|
|
« September 2008 |
Main
| November 2008 »
This week's Newsnight investigation into what really happened in South Ossetia raised serious questions about David Miliband's stance on the issue.
While the outcome of the inquiry wasn't conclusive, it did seem to come down more on the side of the Russian version of events - that they had stepped in to defend the South Ossetians against a brutal attack (as I had argued here).
For the first time a TV team from the West showed the terrible devastation caused by the Georgian ground-rocket and tank bombardment of the apartment blocks of Tskhinvalli, the capital of the breakaway territory. The piece also included harrowing interviews with some of the grief-stricken survivors who spoke of the loss of their loved ones.
Reference was made to a Human Rights Watch statement which accused the Georgians of the indiscriminate use of force, in contravention of the Geneva Convention and of possibly targeting civilians, which would be a war crime. The organisation estimated that some 300 to 400 civilians had been killed (compared with other estimates of over a thousand) but even this lower total represented about 1% of Tskhinvalli's population, equivalent to 70,000 in London.
Although the Georgians produced a tape which allegedly supported their claim that the Russians had started the war, the circumstances of its discovery (weeks after the attack) were highly suspicious while the evidence for the Russians arriving after the attack seemed to be much more convincing.
When David Miliband was confronted with the charge that the Georgians had attacked a sleeping town (the attack had begun close to midnight) and may have been guilty of war crimes he dismissed their action as a "tit-for-tat" response and emphasised what he called the "disproportionate nature of the Russian intervention. He went on to say that whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, this does not justify one country invading another.
Such a reaction is quite shameful from someone who is supposed to be upholding an ethical foreign policy. "Tit-for-tat" is hardly an expression that fits a full-scale assault on a capital city which seemed to be more in line with the Georgian President's electoral pledge to restore the lost territories than anything else. The expression has been used by close observers of the South Ossetian scene but only to describe the minor skirmishes between both sides that preceded the Georgian attack.
And even if the Georgian offensive was a tit-for tat response to these South Ossetian raids, accusations of disproportionality should surely be more properly levelled at a country that chose to retaliate by laying waste a capital city while its people slept in their beds. Indeed, the Russians could argue that that their response was proportionate to the disproportionality of the Georgian action.
As for the rights and wrongs of this matter not justifying the Russian invasion I beg to differ. If the Georgians were guilty of indiscriminate slaughter and possibly of war crimes, the Russians, with their close ties with the victims, were right to come to their aid (particular in circumstances where Georgia's claim to South Ossetia had been in dispute for many years). After all, the West had done something very similar in the Balkans.
At the very least Mr Miliband should have reserved judgement on the matter pending the outcome of a thorough investigation into the various allegations. Instead he has joined his Western colleagues in firmly putting the Russians in the dock, thereby risking a new Cold War and the non-cooperation of the Russians on issues that are vital to our welfare and the future of the planet.
If the condemnation of a country is to have such far-reaching consequences, an ethical foreign policy requires that this should only be done where the cause is an indisputably just one. Standing up for an ally that may have started an unjust war and commited war crimes in the process does not seem to meet this requirement.
Learning to let go
The great achievement of the Obama campaign was to couple effective campaigning with a vibrant grassroots activist community. His team did this by decentralizing control of the campaign, allowing supporters to self-organize and making barriers to participation as low as possible. This happened both in real world communities and people’s online networks. In the latter case, the campaign’s website and in particular the MyBO social networking tool proved to be vital.
Posted by Nick Anstead at Next Left on 30 October 2008
Let the Tories play to their obvious strengths
David Cameron and his shadow cabinet have been far more effective in venting their outrage at the crass calls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand than at advancing a single useful suggestion for dealing with the global economic crisis. Perhaps, rather than entrusting the clearly unprepared Opposition with the nation's governance, they could chair the BBC Trust instead? There is clearly a vacancy at the top there, and one that plays to the Opposition's true interests and strengths.
