Why Labour? Why now?

Justin asks what has changed in Labour that you should rejoin it:

Can New Labour remodel itself as ‘progressive’ (whatever that means these days) even if it wanted to? This is what puzzled me about the people who crashed the New Labour website the other night in their stampede to rejoin the party. Nothing has changed just because Gordon Brown has shuffled off to spend more time with his sulk. Does a Miliband or a Balls have the emotional intelligence to notice and care about this stuff, let alone point it out?

The rush to (re)join Labour is proof of two things: visceral hatred of Tories in government and the ongoing failure to establish a proper leftwing alternative to Labour. It’s true that all the bad authoritarian, warmongering impulses of New Labour still exist, but I think people felt they had no choice. It is a reasonable assumption to think that bad as New Labour was, the Tories will be worse and with the Liberals in bed with them, the only place left is Labour…

Labour was awful when it came to civil rights, authoritarian and downright evil in places (War on Iraq, treatment of refugees), but for better or worse is still seen as slightly less evil than the Tories — the memories of what they did to the working classes the last time they were in power still remain.Labour quite frankly is the lesser of two evils, despised on what they did in the past thirteen years but few people have any illusions the Tories would’ve behaved better, which why now Labour has been punished people instinctively flow back towards it.

This may be a blessing in disguise, if an organised left can be established in the party to take it back from the Blairites/Brownies, but it will take years. Tony and Gordon’s acolytes are too firmly entrenched, hold all the positions of power in the party to be quickly gotten rid off. The next election will be crucial: if New Labour is still in power in the party and win the election, they will never be removed.

You can compare it with the Democratic Party in the US: after Bush stole the elections in 2000, and especially after 2002/03 when there was a huge antiwar movement with no real political home, there was a chance to move the Democrats to the left, but the centrists won the powerstruggle, sidelined the activists and just waited until the Republicans became unpoplar enough to lose the election.

A leftward turn is needed for Labour, but it can only be forced upon the party. Those who joined out of disappointment with the Lib-Dems need to be politcally active in the party to do so. Now’s the chance to win the party back.

Best news of the election


LOLGriffin

The defeat and self destruction of the BNP:

In the next 12 hours, Griffin’s worst fears were realised – and even exceeded. The party was thrashed in its two key parliamentary constituencies of Barking and Stoke Central. Its record number of council and parliamentary candidates failed to make a single breakthrough; and of the 28 BNP councillors standing for re-election, all but two were beaten.

But the Barking and Dagenham council election result was the most dramatic. The BNP had plans to take control of the authority – instead, it lost every one of its councillors there. Twelve elected in 2006. Twelve thrown out in 2010. A ruthless purge, more shocking because they didn’t see it coming. Neither, for that matter, did their opponents. It was the miracle of Barking.

According to one analyst quoted in the article, Tony Travers, of the London School of Economics, the reason the BNP was so soundly defeated was that Labour pulled its finger out of its ass and started campaigning against them:

“It would appear that the vote for the BNP in 2006 was some kind of political cry of anguish, based on the perception that the Labour party simply didn’t understand the concerns of that part of the electorate. The fact that the BNP has been dropped in 2010 heavily suggests this section of the electorate now believes it has got the attention of the Labour party.” Back in 2006, the morality of supporting an intrinsically racist party wasn’t an issue, says Travers. “The voters simply used the most shocking mechanism they could to get Labour’s attention.”

But there is good and bad in that conclusion. Good because it suggests people in Barking voted BNP for reasons other than racism and antisemitism. Bad because if it was all a means to an end, did no one consider the impact on community relations of voting for the far right?

The BNP vote as a form of protest? Perhaps, but there is a hardcore of racist voters as well, as well as more people who more or less agree with the BNP’s (public) views on immigration etcetera but who usually vote out of other concerns. It might also just be that the more serious economic concerns, as well as the genuine three way race this time made voting for racists a bit of a luxury. Finally, it should always be remembered that defeating the BNP does not matter if it means other parties taking over parts of their rhetoric and political programme. Under New Labour we’ve had a gradual rightward march on immigration and treatment of refugees, which, even if it was just embraced as a tactical measure, has led to real misery on the ground — see Chickyogs passim for evidence.

