I unveil the first in a long series [perhaps not, ed.] of the Tuesday afternoon quiz. Today’s question:
What nickname did Private Eye frequently take great pleasure in referring to Peter Hitchens as?
Peter here using the Observer public lavatory
Answers in the comments thread please, the first person to answer correctly gets there name printed on these pages in red font.
Good luck!
Henrique Capriles Radonski’s popularity in Venezuela is a cause of concern for Hugo Chavez, now trying to hang on to his credentials while the Latin American country restricts electricity use for the second year running, suffers double digit inflation and increasing crime.
Radonski has put his name down as the candidate running for the Table of Democratic Unity (MUD), an alliance of conservative parties, and since doing so has seen his approval ratings shoot up in opinion polls, while Chavez’ approval drops.
The MUD candidate has vowed to adopt similar rhetoric to Chavez, particularly concerning programmes and welfare for the poor, but Chavez’ leading party, and the state owned media, will run a hot campaign against the Governor of Miranda, citing his alleged involvement and complicity in a siege of the Cuban embassy during the 2002 failed coup, an accusation the opposition candidate denies.
Another thing that Radonski himself has picked upon is references to his ancestry. While he identifies strongly as Catholic, his Mother was Jewish, and his great-grandparents were killed in a concentration camp. According to the candidate in an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, when the campaign for the 2012 presidency begins properly it is likely his Jewish background will appear as a focal point to undermine him.
He says this with some certainty because during the 2008 mayoral elections he was described by state media as a member of the “Jewish Zionist Bourgeoisie” and “genetically fascist”.
As an aside note, there is contention surrounding whether the term Jewish Zionist Bourgeoisie is one of antisemitism (the latter term clearly steps way beyond that mark). Lenni Brenner, American Marxist and supporter of the group “Jews Against Zionism”, in his book “Zionism in the Age of Dictators” (1983) once said:
What separates the Jewish Zionist bourgeoisie from the non-Zionist members of the same class is really only the fact that the Zionists are clearly aware that they can attain their interest as a class only in the domain of a unified people and no longer as mere individuals
Separating this paragraph from anything else he might have said before, what we see referred to here is a comment on capitalism, and though race is obviously referred to, the subject still rests upon national class relations.
How this aside is relevant to Chavez is the way he has dealt with Judaism and Zionism before. Whenever Chavez has been accused of being antisemitic in the past he has always quipped back that he is simply anti-Zionist, and that, like with the words of Brenner, even when he refers to Jewish Zionism, this isn’t a crack at Jews per se, but Zionists, and to a greater extent, US and Israeli imperialism.
But at the very least Chavez has failed, quite significantly, to address Venezuelan antisemitism (under his watch Venezuelan antisemitism and attacks on Jews have risen significantly) and curb unpalatable rhetoric from state television. Only recently did state-run radio broadcast a reading of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, during which the journalist reading Cristina Gonzalez expressed:
her admiration for the Jewish community and “non-Zionist” Israelis before plucking what she called “little pearls” from the book to explain to listeners why Zionists have been able to amass a concentration of power and wealth.
This is not the first time either. In 2008 on the same station, it was broadcast that:
Hitler’s partners were Jews…like the Rockefellers, who were Jews [Editors' note: The Rockefellers are not Jews]. These were not the Jews murdered in the concentration camps. [Those killed] were working-class Jews, Communist Jews, poor Jews, because the rich Jews were the ones behind the plan to occupy Palestine.
While in 2010 the pro-Chavez website Aporrea noted that the true essence of Judaism cannot be found in the Torah, “but in the realities of capitalism”.
There are other examples of concern, such as Chavez’ former adviser and confidante Norberto Ceresole who was a known holocaust denier, and his uncritical relationship with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but they are too numerous to list.
The battle for the 2012 elections will prove to be fierce, but it’s anyone’s guess how Chavez will organise against a conservative candidate with Jewish ancestry, given the unsavory territory state television will explore, leaving a very fine line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism proper.
I cannot afford to study for my MA degree, so I am forced to air my love of philosophical dirty laundry here, to an uninterested public.
Never the less, here goes:
1
Despite claims that Michel Foucault is a straight up Kantian, with Nietzschean pretensions, he notes in The History of Sexuality that it is the perception of injustice that counts over any universal notion of what injustice is.
2
In his lectures, entitled Society Must Be Defended, Foucault levelled criticism at modernity and modern political discourse for wanting to erase partisan historical struggle and replace it with a pacified universalism, as per the modern history of “philosophico-juridicial discourse” (according to Andrew W. Neal in his essay Goodbye War on Terror? Foucault and Butler on Discourses of Law, War and Exceptionalism).
