Category Archives: Uncategorized

Forty Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence

42 Reasons Cover blog versionToday the Commonwealth publish Adam Ramsay’s Forty Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence.

For some time I have thought that the prospect of independence in Scotland is bound to stir up a long-overdue debate about the constitution in the rest of Britain.

Of course, the English in particular will take a lot of persuading that continental innovations like popular sovereignty and embedded rights have any place in this, the land of cosy crime, cups of tea and breakneck shiftiness in the corridors of Westminster-Whitehall. But a new constitutional settlement is coming, I suspect, no matter what the result is in the September referendum. And the Scots now have something of a head start in thinking about the implications of doing away with the Crown-in-Parliament.

Adam Ramsay is one of the most interesting writers that I have come across in the context of the independence debate. He has argued tirelessly for the merits of independence in Scotland on the grounds that independence will be better for the people who live in Scotland, better for their neighbours, and better for the world.

The Poverty of Policy

Yesterday the Sunday Times reported that Jon Cruddas was unhappy about the way the Labour leadership was treating his policy review. On the same day Radio 4’s The World This Weekend invited Matthew Taylor on air to discuss the role of policy in politics. As the former head of policy in Tony Blair’s Policy Unit, Taylor speaks with considerable authority:

… If you’re in opposition, policy is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, if you have a good idea the government party can adopt that. Labour announces an energy price freeze and the Coalition immediately started taking steps to tackle the issue of the behaviour of energy utilities. If you have a bad idea it can be hung round your neck.

What’s striking here is that Taylor doesn’t pause to consider that the Labour party might publicly advocate a “good idea” that can’t be adopted, for whatever reason, by a Conservative-led coalition. Good ideas are, in this formulation, ideas that the two main parties are happy to adopt. Bad  ideas are ideas that “can be hung around your neck” (by and in the media, presumably).

This tells us something important about the status of “policy-making” and its function in public speech; It is a, fairly minor, part of the communications efforts of the big parties. What the parties actually intend to do in government is far too serious to be shared with the electorate.

Labour party insiders, on the rare occasions when they’ve tried to stop me saying disobliging things about them, always tell me that Miliband is much more social democratic than he can let on. Perhaps that’s true. We do know for sure that the Conservatives had much more radical plans for the NHS  than they ever let on during the 2010 election.

The idea that the electorate votes for a party on the basis of a clear understanding of their agenda for the country is a gross simplification. Parties compete for power and then do more or less what they like, within the limits of a contested consensus. Their actions are then assessed by a media system that is closely integrated with the state in general and the political parties in particular. The public’s irrelevance is baked into the process. We have to be told something, for form’s sake. But what we’re told and what the parties end up doing in government have no necessary connection.

If we want to stop austerity and improve matters for ourselves and the great majority of people in the country, we might want to start making policy ourselves. Our ideas won’t be “good”, in the sense that they can be plugged indifferently into the messaging efforts of the Labour and Conservative parties. Instead they will form the basis for a new relationship between society and the state.

As such they will frighten the life out of the creatures that have evolved to prosper in the current arrangements.

A little bit of photojournalism

When the London won the 2012 Olympic Games there was much talk of legacy. The billions were to be spent with one eye on the city’s future.

Doubtless there was something to all this. But a couple of weeks ago I went to the Olympic Park to have a swim. The pool itself is a triumph. But finding it isn’t as straightforward as it could be.

The station itself is fine. I’ve got nothing against the station …

All pretty straightforward ... This way to the park. Forgive the image quality. I am not really a photojournalist.

All pretty straightforward … This way to the park. Forgive the image quality. I am not really a photojournalist.

The trouble is, neither does the station.

Which way to the Olympic Park?

Which way to the Olympic Park?

No sign, I mean. Nothing at all to see, except a gigantic shopping centre on the left and an electronic billboard dead ahead, for gambling. On the World Cup, naturally.

Can there really be nothing to point the visitor towards the legacy?

Ah, what’s that, in the corner, past the smoking area?

Makes you proud ...

Makes you proud …

Aha …

A glorious legacy ...

A glorious legacy …

Here it is, partially visible from the station exit and at least three foot high.

Needless to say, it is not possible to miss the shopping centre from the tube. Because it is massive.

If the Olympic movement is to persuade other cities that the games aren’t a racket, they might want to have a word with London. Having spent £9 billion, the public should really be able to find the swimming pool without having to ask a security guard at the shopping mall that’s parked between the park and the tube station.

As it is, it looks like nobody really gives a fuck about the legacy.

