increased sharply. In the last twelve months, Britain’s unemployment rate has risen by over half-a-percent, while it has actually been falling in the US, Germany, France, and the G7 as a whole (source: HM Treasury Pocket Databank - January).

With inflation and interest rates both rising, what chance Blair’s next economic commentary will at least nod in the direction of honesty?

Shane Greer: Tally-hopeless attempt to exploit an apparent class divide

One would think on the face of it that the Independent simply wanted to highlight an apparent breach of the law (forgetting for a moment the debate over whether foxhunting should be illegal).

As usual though the real message lies beneath an apparently innocuous façade. Let’s take a moment to dissect that façade; a man dressed in countryside attire, shotgun cocked over arm, with a dead fox hanging from his left hand… the essence of privilege. With this image juxtaposed against the all too transparent ‘Tally-ho!’ it is a front page designed to evoke the ‘them against us’ attitude which characterised the foxhunting debate.

When translated the front page essentially reads: landed gentry (the enemy of the poor) flout the law in the pursuit of cruelty and self-indulgence.

However, regardless of whether one supports or opposes the ban it is fundamentally unsound to frame the debate in terms which bear no relation to the underlying reasons for one’s support or opposition. To do anything else is to engage in propaganda in an effort to win an argument one implicitly acknowledge does not stand on its own merits.  

For the record the reality of foxhunting is altogether different from the image painted by The Independent. It is a sport which attracts a wide range of enthusiasts (from all walks of life), a sport which supports an entire army of working men and women. Fundamentally it is a sport that is anything but the private preserve of the rich and over-privileged. Of course none of this is relevant to the debate over whether fox hunting should be banned; but acknowledging that fact is the first step toward rational argument.

Matthew Elliott: Toynbee ignores the tax burden on the poor

Polly Toynbee attacks The TaxPayers’ Alliance’s Annual Non-Job Report 2006 in the Guardian today:

“If tax cuts are a priority, it's necessary to rubbish the entire public sector as politically correct jobsworths. Call every manager a bureaucrat. Never spell out what the services do, simply mock their titles.”

We are not saying that all the jobs listed in Society Guardian should not exist. But we are questioning why they should by provided by the state and hence funded by the taxpayer. In a low-tax society, where people have more spare money to give to good causes (and international evidence does show that lower-tax societies tend to be more philanthropic), if there were a need for these jobs, they would be provided by charities, voluntary groups and other organisations.

“Is £85,000 too much? I don't know in a world where Lord Browne has just left BP with £63m legally purloined from a public company holding all our pension funds.”

The Non-Job Report was also written to highlight the high salaries paid to people in the public sector. Each job in Society Guardian pays almost £37,000, compared with a mean private sector wage of £25,000. Wage rises in the public sector have been far higher than in the private sector in recent years, so much so that the public sector now often pays better than the private sector. But Ms Toynbee makes no mention of the taxpayer-funded inequality here.

“All this goes to the heart of Tory policy, persuading the electorate that tax money is always wasted, public jobs are pointless and the state should shrink ….  The Tories claim they can cut waste and pen-pushers.”

Ms Toynbee tends to label everyone and every view she disagrees with as “Tory”. But, as well as being factually incorrect, this doesn’t help the debate. The TaxPayers’ Alliance is not Tory; indeed we constantly criticise the Conservatives, as well as the other main parties, for supporting the current high level of taxation, high level of government spending and high level of state interference. We represent ordinary taxpayers, who have had to endure years of tax rises, in part to pay for the sorts of jobs that the Non-Job Report highlights. And so we will criticise Tory councils as much as councils run by any other parties.

“The danger is that Labour has failed to create warmth and appreciation for its many excellent programmes: they are easy to cut when few know anything about them.”

Ms Toynbee constantly argues in favour of greater government spending to help the poor. But we have not seen her acknowledge that the high burden of tax directly harms those on low incomes. Last autumn, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a respected body that has done a great deal of work on behalf of the poor, published a report which found that at least 2 million households had difficulties paying their council tax bills, and that the majority of these households were working on low incomes and lived in low-value housing. It’s a fact that the doubling of council tax in the last decade has hit the poor hardest. And with many of the jobs surveyed in the Non-Job Report being local government positions, we know where some of the council tax increases have gone.