3
The charge of postmodernist is usually levelled at Foucault for his reversal of Francis Bacon’s affirmation that knowledge is power (he preferred power is knowledge; those who have power decide the axis of knowledge); but over and above this Foucault’s postmodernism informed the ridiculous rationale for his support of Islamism, namely that of Iran – in brief, if it is against modernism, it’s worth its salt.
4
Foucault, according to Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson in their book Foucault and the Iranian Revoltuion: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism, note that the philosopher’s interest in the Iranian revolution was informed by what he called ‘political spirituality’; something higher than the mush implied in a universalist (as opposed to particular) notion of truth, established and pushed by a state. With Islamism, Foucault shared three main oppositions – to imperialism, colonialism, and modernity.
5
Though Foucault rejected grand narratives (as per postmodernism) he accepted the Islamism in Iran for what it was not, not what it was (itself a stab at imperialism and colonialism). Looked at another way, Foucault’s admiration for Islamism could open up his pre-modernism, where a sovereign state secures death for the living, as opposed to ensuring life against the enemy (a constituent feature of biopolitical power). But, in fact, Foucault sought something which subverted both truth and life as constitutive to politics (the liberalism inherent to neo-conservative projects) as well as political modernity.
6
In opining that hegemony consisted of truth as inseparable from power, Foucault did not concede that truth was obscured, but rather the domain – in its natural form – of partisan beings. For this reason, and others discussed above, Foucault’s thinking is postmodernist, and should be considered so in the archives.
Undeniably one of the major problems for the Left in this country is the art of communicating their ideas to an electorate in disproportionate receipt of briefing by the right wing tabloid media.
However it is not an impossible task. Some of the tricks include simple language, brevity, not appearing humourless (admittedly the Left have not always had their hand on this one) and the non-academicising of bread and butter issues.
The key here is to address noble ideas and beliefs in an appealing manner, not adopt unpalatable ideas in a way which appeases the tabloid press’ devotion to shock, awe and, at the end of the day, sales and profit.
My commitment to these beliefs is the reason why I have a major disagreement with Ed Miliband’s senior advisers.
Miliband has sustained attacks from the BBC, the Guardian (are Toby Helm’s prejudices creeping in?) and implicitly in the leaking of David Miliband’s speech, which he would have given had he won the Labour leadership contest (as Polly Toynbee has put it: “why now?“). To be sure he has to act, but the manner in which he acts is far more important than the symbolisation of doing so.
The Labour leader is reportedly preparing an attack on the “take what you can” culture. This is a jibe at city greed and benefit cheating, both of which certainly aren’t baseless. But what Miliband should not do is draw equivalency of the two.
According to a report by the Department of Work and Pensions in July 2010 benefit fraud costs the Treasury £1.5bn a year, whereas tax dodgers, according to Tax Research UK, cost Britain £123bn a year.
Now of course both are problems, but are by no means at a level pegging.
The way Ed Miliband needs to present these problems is by framing them in avowedly Labour language. He must reinforce a set of common sense proposals (to clamp down on greed; to ensure everyone receives their just deserts) while at the same time challenging, not reinforcing, the prejudices of the right wing tabloid press.
He must send a clear message of commitment to a universal insurance and welfare as a right of citizenry – something that the Tory-led coalition government, with their big society programme, seek to undo.
Owen Jones, in his new book Chavs, points out that much of the New Labour rhetoric was steeped in middle class triumphalism, examples of which could be found in James Purnell’s language about the lazy unemployed. By comparing benefit fraud to tax evasion, tax avoidance and city greed, Ed Miliband would be taking the party back to its New Labour ways, preidcated, as it was, on appeasement of right wing rhetoric.
Lastly, Miliband’s plan to pay homage to Peter Mandelson by saying: “I’m not only relaxed about [the rich] getting rich … I applaud it” is so ill-conceived as to require no further comment at all.
Cameron on TV this morning (10mins 30 secs):
I get people coming to my constituency surgery saying exactly that: “We waited before we got married until we could afford it, we waited till we could afford to have children, we waited and then we managed to get a house and I see someone down the road do none of those responsible things and they get put up in a council house, they have as many children as they want.”
Which council houses would these be then? West Oxfordshire Borough Council, in which Cameron’s consituency sits, got rid of its council housing in 2001.
The Guardian is in turmoil today after revelations of bias towards the South of England in its reporting.
The furore comes after it emerged that one of its reporters failed to take account of a small bike scheme in Lancashire, quite near Manchester, where the Guardian was started ages ago.
