A letter to my MP, re: the takeover of BSkyB.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Maria Eagle MP
Garston and Halewood

Monday 11 July 2011

 Dear Maria Eagle,

I would like to know, among other things, how you intend to vote (should there be a vote) on the takeover of BSkyB?

As you know, the last week has seen the Murdoch empire brought into further disrepute. The actions of Mr Murdoch in the last week have seemingly only been taken to protect Ms. Brooks and the potential success of the BSkyB deal. At no point has any contrition been shown towards the victims, nor any apology proffered.

This suggests a blind malevolence that still informs the actions of Mr Murdoch and consequently the actions of his media outlets.

I would like you to acknowledge, regardless of the view one takes about common ownership in the media, that Mr Murdoch and News Corp are not suitable fixing points for what will potentially become an unrivalled degree of concentrated power.

Furthermore, I would like you to acknowledge that any debate over greater regulation of the tabloid press is of secondary importance to ensuring the moral credentials of the organisation to whom we are about to open the floodgates.

Further regulation of criminal behaviour should not be a government objective. In fact it is the complete eradication of such behaviours which should be desired and indeed expected given the evidence which has for many years has been in possession of the police.

It is not enough to allow unfit owners to further contaminate the media whilst using reform of press regulations to paper over a glaring sense of moral bankruptcy. I would like you to lobby the government to immediately block the takeover of BSkyB as a matter of urgency, so as to address the underlying issue of corruption of an individual reputation.

Finally, I would like to know your views on the inertia which has characterised the actions of the Metropolitan police when faced with the need to investigate News International. Are you particularly troubled by this inaction in light of the fact that News International executives have admitted to personally authorising payments to the police?

I hope that the Labour Party and yourself are aware of how unacceptable it would be to allow the Murdoch empire back into bed with the political establishment. The British political elite have for too long thought it necessary to keep Murdoch onside as a means to keep the public onside. This has now been turned on its head, in order to keep the public onside it is necessary for both Labour and the Conservative party to maintain a considerable and permanent distance from Murdoch and his grubby media cabal.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Grace.

The Royal Wedding & the Need to Shout About It

In the build up to the day that Commander Christine Jones and the Met have designated as one only for " pageantry and joy", the lack of even the slightest stirring of a republican protest movement is surprising.

The increasingly ferocious anti government protests in the capital and around the country have taken many by surprise in the last 8 months. There are undeniably a burgeoning number of people who have found it necessary to push at the boundaries of political dissent as they hear their democratic voice being reduced to a muffled murmur. An even larger number have been mobilised to attend one of the scores of anti-cuts marches that have taken place in various cities. Of late there has been little talk of 'apathetic Britain'.

On Friday though, all whilst our welfare state and public sector are being slowly bled out, no expense to the public purse will be spared. Despite this, it seems the streets of London will be sadly devoid of Sex Pistols imagery and instead saturated with a depressing mass of union jacks and party hats.

Surely this would have provided the ideal opportunity for high profile, widespread protests? Firstly for those who oppose government cuts, secondly for those latent Republicans, those who can see only vulgarity and blood money in the Windsor clan, those who love democracy more than transmissible titles; I am not so cynical as to believe that these people are a small minority. Why then have the only applications for large scale protests been made by extremist organisations who provide no reflection of wider public opinion? It feels like a rare opportunity is going to terrible waste.

Despite the apparent lack of a credible protest movement for this Friday, the Metropolitan Police have been very careful to tell us all what we should be thinking and doing for the big day.

"
..this is a day of celebration, joy and pageantry. It is a fantastic day for Britain. Any criminals attempting to disrupt it, be that in the guise of protest or otherwise, will be met by a robust, decisive, flexible and proportionate policing response."

It's hard not to notice the less than surreptitious connection that Commander Jones makes between criminality and protest. The Met are seemingly so concerned with spontaneous outbreaks of dissent, that not only are such dissenters pre-ordained as likely criminals but they are furnished with the official police line on what their exact emotions should be, should they be stricken with an improper and unfitting sense of rage.

In the run up to this inglorious celebration of our ingrained democratic chasm, I suppose it is only fitting that the Met are giving increasingly illiberal press conferences. That said, it would be unfair for the Met to shoulder the blame for a very specific form of apathy amongst an otherwise highly engaged political demographic.