Attack of The Twitterati

What are they putting in Sky News‘ office coffee machine these days, crystal meth?

You’d think so, judging by the behaviour of Sky News presenters Adam Boulton and Kay Burley today….

But first a few words of explanation.

One of the most highly-trending topics on Twitter during the past day or so has been #don’tdoitnick. It’s been an attempt by twitterers to stop LibDem leader Nick Clegg forming an alliance with David Cameron’s Tories. Part of the action was a flashmob on College Green this afternoon.

It’s outside Parliament and always chosen by publicity hungry demonstrators, because a] it’s small and thus makes the protest look huge and b] it’s easy for the major media outlets to get to (especially as this afternoon, pre-El Gordo’s resignation announcement, they had bugger-all else to do).

In this YouTube video, Sky News presenter/reporter (I hesitate to dignify her with the title ‘journalist’ in this instance) Kay Burley interviews one of the protesters. She gets very shrill indeed, not to mention political, and starts shrieking at the quietly reasonable interviewee:

Sky, or rather Murdoch’s News Corp, supports the Conservatives, the party the twitterers are there to try and stop the LibDems forming a coalition with. If they were to form a coalition, the Tories could be the next UK government. There’s a palpable conflict of interest there, and Kay Burley’s not even making a pretence of being a disinterested reporter.

The protesters wouldn’t let it lie. “Sack Kay Burley! Sky News Is Shit!” – not only did they heckle her on live tv:

but before the end of the afternoon #sackkayburley became one of the top trending hashtags in the UK.

But it wasn’t just one shrieking Murdoch presenter – it was two. This wasn’t an isolated incident; cut to later the same day, and here’s Sky’s senior political reporter losing it in an interview with Blair’s former spin doctor Alistair Campbell:

(via Political Scrapbook, the best bit is at 4.00 min)

Boulton and Burley are hardly the Bill O’Reillys of UK tv, (USAnians would probably find their behaviour quite tame in comparison), but it’s clear to see that they are from the same stable.

All use the classic News Corp interview technique – shout loudly in order to drown out reasonable argument and if that doesn’t work, try to intimidate the interviewee out of challenging you further by the use of force majeure (ie turning off the camera).

But what these Murdoch employees really have in common is the whiff of panic they give off – it may be panic that they are no longer at the cutting edge of making and reporting news, or panic that any mere civilian should think they have the right to challenge them; or it could just be panic about the continuing existence of their jobs, as the news narrative (despite their blogs and online presence) slips out of their hands and into that of the public’s, via social networks and mobile devices. Or it may well be all of the above.

Whatever it is, it’s bloody good fun to watch.

UPDATE If only for completeness’ sake, here Boulton bollocks Ben Bradshaw.

‘If You Tolerate This Then Your Children Will Be Next’

Today is the 40th anniversary of the National Guard’s shootings of student Vietnam War protestors at Kent State University in Ohio.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – earlier today Martin posted about unwarranted police violence at a peaceable, permitted May Day protest in Rotterdamand this was his view on why the police attacked non-agressive, unarmed protesters:

I doubt that the police has explicitly gotten orders to crack down on political protests. If I had to guess I’d think that it’s a side effect to the Rotterdam police overreacting to what happened at the Hoek van Holland beach party of August last year — where inept policing and rioting football hooligans led to the police accidently shooting and killing an innocent man. Since then the Rotterdam police has become a lot harsher in dealing with potentially dangerous situations and since leftist demonstrations of this kind have always been seen as worrisome by them, it’s no surprise that this happened. Wrong, but not surprising.

I have to say, with all due respect, I disagree. Vehemently. State violence against dissenters is EU policy and therefore Dutch policy too.

The authorities’ violent response in Rotterdam, along with those at Kent State, Genoa, the G8 and G20 protests, Seattle, Minneapolis St. Paul, New York and countless other peaceful protests worldwide are part of an organised pattern of oppression and the silencing of popular opinion by supposedly democratic governments.Like I said back in 2007 when the Canadian police attacked a demo:

Protest isn’t all pink tutus, dogs on strings and rainbow flags: it can be fatal. Remember Carlo Giuliani, shot in the face, his head split like a melon by the wheel of a police landrover at Genoa? That’s what our democratic police are capable of when governments and elected representatives won’t listen and citizens feel forced to take to the streets to exercise their right to protest.