Posted by Conor Ryan at Conor’s Commentary on 30 October 2008 at 13:07
Avoiding the temptations of boom and bust morality
As I have said in previous postings, it would be a good thing if the economic downturn causes us all to pause for thought. As millions of people suffer, some who are the authors of their own fate, others who are innocent victims, there will be a debate about the relationship between merit and reward. Generally, we didn’t care that much about the riches of the City and celebrity culture when we were all doing well. We won’t feel the same over the near future.
Posted by Matthew Taylor on 29 October 2008 at RSA
Encouraging news from Glenrothes where - in case the world financial crisis and tales of Russian oligarchs had made you forget - a byelection campaign is in full swing.
Today’s Herald reports bookies saying Labour is beginning to draw level in the odds with the SNP, with a William Hill spokesman saying: ‘Since Gordon Brown went up to Glenrothes we have not taken a penny on the SNP and a Labour victory now looks on the cards.’ All of which calls into question predictions that the party was certain to suffer another crushing defeat.
One reason for Labour’s rising prospects could be the economic crisis, Brown’s handling of which has seen his poll ratings rise significantly.
Furthermore, as Judith Fisher points out in her recent Progress column, the economic crisis has called into serious question the SNP's independence campaign, exposing it as a perilous course of action at a time when states are ever more reliant on one another. ‘The idea of cutting ourselves off from our largest trading partner seem a ludicrous proposition at a time when even the US is being pulled in to a coordination of fiscal policy,’ she writes, adding: ‘In an independent Scotland, both RBS and HBOS would have failed. We would not have had the capital for either to be nationalised or secured. It’s likely that our financial institutions would have faced the same plight as Iceland’s.
But the main reason for the campaign’s progress may lie in its resolute focus on local issues, reminding voters of the shortcomings of the the SNP-led council. As BBC political correspondent Iain Watson observed when he interviewed members of a social club in the constituency: ‘What I’d stumbled upon was the result of a key element of Labour's campaign in the constituency. It was not all about the prime minister being the man to lead us through difficult times. It was instead much more focussed on attacking the SNP-led local council.’
Labour’s candidate, Lindsay Roy, told Watson that this was the key difference between the Glenrothes and the Glasgow East campaigns. ‘Here, the SNP have a track record to defend,’ he said. ‘They run the local council. People don’t trust them - they are imposing charges on the elderly.’
Watson concluded: ‘From my limited experience, it seemed like these campaign messages were hitting home with some voters.’
Interestingly, one of the pledges the SNP is using to woo Glenrothes voters is to reduce prescription charges and eventually abolish them altogether, a measure that Lord Lipsey, writing in the latest edition of Progress magazine, argues wastes money and does not end up helping those most in need (you can read the article on the Progress website tomorrow).
Ed Thornton
Some time ago I complained to the BBC about a “Mock the Week” sketch in which fun was made of David Blunkett’s blindness and the fact that Gordon Brown can only see out of one eye. The BBC defended the sketch on the basis that those in the public eye were fair game and that what some may find offensive the vast majority will find hilarious. The full story is set out in a previous piece I did for the Progressive which can be clicked on here.
Obviously no lessons were learned, since the BBC have been at it again, allowing their star presenters, Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, to perpetrate an even more offensive stunt on one of our most treasured actors. This time, the Beeb's misjudgement has rightly caused a national furore, with the Prime Minister himself speaking out against the peurile pair.
But in my view there is more to this matter than whether taxpayers' money should be used to handsomely reward such crass behaviour. Or whether or not Ross and Brand should be sacked.
The affair is symptomatic of the yob culture that has taken root in the mass media in the guise of that euphemistic expression, "edgy humour". Yobbish jokes on the radio and the telly, which have no regard to taste or civilised values legitimise yobbish conduct and attitudes in the community.
Tolerating the broadcasting of such vulgar excesses should be no part of a progressive agenda concerned about the quality of our lives. At least we can rein it back in that part of the media that lies within the public realm.
We should do it now, if only to stop Lord Reith spinning in his grave.
They Just Don’t Get It #6: The Global Economic Summmit
So the global economic summit designed to rethink the world’s financial architecture is going to happen in Washington next month. The White House said it will be an important opportunity for world leaders to
enhance their commitment to open, competitive economies, as well as trade and investment liberalisation.