What about those who will be sitting, guffawing in front of their televisions on Friday, marvelling at the peculiarity of it all? Will their voices be wilfully silent? What about the victims and soon-to-be victims of economic austerity? Where will they be as millions upon millions of pounds of public money is frittered away on 'Britain's big day'? Where will those who value democracy be whilst the party for hereditary privilege rages? Why not go along with a catchy slogan and diversify the inhabitants of central London? It's not too late.

 

Republished at LiberalConspiracy.org – 27/04/11

The Libyan Rebels & the Anti-War Left.

The scepticism of those on the anti-war left in regard to the Libyan intervention, although understandable, has often taken confused and confusing forms.

Those who would have us leave Gaddafi alone will often point out the inconsistency that has watered the roots of western foreign policy for decades. 'Our governments have, after all, sold many stockpiles of heavy artillery to the besieged Colonel, and now we want him removed? What stinking hypocrisy is this?' This argument seems to form part of the foundation of the anti-interventionist line of attack.

The argument goes still; 'Since we have aided Gaddafi by arming him to the teeth, further involvement in Libya is an imperialist step too far. We loaded Gaddafi's weapons caches which he now uses on his own people, in light of this we can't trust our governments to have any positive impact on Libya.'

This I'd contend, is a specious argument. Non-interventionism would not have been a policy of neutrality. Had there been no UN Security Council Resolution, and no 'no fly zone', we'd still have to live with the fact that we have intervened in Libya, although the weight of our intervention would have given advantage only to Gaddafi in his mission to violently defeat the uprisings.

As desperately immoral as arming him indeed was, making no attempt to redress this is allowing for our weapons sales to define our involvement in the conflict.

'The conflict is likely to be long and drawn out, potentially leading to a prolonged stalemate or a civil war.'

The necessity of a plan for victory is highlighted by the elongated and tumultuous engagement in Iraq. But in such efforts to plan for what we determine as a justifiable conflict we ought to be careful not to put too loud a ticking clock on our involvement. Such timescales only provide a date on which the opposition can focus their determination to hold out. Such open desperation to withdraw from Afghanistan has doomed that country to a prolonged misery. The Taliban are encouraged to play the long game, wait for inevitable withdrawal and the reinstatement of their free reign to terrorise and oppress. Our withdrawal from Afghanistan may as well be tomorrow, so deeply inscribed is the writing on the wall. But it need not be this way with Libya.

'But what about all the murderous despots we chum up, or turn a blind eye to for the sake of oil or other economic interests? What about the innocent people who die as a result of unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan?'

I am not here to argue as to the perfection of Western foreign policy. Indeed I would be among the first to acknowledge that there is very rarely any good that comes from our surreptitious or overt involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. But Gaddafi relinquished his country's sovereignty when he instructed the military to fire upon innocents and made our intervention not only mandated but morally prescribed. As it is in Libya, so it is in Syria and Yemen where the UN's collective turning of backs is a moral outrage, as some on the anti-war left are strangely quick to point out.

Also an outrage, as Johann Hari points out, is the Obama administration's killing of thousands of civilians in Pakistan via drone strikes coupled with faulty and imprecise intelligence. This policy draws attention to the blood that manages to lie discretely beneath the fingernails of many Western leaders. But this is not genocide; this is not a direct targeting of civilians because they want to claim for themselves the right to self determination and basic self respect. As grubby as the action of the US Remote Control Corps in Pakistan might be, it does not invalidate the US' responsibility to protect and nurture the sparks of freedom that flicker in eastern Libya. If our leaders are not to be trusted in Libya, then who's are? In the absence of a morally qualified and powerful enough entity, should Gaddafi just be left to get on with it because there's nobody suitably unblemished to oppose him?

Not only do I find confusing the suggestion that since we are so hopelessly malign in the majority of our foreign policy dealings, we must abstain from siding with a just, humanitarian cause, I am also confounded by another logical paradox;

Imagine a utopia in which western foreign policy was virtuous and consistent to the letter, imagine never having to feel conflicted in your support for the operations of our military forces. What a perfect world it would be. But if the absence of such perfection forms a main strand of the anti war argument, by those terms would perfection's presence make our intervention justifiable?

I can see perfectly well the virtues of arguing that our country follows a course of action that would be consistent with its behaviour were our foreign policy morally unimpeachable. Arguing the reverse is to argue that we are far too immoral and contaminated with oil lust to be involved in the prevention of genocide. Such casuistry is not befitting of respected figures of the left.