And the worst of it is, we’ve let them do it to us; rather than fight back, we’ve gone home scared, to watch ‘V For Vendetta’ on DVD and wish we could be braver human beings.

But it’s not very surprising is it, when just walking innocently through a demo on your way home from work can get you dead.

Oppressive violence against political dissenters is a feature of life under capitalism. After all, there’s money to be made from it:

Paramilitary political police on both sides of the Atlantic need only a discreet nod from the pols (and sometimes not even that) to go in joyfully and with boots, taser and fists. They love that sort of thing: that’s why they’re police. For every saintly murdered copper, devoted village bobby or innocuous deputy sheriff there are ten barely-controlled thugs with plenty of hate and plenty of gusto.

Every now and then they get let off the leash and someone notices. This time is was Salon. Then it all goes back to normal and soon these incidents just become part of the wallpaper of normal life, like warrantless wiretapping, torture, routine tasering or prison rape.

For anyone to expect that police on any continent will do anything but suppress any person or movement that might put their industry or jobs in jeopardy is very naive indeed.

I hate to keep quoting myself, but I don’t see the point of saying the same things year upon year in slightly different words. Police violence against dissenters is no occasional incident; to use that hackneyed phrase I’ve used so many times before, it isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

Our leaders can waffle on about their commitment to liberty band fredom for all – and don’t they just, here’s Gordon Brown pontificating on the subject in April 2008:

Among the measures he announced were:

• New rights of protest. This will mean watering down laws – introduced just four years ago – that ban any unauthorised protest within one kilometre of the Palace of Westminster.

• New rights of access to public information by extending the Freedom of Information Act to companies carrying out public functions, such as private prisons.

• Entrenched freedoms of the press to carry out investigative journalism.

• A review of the rule that allows Cabinet papers to be seen automatically only after 30 years.

• New rights against invasion of property after it emerged there are 250 laws allowing state agents to enter a home.

• A debate about a British Bill of Rights and Duties and the possibility of a written constitution.

Have we seen any of these things? Have we hell. We know what politicians mean when they waffle on about freedom:

That’s what the ‘freedom’ in Bush & Blair’s constantly reiterated talking point means – the freedom for capital to be entirely free of restraints, legal, moral or physical. The ‘democracy’ part refers to the periodic tv ratings contests that we laughingly call elections – and any pretence to those being free and fair is long gone, in the UK as well as the US. It doesn’t matter who you vote for really.
Even if you do go through the motions of voting, the only real power your representatives have is the power to decide which lobbyist’s request they will accede to, and what the quid pro quo will be.

The real business of governing, ie how to manage the electorate’s money, is done by unelected trade representatives, at talks in luxury settings, protected against dissent by cordons sanitaires of barbed wire and armed troops, for the benefit of those whose generous capital donations keep those governments triumphant in the ratings wars and in power.

And until we all get a bit braver, and have the gumption to stand firm in the face of state violence and tyranny, to fight back even, there’ll be even more Kent States.

UPDATE:

This sort of gumption:

A group of around 20 school teachers forced their way into the television studios of Greece’s state broadcaster NET on Monday evening, to protest against the government’s austerity programme.

Criminalising protest

BBC Newsnigft has finally taken notice of the way in which the police and criminal prosecution system are attempting to criminalise protest, in particular the protests against the Israeli invasion of Gaza last year:



It turns out a large proportion of the people being arrested were Muslims under anti-terrorism laws, rather than under say less stringent public nuisance laws, were tricked into pleadin guilty on the pretence that this would get them lighter sentences when in fact the judges in their cases had already decided to set examples and were not allowed to share evidence with each other, each case being treated seperately. Though several of these cases were later thrown out, this still has a chilling effect on the freedom to demonstrate, to know that you could be sentenced under terrorism law and hence could face jail time for “crimes” that in a non-political context would not be crimes at all or at worst punishable with community service.

More on Stop The War.