“Are any of these non-jobs, then? That depends on your priorities and what services you think the state should provide. But most of them are so utterly essential that it is breathtaking to think Tory spokesmen, or even the Tory press, can imagine there should be no directors of children's services and no managers to run social services for old people.”

Ms Toynbee also fails to acknowledge the adverse impact of state-run public services on the poorest in society. The worst primary schools are exclusively in deprived areas, health inequalities continue to widen, and the poor are at greatest risk of crime. If all the jobs listed in Society Guardian were so wonderful, maybe public services would work that little bit better.

“No 5: civil resilience manager, Stockport council, £39,132. Every council by law has to have someone in charge of emergency planning.”

Every council may be required to have a “civil resilience manager”. But that’s not necessarily an argument in favour of the post. Ms Toynbee ought to watch the episode of “Yes Minister”, when it was agreed that only the important council members would be allowed into the bunker. Has anything changed in this respect, we might ask?

Shane Greer: It's the Americans (that are) stupid

This is the first of a series of five fisks I'm doing of recent frontpages of The Independent newspaper.

At first it might appear that the Independent is simply making another tiresome attack against one of its favourite targets, President Bush. But if one lifts the veil of characteristic simplicity of the front page, an altogether more worrisome message is revealed. That message is one of rampant anti-Americanism, along with a more subtle – but no less important – air of anti-western sentiment.

However at a time when our very existence, our freedom, liberty, and democracy – the values we originally fought for and rescued from potential fascist domination – are under attack from Islamofascists, it is humbly submitted that we should rejoice in the similarities we share with our American cousins, rather than hammer wedges between our subtle differences.

The Iraq war may not be popular, but it started with the best of intentions; a perceived threat (valid or not) which had to be dealt with. The time for questioning the validity of the war has long since passed; instead our efforts should be expended on determining the best way to bring the war to its conclusion. We need to define the parameters of victory, and establish the most efficacious way of delivering that victory.

Cranmer: Archbishops to go on slavery "guilt march"

News report by Dipesh Gadher in yesterday's Sunday Times:

"THE Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to lead thousands of “pilgrims” carrying a giant cross through London to repent for the Church of England’s complicity in the slave trade."

It is a rare moment indeed when the words ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’ and ‘lead’ appear in the same sentence.

It is a bizarre sense of spiritual priority that the Church should bring to the attention of the media the sins of those died a couple of hundred years ago, while the needs today’s widows and orphans go ignored.  The poor and outcast live in poverty and loneliness, while the Church seizes a media opportunity to remind us all that the Archbishop of Canterbury is still alive. 

"Moments of quiet reflection will punctuate the procession as African drummers beat a sombre lament."

Ironic, don’t you think, that the nation that once sent missionaries to Africa is now beholden to them for their dedication to the Word of God, and the passion of their worship.

"The march will culminate in a symbolic “release from the past”, possibly in the form of a replica slave auction notice being torn up or shackles being removed from the cross."

Only God can forgive sins, but in his absence, a bit of theatre to ‘symbolise release’ will suffice.  Just as long as the cameras get it.

"Displays of remorse have been spearheaded by politicians. Just two months ago Tony Blair expressed his “deep sorrow” for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, although he stopped short of a full apology."

Because he is simply incapable of saying ‘I’m sorry’.  It is easier to apologise vicariously for centuries-old misdemeanours than to take responsibility for one’s actions in the present.  It may be that his whole relationship with Mr Bush is founded on his heartfelt apology for the price of tea in Boston, or his involvement in Northern Ireland because he has truly repented of the potato famine.   

"John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, is leading the national commemorations."

God, indeed, help us.

"Organisations including English Heritage and the National Trust have joined in, expressing regret that some of the properties they own were built with slave money."

Of course, very many slaves were ill treated, but the New Testament is replete with examples of slaves who were content with their status in life.  Many escaped abject poverty and embraced their new life.  It is absurd to try to fully understand the past by viewing it through the prejudices and hang-ups of the present.

"Critics, however, believe that laying all the blame for slavery on Europeans is misleading. Arabs traded slaves from a much earlier date, while African kings and merchants were responsible for capturing their kinsmen and selling them to traders in exchange for goods and firearms."