Making the Connections

Marina Hyde writes today in the Guardian about “one of our foremost national characteristics – the absolute insistence on looking at the wrong thing” and wonders if this has now tipped into a kind of madness.

After a series of revelations about mass surveillance the British public has remained infuriatingly stolid. This, says Hyde, is in marked contrast to the response to revelations about hacking by News International:

Over the past few years, Britain has appeared far more concerned with who did or didn’t listen to some celebrities’ voicemails than with what should be the epoch-defining question of who can listen to all of ours, and watch us at home via our webcam, and now listen in on live calls.

Hyde goes on to suggest that we make the connection between the D-Day anniversary and the fact of mass surveillance. Surely the fight against fascism was, in part, the fight to communicate “without some unfettered state snoop in Cheltenham or Maryland being empowered to listen in?” Or, as Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

It’s true that the series of front pages that ran in July 2011 did provoke mass disquiet and a corresponding crisis in the ranks of the deciders. The Snowden leaks haven’t, or haven’t so far. But the two cases are not as distinct as they seem.

For one thing, it took a long time for the News International story to capture the public’s attention. Nick Davies and others at the Guardian were hammering away for two years before it became a scandal complete with calls for action, votes in Parliament and, that penicillin for fevers in the body politic, the establishment of a public inquiry. It took as long as it did in large part because the other newspapers (apart from the Independent) were stubbornly reluctant to wade in. Given that the BBC tends to look to the Mail-Telegraph agenda when seeking a proxy for the public mood, this helped ensure that the story didn’t get much play in the broadcast news, either, at least until the Milly Dowler story broke.

Much the same can be said of the Snowden leaks. The rest of the UK press has been quite muted. The Telegraph-Mail intravenous drip into Middle England hasn’t been pumping it with warnings about an emerging Big Brother state. The broadcast coverage has been similarly sparse. There’s more than one reason for this. Britain is not a constitutional republic, so the public take it on trust that the state isn’t going to trample the rights of the freeborn etc. And the people in GCHQ go out of their way not to draw attention to absence of formal legal restraints and their prodigious will to know. Personal decency, rather than abstract principle, is the animating spirit of the system. It’s terrifically effective in creating the “mouthfeel” of freedom – the sense that we are the authors of our own destiny and that we aren’t about to be shot or imprisoned for no good reason. (It doesn’t convince everyone of course. If you have no money, if you’re black or if you have views that Mr Gove considers extreme then you are likely to have a less rosy view of our immemorial tradition of not writing anything down.)

It’s also true that newspapers don’t always like to make a fuss about other people’s scoops. But there’s more to it than that. The Guardian has come under a great deal of pressure from the state for its Snowden coverage. Newspapers are supposed to keep at least one eye on the national interest as set out by Whitehall. The other newspapers have no desire to upset their working relationships with the permanent administration.

This brings us to another way in which the NSA-GCHQ and News International stories are linked. As Tom Watson MP noted in 2011, “At the murkier ends of this scandal there are allegations that rogue elements in the intelligence services had very close dealings with executives at News International.” At the time Watson expressed the hope that the inquiry would investigate these allegations and the Prime Minister assured him that “the judge can take the inquiry in any direction the evidence leads him”.

As far as I can tell, there are precisely no references to these allegations of “very close dealings” between NI executives and the intelligence services in the published report. This is a little strange, given that a serving MI5 officer was involved in the Max Mosley story. According to the Daily Mail, this MI5 office contacted the News of the World and set up the covert filming of the businessman.

The inquiry doesn’t seem to have asked MI5 questions about what it knew – if anything – about the contacts between serving officers and the News of the World. It also didn’t ask what the Security Service was doing while the paper was hacking the voicemails of politicians and behaving in ways that, at the very mildest, contravened the spirit of the Universal Declaration. Or if they did ask, they didn’t mention the answers in the report.

There’s much more to be said about the links between the secret state and the newspapers and broadcasters. Let’s just say that the moves by GCHQ-NSA to bring the big digital companies into the orbit of signals intelligence supplement the longstanding integration of the intelligence agencies and the mass media. It is possible to spin the News International scandal as the tale of a rogue newspaper and obscure the elements that point to something else, to do with the workings of our unwritten constitution.

The Snowden story cannot help but raise questions about the same constitution. It is constitutionality all the way down. The silence is of the deciders is only to be expected. The imperturbable calm of the public in this respect is what the state-media system is for. It frees up energy to worry about acceptable matters of concern, like benefits scroungers and immigrants. Our “absolute insistence on looking at the wrong thing” requires very careful management.

But News International and Snowden are part of the same story. A story in which we all now have walk on parts.