Investment liberalisation!? Isn’t that the problem? Surely if this meeting should be about anything, it should be about investment regulation not liberalisation. Let’s hope whoever takes over at the White House does get it.
Posted by Adam at ToUChstone on 22 October 2008 at 9:40pm
Let's worry about saving lives rather than speed cameras
There's a very British school of thought that feels that breaking motoring law is alright really, while breaking other laws would not be. And the whole thing is rolled up in a coating of macho-ism that accuses anyone on the other side of the argument of just being a big woolly liberal do-gooder - as if these were bad things to be.
Posted by Rachael Jolley at Next Left at on 23 October 200812:30
Brace ourselves for Glenrothes
The overall picture from the doorsteps of Glenrothes is that Labour and the PM are a lot more popular than we were at the time of the Crewe and Nantwich or Glasgow East by-elections, but that this is being trumped by the continued electoral honeymoon of Alex Salmond's SNP administration in Scotland. The chances of us holding this seat are, unfortunately, minimal.
Labour folk from the PLP down need to get their heads round that so that the 6 November result is not a shock or trauma that drives us back into the kind of panic that existed before Conference, but something that as a professional political party we have anticipated, planned for, and can take in our stride.
Posted by Luke Akehurst on 23 October 2008 at 7:48am
Why there is no Bradley effect for Obama
It’s a certainty that Obama has forfeited some support due to prejudice. But there’s no reason to think the polls haven’t picked this up: there are plenty of ‘legitimate’, non-racial reasons that swing voters might have for preferring McCain to Obama: experience, ‘toughness’, his war record and any number of policy issues.
And it’s possible, of course, that the polls are wrong for other reasons. We’ll find out soon enough.
Posted by Tom Freeman at Freemania on 23 October 2008 at 1:55pm
Obama’s strong lead and campaigning strengths
As a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I confess I was sceptical about Barack Obama. I felt he was policy-lite and that he would be scuppered by the Republican attack machine. Twelve days out from the election - with many people already voting - I have to confess I underestimated his strengths.
Posted by Conor Ryan at Conor’s Commentary on 23 October 2008 at 12:03
In politics if you are not on the attack then you are on the defence, on the front foot or the back foot. For this reason courage is the friend of political leaders and caution, their enemy.
What Gordon Brown has proved in recent weeks is that when a governing party has confidence and self-belief it is far more willing (and able) to offer a lead and to take the tough decisions. What Brown is fast learning is that the British people are often happy and willing to forgive the occasional error and poor decision but they rarely forgive the leader who simply refuses to take a decision because it is too tough. The Tory labels of ‘bottler’ and ‘ditherer’ hurt Brown and for most of the past twelve months the media has been looking for (and occasionally gifted) opportunities to portray the former Iron Chancellor as a bumbling buffoon. The credit crunch has changed all that – or to be more precise, the Prime Minister’s handling of the global economic crisis has helped to restore his reputation for competence and decisiveness.
In contrast David Cameron’s handling of recent events has exposed him to criticism that he is a shallow, one dimensional leader who talks a good game but fails to deliver the big ideas when needed. Cameron has not had a good economic ‘war’ for several reasons. Firstly he has suffered from the perception that both he his party are too closely associated with the City fat cats whose greed triggered this financial meltdown. Secondly, since taking up their present posts neither he nor his shadow Chancellor has ever taken the opportunity to speak out against the dangers of a poorly regulated City. Thirdly, Cameron has not offered a clear policy alternative in terms of what a Tory administration would have done about the crisis had they been in office.
Perhaps now we will see the media turn its attention to exactly how
Britain would be different if the Tories were to form the next government. Does Mr Cameron have the courage necessary to lead, to take the tough decisions? I doubt it. He says he wants tax cuts and more spending but with the same money. He says he wants to sort out all illegal immigration, but he opposes identity cards, the one thing essential to do it. He says he against academic selection one day but then backs plans to expand it the next.
