I Intend To Escape ......................And Come Back

Hackney Not United: Hackney Hustings Descends Into Chaos

I spent this evening at the Hackney Unites hustings for the London North East GLA constituency at the Arcola Theatre in Dalston.

Hackney Unites is a local pressure group which has grown out of the Hope Not Hate initiative, formed by the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight. Following a split in Searchlight in 2011, Hope Not Hate has continued as a separate body, and now finances Hackney Unites newspaper, which is currently being distributed across the borough.

The hustings came with a very fixed format. Firstly we had speeches from Hackney Unites Chair John Page, then Hackney Unites employee Andrea. After the starters came the main course. The politicians  selected to attend the hustings followed the format that has dominated media coverage in London – Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and Green. Not invited, despite outpolling the Greens both nationally and in London were the UK Independence Party, nor were the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition selected for the top table. Both deserved a hearing.

Those who made it were the incumbent – Labour’s Jeanette Arnold, the Tory’s Naomi Newstead, the Lib Dems Farooq Quereshi and Green Caroline Allen. Those attending were invited to submit written questions, which were handed to Hackney Unites Jane Holgate, which were then shuffled into an order based around a preliminary discussion of the subjects the audience felt important. Questions were read out, and each politician given one minute to answer.

This format soon brought problems. Hustings means different things to different people, and what we most certainly did not have here was a debate. Politicians give politicians answers, and without the chance for the audience to come back on what was stated, events soon became stilted. For example Conservative Naomi Newstead claimed to be opposed to tuition fees – a somewhat unusual position for a Conservative politician, and certainly not one that appears in her election literature. This was the first time I had seen Labour’s Jeanette Arnold (perhaps best described as a poor man’s Diane Abbott) more impressive on a personal level were Lib Dem Farooq Quereshi and Green Caroline Allen. Interestingly Ms Allen rarely missed an opportunity to speak of Green MP Caroline Lucas, whilst barely mentioning the Green’s fluffy Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones.

As the meeting wore on, frustrations grew at the lack of real debate. One man who wanted to make a verbal contribution was repeatedly told by Chairman John Page to write it down, when it would have been far easier in such a small meeting to let him speak (at its peak I counted 47 present, including the candidates) It is also the case that not everyone is as confident at writing political views as they are at speaking them, and London North East – as with any constituency – will include people who may not be able to read and write as well as others.  Eventually after several calls for order from John Page, and a description of developments as “disgusting” the guy was allowed to ask his question “Why is it we never see you again when you get elected?”

This provoked a rambling answer from Ms Arnold that seemed to centre on how rarely she misses important events in the Greater London Assembly – which was not of course the question posed. Things got difficult when the Conservative candidate justified cuts, leading to anger in the audience, and calls from John Page for the audience to show some respect. Tactically, this was a big mistake – people have very little respect for the three main parties now – respect has to be earned, and the one thing the British political class has not done in recent years is earn our respect.

Sitting in the audience was ‘Hackney heroine’  Pauline Pearce, who came to fame arguing with anti-social elements during the August 2011 riots in Hackney. Pauline is standing for the Lib Dems this month, and clearly had come along expecting a debate, and to be able to cross-examine the candidates. When told to ‘show some respect’ by John Page, she announced she would leave – at which point the meeting boiled over. A dozen walked out – including nearly all the black people in the audience – and those remaining seated were treated to the bizarre spectacle of the tiny Jane Holgate trying to shepherd towards the door a black guy who must have been a good 15 or 16 stones. Pauline Pearce’s closing words were “You’re staunch Labourites”, whilst John Page accused the big guy of attending the meeting to disrupt it. With all that said, the door was closed behind those who had walked out.

The rest of the meeting was a bit of an anti-climax, although even here Hackney Unites inflexibility remained. With formal questions finished at 8.45pm, the meeting could have been thrown open to the floor – assuming the room had been booked until 9pm. Instead, the event closed, more with a whimper than a bang. The bang of course, had happened already.  

So what to make of it all? Well debate needs to happen. This was an example of how an attempt to structure a meeting in a particular way, with only particular candidates, can blow up badly in the faces of those with a particular agenda. It does not have to be like this………..

For the record the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition have a public meeting in Hackney on Tuesday 1 May at 7pm at the CLR James Library in Dalston. The campaign website of the UK Independence Party, whose Mayoral candidate  is Lawrence Webb, can be viewed here.