Quote of the Day

Hannah Arendt has described eloquently how, when political action succeeds in generating real power, the participants experience a happiness different from the kind of happiness one finds in private life.

Public happiness is not isolating but shared. It is the happiness of being free among other free people, of having one’s public faith redeemed and returned, of seeing public hope becoming public power, becoming reality itself … The experience of public happiness is an exceptional one in the politics of our time, but not such a very rare exception. It has been known in many countries in this century, on every continent, in societies of every kind of political, economic and cultural configuration. It has been felt, if sometimes only momentarily, everywhere, and therefore it is possible everywhere.

Doug Lummis, quoted by Alexander Cockburn in The Golden Age is in Us (London/New York: Verso, 1995).

Thinking about UKIP …

Immigrants, welfare claimants, beggars … the temptation to blame the victim is ever-present …

August 3rd, 1988

In the stories I have read or watched about the beggars lately the name of Ronald Reagan has barely been mentioned, as though no known connection existed between slashing funds for public housing, attacking welfare programs of one sort or another, and the consequent effect on the targets of these cuts.

A second remarkable quality of these stories is the tremendous hostility expressed towards the homeless. Like many unpleasant media trends, this one appears to have originated with The New York Times, whose editors and reporters have to complete their journey to work by walking through the seedy Times Square area, soon to be purged of its riff-raff by developers cheered on, naturally by The New York Times.

Today a Times editorial laments the fact that the beggars of yesteryear – ‘the legless man propelling himself on a little wheeled platform and the sightless man asking for help to buy a seeing-eye dog’ – have been replaced by a more aggressive type: ‘Unlike the legless and the sightless, who merely shook their tin cups, the new beggars speak right up. “Give me a quarter”, they order, or “Help me out, lady.”‘ There is a real note of nostalgia, as though the old-style beggars – man on platform, man in need of dog – belong to some ordered universe now gone. They’ll probably show up in wax soon at the Museum of Natural History.

Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age is in Us (London: Verso), p.43.

Kettle’s Rationalism

This article on the September independence referendum by Martin Kettle is really quite extraordinary.

Kettle, who describes himself “as a rationalist not a nationalist” claims that
“the UK government would have every possible incentive to drive a hard bargain with Scotland … and it would be backed by public opinion.” He asserts this without evidence, in a daring departure from the norms of rational debate.

He goes on to warn that “Nationalist opinion could become more militant if the talks become bogged down. Even acts of violence are not inconceivable in certain circumstances or places, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the Irish treaty of 1921 will grasp.” And it isn’t only the Scots who haunt his imagination: “the psychological impact in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of Scotland’s rejection of the union, meanwhile, could be very unpredictable, and possibly nastily so.”

Kettle assures us that he does “want any of these things to happen”, which is good of him. But why does he claim that “the possibility that some of them may happen has moved a bit closer with the shift in the Scottish polls this spring”? Why on earth is independence such a threat?

This is rationalism of a very peculiar kind.

A Debate about the BBC

Until recently pointing out the shortcomings of the BBC was a quick way to lose friends among self-defined liberals and left-wingers. Doing so was seen as giving comfort to its enemies in News International and the Conservative party.

In debates about the media in the media you can either be in favour of market forces or public service, or you can favour a judicious blend of the two – the moderate and sensible position that is also conservative of the status quo, funnily enough. If you reject both as organizing principles in the communications field you can soon find yourself on your own. The debate has a structure and it is balanced between two extremes. To reject the terms of the debate is to be come inaudible.

But public service, for all its merits, is another legitimation for elite control. I could never bring myself to pretend otherwise, which is one of the many reasons why my calls for democratic reform of the media, um, failed to resonate.

So I am glad to see that Owen Jones has written a piece arguing that the BBC is more hospitable to right-wing speakers and ideas than its friends and enemies would like to admit. I don’t agree with everything he says. His claim that “the BBC’s bruising battle with New Labour over the Iraq war … left the BBC supine and fearful” might be true. But it obscures the extent to which the BBC was supine about government claims before the invasion. The BBC has always been unable to mount an effective challenge to the state on matters of fact when the state is united. This inability is built into the design of the institution. The BBC supports the existing constitutional (or quasi-constitutional) order.

And Jones’ suggested remedy – that the left complain more loudly about right-wing bias – is less appealing than thoroughgoing democratic reform of the BBC.

If the public have the power to raise issues and direct journalistic resources towards particular topics we will be able to discover what we think about matters of common concern through an iterative process of investigation and debate. We will be able to engage with each other as citizens, which is more interesting and productive than complaining about things, I would have thought.