Has the Tory party changed? Most of Mr Cameron's reforms have been primarily cosmetic (a new HQ, a new party logo) and short-lived (the party's "A" list of candidates). Today’s Conservative front bench is made up of the "right kind of people", Cameron’s people - privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. The events of recent weeks have prompted me to reflect on the words of the former Tory (now Labour) MP Quentin Davies. In his letter to Cameron outlining his reasons for leaving the Conservative party and join Labour, he wrote: "Under your leadership the Conservative party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda." As the rightwing press begins to turn on him, how long will it be before Cameron is forced to retreat towards having to peddle past Tory agendas? How long before he is told that he needs to embrace more "traditional" core Tory issues such as Europe, crime and the family? How long before a newly elected Tory leader who started out saying his aim is to recapture the centre ground of British politics, is yet again forced (by his own reactionary right wing) to move to the right in an attempt to hang on to the Tory core vote?
Say it ain’t so Joe: the politics of tax
But the Joe the Plumber story demonstrates the risks of voters much further down the income scale believing they will shortly earn much more and get hit, or that politicians who pledge taxes at the top - and also of being misrepresented by political opponents or the media, as when Labour was mugged over its shadow budget in 1992 by the 'tax bombshell' campaign. That experienced seared, for a generation, the message: Don't talk about tax.
Posted by Sunder Katwala at Next Left on 17 October 2008 at 8:29am
Thank you My Lords
Thanks for making us all quite a lot less safe, dear unelected members of the Upper House with your daft vote denying the Government the right to lock up suspected terrorists.
It's bad enough having a completely undemocratic second chamber to our legislature at the best of times, but even more so when 309 peers vote against the public interest and against public opinion.
Posted by Luke Akehurst on 14 October 2008 at 5:00pm
Free us from the F-word
Nobody within shrieking distance of the mainstream in any developed economy favours completely free (or even, if you prefer, maximally free) markets; the debate, rather, should be about how markets should be regulated. Not, by the way, ‘how much’ regulation there should be or ‘how free’ the market is – there’s no sensible way to quantify it. There’s nothing that could count as ‘overall market freedom’, of which France has this much and the USA that much; there’s just an indefinite list of market practices that may be either permitted or restricted in some way.
Posted by Tom Freeman at Freemania on 16 October 2008 at 9:55am
The end of Key Stage 3 tests
The scrapping of Key Stage 3 tests for 14 year-olds was probably inevitable given the recent testing fiasco, and the greater importance now placed on GCSE scores in English and Maths. And, for most schools the tests had ceased to be treated as of great importance. It is important that Key Stage 2 tests are to remain as the only independent tests in primary schools. However, for one group of schools, the tests have been an important barometer: those that are improving from failure. It will be vital that they can continue to access externally moderated measures of their improvement if the drive to turn around failing schools and to establish new academies is not to be pushed into reverse.
Posted by Conor Ryan on 14 October 2008 at 4:40pm
As Bob Dylan put it, the times they are a-changin. The golden years of the past decade have given way to the credit crunch, plunging stock markets, recession, and the possibility of 3 million unemployed by 2010.
And unlike previous economic cycles there is every prospect that we may not be able to return to the boom conditions of yesteryear. For even if we overcome our financial and economic problems we once again come up against those natural limits to growth that we were experiencing prior to the downturn - the sharp increase in the price of food, fuel, and raw material as the emerging economic giants of Asia stake their claim to them and the constraints imposed by global warming.
In other words we are caught both ways. When the economy turns down many of us have to take a cut in our living standards or have to lower our material aspirations. When the economy turns up the cost of our essential purchases goes the same way which means we have less to spend on other things.
So why does this double-bind situation not need to be a cause for feelings of gloom and doom? The simple answer is that man does not live by bread alone. Yes, in circumstances where we will have to learn to live with less than we expected (or are made to expect by the advertising industry) governments will have to abandon their promise of ever-increasing abundance for all if they are not to be repeatedly punished at the polls for not delivering on it. However, they can put in its place a much more desirable objective - an increase in the overall QUALITY of our lives. Growth in things that count rather than in things that are merely countable.
With greater acceptance of state intervention to combat the failings of the free market it's now more politically possible to introduce the sort of policies needed to achieve this aim. For example something like the Green New Deal advocated by the New Economics Foundation would not only help us to combat global warming but would also help to mop up some of that anticipated unemployment. Moreover a shorter working week and measures to promote job-sharing and personal well-being (as described in my previous piece Beyond the Treadmill Society) could also help to bring down unemployment while giving people the time and the tools to live more satisfying lives.