In a report entitled “All Aboard the Brighton Bike Train” , which is all about a bike train in Brighton (South of England somewhere), journalist Colette Bernhardt claimed “Theirs is the only daily scheme of its kind”.
However, it has now become clear that a daily bike train scheme started two years ago in Bickerstaffe (North of England). Press reports suggest that the scheme is highly successful. For example:
One third of the school’s pupils took part before the holidays, which means that over 70 children rode their bikes to and from school instead of being dropped off and picked up by car.
Paul Cotterill, who started the scheme and even gave 200 quid out of his bike allowance to buy all the gear, said last night:
I’m fuckin’ outraged. The Guardian’s supposed to be a fuckin’ northern fucking’ newspaper, and here it is only going on about Brighton (South of England) and not Bickerstaffe, which is in Lancashire. I spent fuckin’ loads of money on this and I wanna be in the fuckin’ paper with a big picture of my bike. The bastards.
Cotterill, who used to be a councillor but now enjoys swearing, said he would email the editor of the Guardian if he could be arsed, though he probably couldn’t be.
The Guardian was unavailable for comment over the incident, because we didn’t try to get hold of them.
There’s been a slightly obscure consultation process going on in the Labour party about what is the best structure for policy development.
Currently, the process is a well-intentioned, but complicated and dysfunctional ‘deliberative’ process involving 194 National Policy Forum (NPF) representatives, six policy commissions, a Joint Policy Committee made up of the shadow cabinet, the NPF and the NEC, and a three year cycle culminating in a ‘warwick-style’ get together to thrash out a policy agreement.
Relatively few people in the labour movement understand it, and probably even fewer trust it to deliver ‘effective policy’ (even this term is contestable.
Ultimately, the problem is that structure has been developed as a way of disguising power asymmetry in the party. I have responded to the consultation with this at the forefront of my mind, and proposed the abolition of current process in favour of one which acknowledges that power is (and should) always contested and contestable, and which puts accountability of senior party people at the heart of the process, rather than allowing them to use a complex ‘deliberative’ structure as shield.
This may come as a surprise to those who consider me, with some justification, a bureaucrat ‘par excellence’, but I think there are limits to the effectiveness of the kind of deliberative/semi-democratic centralism structures now in place, and Labour – if it really is to engage more members and non-members – needs to embrace the ‘messy’, but creative dynamics of contested power, scrutiny of and challenge to authority. In the end, I am more Steven Lukes than Harry Barnes.
Here are my answers to the main consultation questions.
What do we expect from our policy making process? What constitutes a successful policy making system for our Party?
A successful policy making process is one ne which creates a policy in support of the party’s key values.
That may seem obvious, but it’s important. The consultation document is wrong when it says (p8) that
The right result will be a system which supports us in developing a policy platform which will once again command the trust of the British people.
Such an objective for the policy-making process makes the party too subject to triangulation, and a set of policies thereby imposed upon us, ultimately, by a dominant media narrative.
It is perfectly acceptable as a process for the party to decide what its values (or its mission statement and overall objectives might be a better way to frame it) and then develop a trust-commanding position/narrative from there.
How do we best involve our members in policy making?
We need to abandon completely the current ‘deliberative’ process, and replace it with one which actually works. I will cover both why the current process does not work, and what we can replace it with.
The current National Policy Forum-based process was conceived and developed with the best of intentions, as a way of involving as many people as possible in policy development, but the time has come to accept that it simply doesn’t work.
The consultation document (p.8) suggests that
Partnership in Power [the name of the overall process] has in most people’s eyes been considered a success.
I am afraid this is either wishful thinking, or else the use of the term “most people” to mean people within the NPF and commissions. Most party members and affiiliate members are either unaware of the process or think it does not work.
Whatever the good intentions behind the PiP, it is simply not possible to develop an effective deliberative system to include so many people and so many constituent organisations. All that is created is a series of asymmetric power structures where those in position of party authority (necessarily) dictate the policy setting agenda to those not in authority (in local CLPs etc). Those without authorityy then lose faith in the process because they see no meangingful result of their input.
The most important point is that the current process lacks accountability. There is no-one within the process to whom ordinary members can go and ask about what happened to their or their branch’s policy submission, whether it was accepted, why it was rejected, and what’s going to happen now.
The lack of accountability is built into the structure by the way the NPF farms detailed policy development out to commissions, and the commissions report back to the NPF sructure to those who have submitted proposals, for example.
We need, then to build accountability back into the process.