Indeed, indeed, but let us not dare offend any ethnic minorities.  If Arabs once traded slaves, undoubtedly they were corrupted by the evil West and the Great Satan.  And African kings are still capturing their kinsmen and exchanging their ill-gotten gains for firearms.  Yet did not the future King of the United Kingdom shake hands with Robert Mugabe at the funeral of Pope John Paul II?  The Archbishop should indeed repent of this on behalf of the Prince of Wales, who brings judgement upon us all.

"Worshippers will be asked to sign a petition calling on the government to take action against modern-day slavery, such as sex trafficking from eastern Europe."

That’s nice, another petition, just like all the others that end up in No10’s shredding machine.  I can hear the Lord now… Don’t march in public, don’t pray so the cameras can see you, but feed the starving, comfort the lonely, weep with those who weep… 

Phil Taylor: Burning books on the public payroll

Lee Jasper was the ring leader of a rag bag of self-styled anti-fascist campaigners who were hounding English National Ballet prima ballerina Simone Clarke on Friday.  The protest happened on a Friday afternoon so I guess Jasper, who is the London Mayor's extremely highly paid director for equalities and policing, must have been doing it in work time.  At least most of the rest of us were at work on Friday afternoon.  He was interviewed by Andrew Bomford (approx 16 min in) on behalf of BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House which went out on Sunday morning.  Here is the interview and my observations.

Lee Jasper (introducing himself): "Lee Jasper, secretary of the National Assembly Against Racism and advisor to the mayor Ken Livingstone."

It seems that Jasper does not understand basic concepts like conflict of interest.  Is Jasper a local government officer or an activist?  He seems to want to have his cake and eat it.  His organisation received £50K from the Mayor in 2004/5 and £60K a year for three years from 2005/6 to 2008/9.  Meanwhile Jasper has received a salary from the GLA for many years. 

Andrew Bomford: "We would know nothing about her political views if it wasn't for that Guardian article which outed her in the first place.  So yes, she talked to the Daily Mail, but presumably they approached her and asked her the questions." 

Bomford quite reasonably points out that she has not thrust herself into the media spotlight. 

LJ: "Well, it's morally reprehensible for a modern multicultural society like London.  It's vital that we defend multiculturalism.  And the air of democracy doesn't extend to people who have racist and fascist views."

Jasper splutters incoherently.  We are not sure what it is that is morally reprehensible.  I suspect that if he spelt it out it wouldn't sound that bad really.  The consensus around multiculturalism has been massively rolled back over 2006 and only a few people who depend on the idea for their income are defending it anymore.  I think Jasper will find that the surest cure for racism and fascism is the "air of democracy" or more accurately perhaps free speech.  Jasper's view seems to be that anyone who questions mass immigration is a racist and fascist and should be gagged.  For him multiculturalism is king even if people don't want it.

AB: "Do you think that it's wrong for people in her sort of position, public positions, to hold any sort of extreme views?  What about on the left wing for example?  You know, would it be wrong to support organisations like Herri Batasuna or Hamas or Hezbollah and have the kind of position which she holds?"

Bomford now goes off piste and draws a moral equivalence between a legally constituted, if simple minded, British political party that makes no overt threats of violence to anyone and three organisation that are either officially proscribed terrorist organisations and illegal in Britain or act as mouthpieces for such organisations.  It seems if you are left wing you are bad if you actually kill people but if you are right wing you are bad if you just say stuff. 

LJ: "Can you imagine the furore if she was a member of some proscribed, so-called Muslim extremist organisation?  We would never hear the last of it.  I think it is not different for the extreme right.  We have a ballerina who has declared her view, knows and understands that the party is considered racist, and is still positively advocating for them.  She is in the public domain.  She's paid by the public purse.  Simply not good enough.

Jasper endorses the moral equivalence and then distorts Clarke's views, effectively calling her a racist.  Jasper cannot work out that it is inappropriate for he himself to be "paid by the public purse" and to go around harassing people at their place of work with loud-hailers. 

 

All of the people interviewed by the media over the last few days on this subject were associated with the National Assembly Against Racism, Unite Against Fascism or Love Music, Hate Racism all of which are funded by or connected with the London Mayor and his agit prop on the rates style of local government.