Ahmed Rashid On Pakistan Again, On The Brink - Again

Ahmed Rashid is probably the best writer, working in English, on the political and religious movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

All the more reason to tune into Radio 3 on Tuesday 17 April to hear him on Night Waves with Anne McElvoy, discussing his new book, Pakistan on the Brink.

London Met: Common Sense Bites Back

Ever since the Vice Chancellor of London Metropolitan University, Prof Malcolm Gillies, spoke of the need to respond to the rise in numbers of Muslim students by reducing the presence of alcohol and portrayl of sex on campus, a backlash was due. I am pleasantly surprised at how sophisticated, and encouraging, it has been.

All of the quotes below are taken from the Times Higher coverage of the case, and in particular the comments area below the article. One interesting response, from the trades union the UCU, is to see Gillies intervention as softening up London Met for cuts, using some old fashioned divide and rule tactics:

"Gillies is currently selling off large sections of the university estate, including 'The Hub' - the student union facility (inc student bar) at the City Campus. The VC's comments need to be seen in that light - i.e., they are simply a convenient cover for reducing student social facilities."

Similarly it seems London Met is hardly awash with wall to wall drinking anyway. From Rob Thoyts:

"Alchohol is currently offered for sale in only two of the University's eleven or so buildings, the "two fantastic (Student Union) bars" according the the Londonmet website, "which are regularly featured in the London Time Out magazine". Therefore the only part of the University where the sale of alcohol could credibly be banned would be in these SU bars. Umpteen canteens exist in the University which do not sell alcohol, therefore any suggestion that students who may disapprove of alcohol have nowhere to go, is entirely false."

Prof Gillies claim that some female students attend London Met only with an escort from a  chaperone also met a firey response:

"I find the sight of women in headscarves and veils who have to be chaperoned everywhere by men offensive. However, I would not expect them to be banned from certain parts of campus so that my strong political and moral sensibilities can be protected."

What seems so needless about this story is that there does not appear to be any evidence  Muslim students are agitating for any ban or restriction on alcohol. Instead this change is being offered to them, (and imposed) on others by the management's interpretation of cultural sensitivity. This is Niall:

"A great lesson, if you want one, in how to foster resentment, division and confusion. Muslims and other minorities so often get the blame for being 'over sensitive' but it's the ridiculous policies of institutions and politicians that are stirring up problems. I really hope all Met students stand up against this hideous proposition."

Dr David however feels a policy does need to be stated: 

"To be fair having areas which don't serve alcohol seems reasonable. For instance you could serve alcohol in bars but not in the lecture theaters. Or the other way round."

Perhaps the oddest section in Gillies quoted remarks was when he decided to talk about sex. Or rather he didn't:

The vice-chancellor also said that London Met was "much more cautious" about the portrayal of sex on campus than universities had been 30 to 40 years ago. "Now we've got a younger generation that are often exceedingly conservative, and we need to be much more cautious about [sex] too," he said.

No sex please we're British (and Muslim!) All of this is too much for sadtoworkatLondonMet

"Under what circumstances is Londonmet "portraying" sex on campus. I can think of only two possibilities; discussion of sex-related issues in classes, and sexual health information provided to students. So, in both of these areas we are supposed to exercise greater "caution" (whatever that means) than would have been the case in 1972? Yes, very progressive Malc!"

All too often discussions about race and religion (especially Islam) leave almost any reader feeling depressed and isolated. I have to say Prof Gillies has removed that depression at a stroke.  Reading the Times Higher comments I feel both invigorated and hopeful for the future - there actually seems to be a silent, sensible majority out there, and when pushed, they push back.

For that at least, we need to thank the Vice Chancellor!

 

 

 

Things Have Changed At London Met

The comments of Professor Malcolm Gillies of London Metropolitan University, that the University may restrict the presence of alcohol and take a more 'cautious' approach to sex, due to the rising number of Muslim students on campus, have produced a storm.

Things certainly seem to have changed since I worked in the library at what was then called the University of North London. The first job I had in the capital, from 1992-3, was as a 'Graduate Trainee Library Assistant' working a term each at the University's sites in Highbury, Holloway and Kentish Town. One of the main challenges library staff faced at the main site on Holloway Road was something politely referred to as "Asian students socialising in the library, especially in the evenings".