The best way to do this is to abolish the cumbersome structures of the NPF/JPC etc., and invest both authority and accountability in the place where most members of the party see it invested anyway, and where they have a real and meaningful point of contact.
This is the local MP, or the local PPC where there is no Labour MP (see also below re: MEPs)
We need to establish a process – indeed culture - whereby branches/CLPs/affiliate groups, and perhaps also individual members, can make legitimate policy demands of their MP/PPC, asking them to promote their policy proposals and ideas.
The parameters for this process should not be set out from ‘on high’ as they are at the moment (with the six pre-defined policy areas), and the power to raise policy ideas/concerns should fit squarely with local parties. It should then be the job of the MP/PPC to feed these policy ideas directly towards the shadow cabinet/NEC (the ‘ex-JPC’), and to report back directly to local parties on what steps, with what level of success, they have taken.
This whole process should be part of a wider configuration of the MP/prospective MP role, whereby s/he should become answerable to the local party. Local MPs should start to see themselves as akin to the CEO of a charity, in which the members elect Trustees (in the form of CLP officers) to oversee theMP/CEO, and the MP/CEO presents, say, an annual business plan to the ‘trustees’ for approval of business expeenditure) and regular monitoring. These proposals are set out in more detail here and here, including proposals for changed financial arrangements for constituencies and constuency parties which will promote membership growth.
Where policy matters are expressed in local terms by local parties, it is up to the MP to extrapolate as need be to develop wider policy recommednations for submission to the Cabinet/NEC, in conjunction with other MPs as s/he feels necessary/useful. This is, of course, what happens when casework of councillors ends up becoming part of a wider polict debate in a Labour group, but on a larger scale.
To this end, MPs can of course avail themselves of existing structures like the regional MP groups should they feel this will be helpful in putting forward the policy recommendations of their local party (the group may need to be open up to PPCs).
This will create a much more dynamic structure for the policy making process, with accountability back to members built in as part of an MP’s performance bu which s/he is judged when it comes around to selection trigger points etc..
Of course unions will need their own route to the shadow cabinet/NEC.
What can we do to support our members and local parties in debating policy?
See above – make the MP the person who takes forward policy and reports back on their efforts to get local party policty adopted (sometimes it will not be, and this is acceptable if due explanation is given), and member involvement will follow.
How do we best do justice to the involvement of activists in policy making? How do we best communicate the work of PiP and feedback to those who get involved?
Abolish the PiP process as it exists at the moment, and develop feedback via MPs/PPCs. See above
How can we reach out to and involve the public? How do we ensure the issues raised by members of the public with Labour canvassers are reflected in our policy making process?
If MPs become the main accountable person, and the local party becomes enlivened/empowered through this new ‘Charity/CEO’ dynamic that I propose, it becomes a lot easier to engage members of the public in debate if those members of the public know they will get a meaningful, locally relevant answer back.
How can we best engage with external organisations, businesses and other groups on a local and national level?
As above, in respect of organisations and business at a local level.
Is the current three year cycle of policy development correct? What do you think of our current system of circulating policy documents for amendment – is it the best way of engaging people or is there a better method? Is there an alternative to the current process?
We should abandon the formality of the three year cycle.
It doesn’t actually matter that much whether there is ever a formal point at which there is a complete and agreed policy. We should accept that the process is dynamic, and our manifesto should reflect that – being the best statement of our policy position at that point in time.
How do we decide which policy issues to focus on? How do we deal with current and urgent issues in our policy making process? How do we ensure that the system is flexible enough to allow for speedy decisions where needed?
As above, the ‘we’ should be local party units, unconstrained by parameters set from on high. With the new process in place, policy ideas going forward from local parties via MPs/PPCs will start to reflect the main themes set out in local constituency ‘business plans’ set out by MPs for approval/adaptation/negotiation with and by CLPs.
Is the National Policy Forum the correct focal point for our policy discussions? What do you think of the NPF? How could it be improved? What should be the role of NPF representatives?
No, it should be abolished because it has no accountability back to members and local parties, and is therefore not trusted by them. See above.
How aware are you of the policy commissions and their role? How successful are they – could they be improved?
They may be successful in their own terms, but they should be abolished. See above.
Does the Joint Policy Committee work effectively? What should its role be?
This can remain (with the NPF part abolished) as the senior arbiter group on what is and isn’t current party policy, but this should be a dynamic process into which MPs and MP groupings (with PPCs) feed directly in on behalf of their lcoal parties (and report back from it directly).
What should be Annual Conference’s role in deciding policy? What is the best way for Conference to debate policy and how can we ensure debates are topical and relevant?