A vigorous anti-war movement is an ever present in any healthy society, although ironically such vigour is often symptomatic of the unsavoury elements that can pass through the coarse sieve of democracy. Despite their honourable grounding, it seems that some of the anti-war left in Britain is now so blinded by a confused anti-imperialism that all nuance of international responsibility is lost on them. They seem unable to see a Security Council resolution brimming with checks and balances designed to prevent the type of imperial yearnings that eviscerated any hope of a happy ending in Iraq.

Nobody knows what the future holds for the people of Libya. It seems to me though, that when any nation of people calls out to us and our government with an emergent democratic voice, our obligation is to do what we can to amplify that voice. The alternative is to continue the shameful cycle of anti-democratic foreign policy and allow it to be silenced.

Public Disorder & The Real Enemies of Democracy

Following this month's student protests in central London and across the country, the left has found itself polarised over the position of the uncross-able line when it comes to political dissent. In every news report, the proposition is put squarely before us that we are obliged to play by the rules of peaceful protest. The received opinion amongst the entirety of the right (and a good proportion of the left too) is that if a protest is to be democratic then it must also be entirely passive.

There is however a sizeable minority that posits an alternative theory, which is that if we are to defend democracy with any success then there should be no obligation to play by the rules of those who flout it.

Where can we conscionably lay the uncross-able line when the electorate is this far marginalised through evaporating promises and pledges? This is not simply a case of protesting against a policy that isn't appealing, or is distasteful and not to our advantage. It's not just a minority interest that wants to influence the government into making a decision one way or another. Rather, it is about making a fuss over the casual repeal of the fundamental ethical columns of our social democracy.

Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats, as the subtle facilitators of state hostility, have the most to answer for. They directed their election campaign at those who oppose tuition fees and those who oppose public sector cuts. When those votes were won, they used them to help raise tuition fees and to decimate the public sector.

Feast your eyes;

 

Nick Clegg in April 2010:

"Of course I would vote against cuts which would destroy any chance we would have of having a sustainable recovery."

Nick Clegg in May 2010:

"No-one went into politics to seek to deliver cuts but we all know as a country it is necessary."

What a difference a month makes. A new government can usually hope to live through a honeymoon period in which they retain their idealistic aesthetic, but the actions of Nick Clegg in May of this year has brazenly lain bare the transient nature of those in whom we place our hopes and dreams. Making catchy sound bite pledges is just a tactic, seen as a mere form of political expediency, before the inevitable turning of backs on the arguments that have granted them democratic legitimacy.

If there were to be any doubt with regard to the sincerity of Nick Clegg, it soon became apparent that he had in fact changed his mind about the need for cuts in the months preceding the election, he had just failed to convey that sentiment to the electorate.

A simple question, do the actions of Nick Clegg appear in service of the Athenian ideal, or in fact are they the actions of a man who is prepared to do and say what is necessary to gain elected office and increase his influence?

A line has been crossed. Those who seek office and then immediately abandon their voters are viciously undermining our democracy. This is a truth which seems to remain largely unspoken in the mainstream press, while those who participate in disordered protest are castigated even by those on the left as the great enemies of democratic debate.

In times such as this, a protest which is controlled and limited becomes paradoxical; it becomes the illusion of rebellion. Your every action of defiance must be pre-approved by the authorities. Those in power can not be effectively called to account when police are able to keep people from protesting where they want and from going home when they want. That is an exercise of power rather than a challenge to it. Instead, it is the patience and the will of the protestors that is challenged as their simmering anger is kettled into the shape of cowered resignation.

Our democracy is hijacked.

In such a state of emergency, there is a strong argument for protests which reject the regulations put upon them, as long as they strategically target their disorder upon property and not individuals.

It is not the civil disobedience of those young people who occupied Millbank or those kids who spray painted slogans of revolution on government buildings that undermine democracy; they are amongst those who advocate it most fiercely. They know when they are being denied it and they are not willing to submit to kettling and batons when they go out on the streets to express their rage.

For several small interludes in the past month the manipulated have pulled the strings, briefly, desperately and beautifully. Democracy has peeked through the cloud, unencumbered by relentless obscurantism, and shone on Whitehall in defiance against its enemies.