This 'problem' involved staff on the first floor in the evenings always having to make as much noise as possible before going into quiet corners of the library, in case we interrupted a couple who were either at it or heading in that direction. Older hands explained to me that as Asian students (we rarely used the term Muslim then) often could not take partners home, and tended not to go to pubs or clubs, the library was an important place for their liaisons. 

I am pleased to say the staff rather collaborated in all this. I do hope that Prof Gillies is respectful of such traditions, and that the science periodicals, especially on a Friday evening, still see a number of students hard at it..............

George Galloway: The Robert Kilroy-Silk of the Left?

I have been thinking recently of figures on the British left who have made some sort of 'breakthrough' in the past few decades. By breakthrough I mean in terms of electoral success and/or significant public recognition. And by 'the left' I mean to the left of Labour.

I can name only three - Derek Hatton of Militant, Tommy Sheridan of Militant and then the Scottish Socialist Party, and finally George Galloway of Respect. All three share certain characteristics - charisma, good looks, the ability to relate to and engage with working class voters when canvassing, a confidence in their own abilities and a belief in the justness of their cause. This continues - even taking into consideration the block vote of the mosques, in the Bradford West by-election Galloway utilised his attributes to relate to voters across the constituency in a manner few other contemporary politicians could.

I have never met George Galloway, but am in little doubt as to his ability to inspire those around him. Last year when interviewed by him on Press TV and Talk Sport (on 9/11 conspiracy theories) we spoke by telephone and he made me feel a million dollars by clearly having done some research into my writing and talking to me as if my ideas were important. I could well understand how previously loyal Socialist Workers Party hacks like Kevin Ovenden  could side with Galloway when Respect split between the SWP and Galloway loyalists in 2007. Yes you could go back to selling half a dozen copies of Socialist Worker on a Saturday lunchtime outside Tesco's, but why would you?

Of course the other element shared by Hatton, Sheridan and Galloway is that their political journeys, having united disparate elements on the left by the force of their personality, always end in tears. Anarchists in particular were to be found in Glasgow when the SSP was its peak, making awkward comments about "our Tommy" that fell on deaf ears. A bit of success can go to anyone's head. But on the left, success is so rare, no one wants to listen to tricky questions during the good times. By 2006 the Anarchists were to be found saying "I told you so" when the SSP split irrevocably, "Our Tommy" found to be not a latter day Lenin but a latter day Jeffrey Archer.

Over the past week I have been reading Mark Daniel's excellent history of the UK Independence Party "Cranks and Gadflies: The Story of UKIP". The most interesting passages concern UKIP's brief fling with the former BBC presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk, who rapidly became a UKIP MEP, and just as quickly left the party after a farcical leadership bid.

Reading the book reminded me how much George Galloway and Kilroy-Silk have in common. Both had substantial careers as Labour MP's in old Labour heartlands, yet rather underachieved in the party. Contrary to what some may expect, Kilroy was a well known champion of prisoners rights (especially women inmates at prisons like HMP Styal in Cheshire) and an articulate critic of the EEC from the left. Galloway survived, but did not prosper as a Labour MP in Scotland, whilst Kilroy eventually limped from the fray after being an MP from 1974-86, seen off by arguments with the far-left in his Merseyside constituency.
Both were at their best pressing the flesh with working class constituents (Kilroy's double barrel comes, not from the aristocracy, but from taking the names of his father, killed in the War, and his stepfather) and enjoyed the media spotlight at every opportunity. Galloway and Kilroy's careers were each greviously damaged by comments they made about the Arab world - Labour expelling Galloway for his words about British forces and the second Gulf War, the BBC sacking Kilroy for making sweeping comments about Arabs as a race.

What is fascinating about Daniel's analysis of Kilroy's time in UKIP is that it seems UKIP's leaders knew they could never control him, that he was not only a loose canon, but a canon that would eventually fire at them. Yet they still decided, on balance, to get into bed with Kilroy. Speak to leading members of the Socialist Workers Party about George Galloway, and you will have heard identical sentiments in 2005, and we are hearing them again, post his by-election success in 2012. A horse is running, and even if its known he is going to eventually throw his rider, people still bet money on it.