There are other paths to democracy, of course. But one way or another the public must establish control over the production of public opinion if it wants to be self-governing. The BBC is as good a route as any we have to hand.

From Agenda to Action

Owen Jones yesterday set out nine policy proposals that together offer an ‘Agenda for Hope’, a program to ‘break the gentleman’s agreement of British politics’. It is a welcome move. We do need to stop thinking that critique is enough. The crisis that began in 2007 and continues in 2014 has put an end to the old common sense. Our governors, and many of their rivals for power, continue to mouth exhausted platitudes about finance, markets, and money. These platitudes once lent an air of inevitability to a social order in which the power of decision and direction was in the hands of a few. Now they are evidence only of intellectual bankruptcy.

It is up to us now to describe the world we want, to claim our share of the future. What Jones has written is as good a place as any. Personally, I would have liked some more there about media reform but that would have taken the total to ten, and no one wants to be seen coming down from the mountain with ten of anything inscribed on tablets. It might be a column that has its moment of attention and then fades away. It might even capture the attention of the team writing the Labour manifesto. But if we really want something like it to inform the actions of the next government then we have to accept that there is no substitute for action.

Each of us lives in a constituency. If we assemble (online or in person, or both) and sign up to something like this 9-point plan in sufficient numbers we can then ask the candidates for election in 2015 whether they will agree to be bound by its provisions. If they refuse then everyone will go into the next election knowing who they are voting for, regardless of party labels. What are sufficient numbers? It depends. In a tight race a few hundred will be enough to catch the attention of the candidates. If you live in a safe seat then you’ll need thousands to put the frighteners on those who profit from a dominant position.

I wouldn’t change a word of what Owen has written. Alright, I would. But I would vote for a candidate who accepted it or something very much like it. It is up to each assembly in each constituency to decide exactly what they want. But once decided we can ask those who aspire to lead us to tell us whether they agree with us.

Elections are supposed to be about our choosing. Let’s turn that on its head and have the candidates choose.

They can either accept that the world has changed and commit themselves to policies that their own leaders shrink from. Or they can stick to the old script, about market forces and merit rewarded, and middle aged men who know best.

Why Don’t We Have an Alternative to the BBC and Corporate Media?

Stefano Maffei (David Icke) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Stefano Maffei (David Icke) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

In November 2013 David Icke and others began broadcasting The People’s Voice after a crowd-funding appeal raised £300,000. The ability of a relatively small number of people – albeit with an established following – to secure start-up funding for a broadcast operation suggests that there is considerable appetite for an alternative to the mainstream media in Britain.

But the launch also prompts a question. If David Icke and his associates can launch a broadcast operation, why can’t the left, broadly defined, operate successfully as an independent player in the media field? We hear a lot about the weakness of the British left, but weakness is relative. Almost six million people are still trade union members. The Co-operative Group has around seven million members (there is bound to be a considerable overlap, of course).  UK Uncut and Occupy enjoyed considerable popular support. Many thousands participate in demonstrations and protests when they think that they might make a difference. Owen Jones has 60% more Twitter followers than David Icke.

The near-absence of the organized left in the main currents of the media is even more striking when one considers that most of the country is somewhere to the left of all the mainstream political parties. This is true even though this majority has few opportunities to hear its position articulated in the media.

(I don’t want to exaggerate the extent to which the left is excluded, There are some left-wing Labour MPs and some Labour-supporting journalists who are given an occasional public platform – Jones most notably. But academic studies suggest that analysis and discussion of key economic issues on the BBC and elsewhere skews heavily towards the interests of what we used to call capital. Mike Berry at Cadiff and Aeron Davis at Goldsmiths have both looked into this and come to broadly similar conclusions. Davis argues that ‘financial journalism, like financial regulation, over recent decades has been “captured” or neutralised by those it is meant to hold to account’. For Berry the evidence shows that ‘the BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda’.)

So the state and corporate media tend to privilege the rich and the powerful. This isn’t surprising. But it is strange that institutions founded to promote the interests of popular constituencies have been content to leave the media status quo unchallenged. Trade unionists I have talked to about this point out the huge costs of running a national newspaper and fall into an embarrassed silence when it is pointed out that the media landscape has changed somewhat since the launch of the union-backed News on Sunday in 1987.

(Actually the exchange usually goes like this:

“Why don’t the unions do something to get their message across without having to rely on a broadly hostile or unreceptive media system?”

“Ah, well, we did try. We launched a newspaper in the eighties and lost a fortune.”

“Yes, but now there’s the internet, and cable television. You don’t need to have a national newspaper to reach large audiences. Individuals and small groups like the Artist Taxi Driver and Novara Media show what’s possible.”