At a similar critical juncture in American history (1979) the then President, Jimmy Carter, made a speech to the nation in which he said "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives that have no meaning or purpose".
The current crisis is telling us that such lives of excess are no longer achievable, yet alone desirable, for the broad mass of people. It therefore presents us with a unique opportuniy to move in an altogether more rewarding direction. Let us take it.
According to Jon Cruddas the far-Right BNP is busy exploiting the present economic crisis and could easily end up winning seats in the European Parliament for the first time.
Jon Cruddas has long pointed out that one reason for the growing support for the BNP has been its ability to respond to and exploit genuine local grievances - the credit crunch will only end up exacerbating these issues and could help turn more people toward the far-right. It is sobering to remember that in recent local elections the BNP has continued to gain seats in east London and Stoke-on-Trent and picked up enough elsewhere to hold 46 council seats in England. This of course follows the dramatic 2002 local election successes in the North of England and a 4.9 per cent showing in the Euro elections in 2004. For the first time ever in this country, an openly racist party has sustained the support of more than one in 20 British voters over several contests.
I believe that the BNP is evidence of a new challenge in British politics. In the past the battle ground (sometimes literally) of left vs right politics centred on our inner-cities – this is no longer the case. The BNP has begun to develop a network of suburban supporters, people who are openly willing to admit not only to supporting a racist and bigoted political party but to doing so with pride and patriotic fervour. If the trends of the past few years continue continue, the BNP may well make the type of breakthrough that Jon Cruddas is signalling and it will then be far more difficult to reverse than to stop it before it occurs.
What Britain needs is a broad anti-fascist coalition, a new coalition of the willing. This broadest possible coalition against the BNP must be constructed nationally, regionally and locally. It needs to involve trade unions, black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, faith groups, lesbian and gay groups and every other community threatened by the rise of the far right.
Reaction in the progressive blogosphere to Brown's reshuffle...
Reshuffle: the novice narrative
With Mandelson taking on business and enterprise in an uncertain economic times, expect to see slightly less of Alistair Darling and more of an attack-minded Mandelson on the issue of regulation - a perceived weakness of the Conservatives.
Margaret Beckett, a recognised name, is placed in housing to bring voter reassurance on mortgages and the housing market.
Both moves are designed to show Labour as a safe pair of hands and shine the spotlight on Conservative inexperience.
Posted by Theo Blackwell at mandate on 3 October 2008
More on the reshuffle
The more I think about the Mandelson appointment the more I think it was a stroke of political genius by Brown. It's brought on board someone with a unique ability to strategise, understand the electorate and win elections, but also someone with a great grasp of economic policy at a time when we need to tackle a hugely complex economic situation. The Tories are terrified of him because his presence will reassure both business and swing voters that Labour remains well and truly camped on the centre ground of British politics.
Posted by Luke Akehurst on 5 October 2008 at 9:35pm
Mandelson’s return
Mandelson would have provided ballast and intellectual direction for the Government had it not been for his second - in my view, harsh - resignation. John McDonnell has described Mandelson's appointment as a "step back into the archaeology of the recent period of Blairism". I have no reason to doubt this assessment, and I certainly hope it's true.
Posted by Oliver Kamm on 3 October 2008 at 3:52pm
Once, twice, three times a minister
This will go one of two ways. It will either be a dramatic stroke of genius or a car crash. While Mandy's a divisive figure, I do have a sneaking admiration for the man - he's Labour to the core and he's a fine political operator.
Posted by Political Hack on 3 October 2008 at 10:38pm
Oh Mandy
I am also surprised that Mandelson accepted the chance to return to Government, but having done so he has gone up massively in my estimation. Mandelson gets it, you see. He may not like Brown 100% of the time, and vice-versa, but at the end of the day, the Tories are the real enemy. What is the point of having power and influence if you only have it in Oppositon? In fact that's an oxymoronic statement if you think about it.
Posted by Keron Cross on 5 October at 10:49pm
|
|