Spend five minutes on Twitter, or on certain blogs where the last century left discusses what passes for ideals, and there are only two shows in town - supporting Ken Livingstone's candidacy as Mayor of London (again) and the opportunity the Bradford West by-election offers to 'reforge' the left.
Already the Green Party candidate in that election, Dawud Islam, has defected to Respect. Plenty of others will no doubt follow, indeed in Tower Hamlets the period 2005-2011 saw some Muslim councillors switch between Respect, Labour and Independent almost annually (Yorkshire's Dawud Islam is ex-Labour, then Green, now Respect)
It is probably in such political versions of the okey-cokey that the roots of the next split in Respect will be found - those jostling to be the parties candidates in the next month will contain the principled but also the career driven, the crooked and the feckless. The left is unlikely to play any significant role in this process save for cheerleading those who deliver the votes - the Muslim 'community leaders', youth groups and Mosques. And as happened last time round in Respect, such currents will soon tire of the left if they begin to get in the way.

In the long term, UKIP had the last laugh over Robert Kilroy-Silk. When he flounced out of the party, his splinter, Veritas, came to nothing. He is political history. George Galloway is not - yet - but the roots of his parties downfall are all around us - if we could but see it.

 

Terrorism and the Olympics: Let The Silly Season Begin

The first in a series commenting on media stories about terrorist and public order 'threats' to the 2012 Olympics in London.

An impressive one to start with from the Sunday Telegraph of 1 April (and no it was not an April fool). Firstly the Telegraph's David Barrett did have the basis of an actual story. He reports that MI5 believe Akhmed Zakayev, who styles himself as the exiled Prime Minister of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria,  is under threat of assassination in London. They understand his death has been ordered by Chechnya's Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov, and are attempting to deport a suspect, named only as E1, who was also involved in the plot. 

Then it gets silly. Firstly we have the move to attach Venessa Redgrave to the story, as she is apparently friends with Mr Zakayev. This leads to the tabloid style heading "MI5 warns of death plot against Redgrave friend", and a picture of Zakayev and Redgrave that corresponds nicely with Telegraph policy of having posh totty on the front cover at least once a week.
As a general rule of thumb I adopt the political position that it is nearly always correct to be on the opposite side, on any issue, to Vanessa Redgrave, so will say no more about the politics of Zakayev. What is noticeable however is that despite this being an explicity Chechen story - all those directly involved - Zakayev, E1 and Kadyrov being Chechens, Barrett decides that this is a story about Russia, and Russians in London.

This gets particularly silly when Barrett not only connects (albeit loosely) this alleged plot with the actual shooting of Russian banker German Gorbuntsov in east London last month, but worse, the Olympics. Try this nonsense on for size:

"And it comes amid growing concern among the security services over the number of Russians in Britain who could present a danger to security, particularly with the London Olympics, identified as the biggest single target for terrorists in British history, fast approaching".

No suggestion is actually made that Russian gunmen (or Chechen?) pose a direct threat to the Olympics - probably because to attempt to do so would make Barrett look even more silly. Instead possible targetted acts of violence amongst one or two exile communities in London are  placed in proximity to an entirely seperate issue - that of Olympic security - with the hope that readers will put two and two together and get 76.

There is now 114 days left until the Olympics. I am going to do my best to log and comment upon silly stories of this type - it surely cannot be long until the Evening Standard dusts off its usual scare stories about Anarchists and public order and places them somewhere in the direction of Stratford - and we can no doubt expect an English Defence League 'threat' to be hyped out of all proportion.

I would be grateful if readers could send me examples of silly season stories that you spot. David Barrett and the Sunday Telegraph have made the early running - plenty of other lame old nags will no doubt follow.

 

Why The Banks Have Money And Their Customers Have Debts

My experience this afternoon, which is replicated by thousands of people every day.

I tried to set up a standing order online. Despite going through the process four times, each time I was told the bank account I was trying to send money to was "non-existent". I checked - it is not.

I then phoned my bank, on their 0845 number. After going through a series of requests for information about me, I was told I had come through to the wrong section. I was transfered (from Liverpool to Belfast) More security questions. Some waiting. Then finally an outcome - you will have to go into branch and check the sort code.

12 minutes that took. It has made my bank money and it has made my telephone provider money. Tomorrow I will take time out from what I should have been doing, to join a queue in a bank.

The system must work for somebody. It does not work for me.