I am happy to accept that Annual Conference is now a media showcase, and not a decision-making forum.
The policy buck should stop with the cabinet, as long as the accountability measures set out above are built into the process. The focus should be on ensuring accountability and allowing mechansism for power and authority to be contested, not on structures designed to hide who has the power and authority.
How do we support policy discussion at regional and local level?
See above, but abandon regional policy discussions which currently simply add another lay of unaccountability.
Regional meetings should be about borad discussion, not decision making simply intended to feed into the NPF morass.
They should also provide an opportunity for the regional MP groupings to be held to account over how effectively they have collaborated over their different local parties’ plans/ideas.
With limited resources now and in the future a reality, what should be our priorities?
Abandon the cost of the NPF, strip out the layers as identified, and get on with the new accountable, dynamic process at local level.
Do you have any other thoughts, comments or ideas not covered in the above?
Wherever I have said MP/PPC, please also read MEP. Their larger geographic remit makes it slightly trickier to operate as set out above, but it is not difficult to integrate them into the new dynamic culture set out above.
I wish to apologise unreservedly.
I had been under the impression that I had made use of British aid money to save loads of children’s lives, including this little girl’s.
A figment of my imagination
Now, thanks to this intervention by experts in the field, I have seen the error of my ways. I now know that in fact I and my colleagues (pictured) squandered all the money on drink, loose women and corrupt officials.
I am truly sorry, and only glad that I have been shown the error of my ways. Thank the lord for libertarians, for they are never wrong.
He implied the foreign secretary was doing untoward things with his aide, now he tells fibbers about people at rallies. There must be something about the words “foreign” and “aid” or “aide” that makes Paul Staines hear only what he wants to hear.
(The message board reads: “Will I ever stop lying about the foreign [secretary's] aid[e]“)
Cameron has graciously told us that the April 2013 deadline for GP Consortia to be established no longer applies:
We will make sure local commissioning only goes ahead when groups of GPs are good and ready, and we will give them the help they need to get there.
This doesn’t, however, do anything to resolve the little matter that Primary Care Trusts are set to be abolished in April 2013 to make way for the GP Consortia, and are already a long way down the path to their own dissolution.
Chaos now awaits.
Let’s take my own area as an example. On 28th April my PCT, NHS Central Lancashire, held an extraordinary board meeting to sign off the formation of a PCT cluster with four other PCTs in Lancashire. It did so under “directional and not optional” guidance from the Department of Health, that such clusters should be in operation across the country by the end of June 2011.
The rationale for this clustering is simple. The NHS Central Lancashire board paper states:
The 2011/12 NHS Operating Framework set out the conclusion that it will not be possible to retain effective management capacity in all primary care trusts until their abolition in 2013, presenting unacceptable risks to quality and financial management. Between now and 2013, primary care trusts will therefore be retained as statutory organisations but there will be a consolidation of management capacity, with single executive teams each managing a cluster of primary care trusts.
The details may be slightly different in other areas, but this is happening everywhere in the country.
The horse has bolted, and Cameron’s stable door tactics need to be seen for what they are. PCTs no longer have the capacity to commission locally, with most of the key redundancies having taken place in the past year. The remaining staff are completely focused on handing over to the GP Consortia as best they can, and the idea that they can simply carry on commissioning as previously is laughable.
So what should NHS campaigners do now? Each area will have it’s own peculiarities, but broadly there are five interrelated things to get our teeth into in the short term:
1) Contact the Chair/Convenor of the Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee (at the Council) and request that an emergency meeting be convened to examine what Cameron’s statement means for the PCTs and the new Cluster. These scrutiny meetings should scrutinise whether the formation of cluster boards are now valid, given that the key rationale for their formation (the end of PCTs in April 2013) is in doubt.
2) Write to PCTs themselves/attend their board meetings and ask what steps are being taken to extend their lives beyond 2013 in a way which allows them to continue commissioning. Extraodinary board meetings to reconsider decisions taken on the basis of what are now changed facts should be demanded.
3) Attend cluster board meetings (there is also the issue of whether these are actually open to the public) and seek to scrutinise their validity (as above).
4) Get locally appropriate stuff in the press, focusing on a) the cluster boards as unaccountable/invalidly set up; b) the whole bloody mess that Cameron has created by delaying his intervention till it is operationally too late for PCTs to recommence their proper function.
5) Ask MPs to get on to the Shadow Health Sec, who should be demanding revised guidance from the centre.
None of this will resolve the operational chaos which is coming, but it might just bring about a better long term situation, with some local commissioning capacity reinstated while the broader battle is fought out.
Recent Comments