Long pause.

“We launched a national newspaper in the eighties and lost a fortune.”)

So, how much would it cost for the popular institutions and their allies on the extra-parliamentary left to create a news and analysis operation capable of challenging the mainstream? It would certainly cost something. Goodwill and enthusiasm can only carry one so far.

But the sums are not prohibitive. In 2011 Resonance FM in London was putting out an impressive 24 hour schedule for around £200,000 a year. The money paid for full-time technical, administrative and commissioning staff, as well as offices and broadcast facilities in central London. This, together with in-kind contributions from volunteers, has enabled Resonance to build an audience of somewhere close to two million.

Let’s say that we add television broadcast and budget for £100,000 for three more full-time staff. We’re looking at staff and office costs of £300,000. and we still haven’t got to the cost of content.

In 2011 Ofcom estimated that the contributions from volunteers at Resonance were worth a further £510,000.

There’s a lot of content available online and much of the original coverage will be commentary in-studio and interviews conducted via Skype. Organizations and individuals that stand to benefit from stronger coverage from a popular perspective will also want to contribute their time as interviewees etc. I am not a fan of volunteerism in itself and people who work should be paid. But paid trade union comms people could be expected to contribute their time, just as they would appear on the BBC as part of their job, if anyone ever asked them. NGOs, academics and others who are paid to conduct research are also keen to demonstrate public impact. Some would be happy to contribute.

Still, as a minimum you’d also need a news staff that can prepare early morning, mid-day and evening news reports and provide context and rebuttal for the other media’s selection and treatment of issues. In other words, you need to challenge the Today Programme as the dominant framer of the national conversation and continue to present an alternative take on the news through the day. This would be expensive, but it would be crucial to the station’s overall success. Say £100,000 for that.

(As for overheads, I can’t believe that the trade unions and the co-operatives haven’t got some commercial space in London they aren’t using, so we might save some money there.)

Anyway, let’s say a bare bones media operation costs around £400,000 a year to run. I am guessing, but it is not going to be vastly more than that. It wouldn’t be 24 hours, nor would it be heavily reliant on original programming, especially in the early days. But it would have enough money to run cheap talk-based commentary, interviews with experts, documentary specials, coverage of demonstrations and assemblies, and a spine of news coverage. At that level it would be a point of opposition that could challenge media (mis)representation elsewhere and provide its own perspectives on current affairs.

£400,000 a year isn’t chicken feed. How could such a thing be sustainable? Well, as I say, I am not a fan of volunteerism for its own sake and enthusiasm is liable to wane if viewers are subjected to constant appeals for money. But a popular news and analysis service would create opportunities to raise revenues. The Co-operative group would presumably want to support programming that in turn supports the co-operative principle. It would seem to make more sense than advertising in the Daily Mail as it currently does. And popular programming would give the unions a chance to build their membership – an expenditure that would pay for itself. A book programme could do deals with publishers so that the station took a cut from discounted sales. Magazines and publishers could also run their own programmes. (Deep Green Drive Time in Association with the Ecologist, insert your own jokes here.) There are lessons to be learned from alternative media and NPR in the United States.

Audiences are also commercial opportunities in their own right. In the States, successful right-wing media support a vibrant cottage industry of water purifier manufacturers and supplement distributors selling this this kind of thing … Credit unions, utility co-ops and similar enterprises could make their own use of a compatible media environment. If a cooperatively owned business doesn’t exist in a market where the station attracts considerable numbers of potential purchasers, then the station can work with existing co-op incubators to create one. It would be great if, as the audience grew, the co-operative sector were to benefit at the same time.

£400,000 is a start, and a combination of contributions from the unions and the co-operative movement, annual crowd funding drives and commercial revenues could probably cover that. It would be a threadbare offering at that level, but it would be enough to be starting with. Remember, David Icke raised 3/4 of that with only a 100,000 followers on Twitter. If you take Owen Jones and all the trade union feeds, you’re looking at, what, twice that?

A media group like this would want to raise more money to pay for investigations etc, either produced in house or contracted out to operations like Exaro and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It would be an opportunity to give a mass audience a chance to participate in shaping the content of the public sphere, too. But all it this can be done over time, as the audience is established and begins to see itself as a group with a stake in the production process. Once up and running, the organization could even seek to secure public funds and access to the BBC network, in the event that the state broadcaster becomes democratic. It could apply meaningful pressure for just such a process of reform.

Popular institutions are not entrepreneurial businesses and I don’t want to suggest that they should be. But they are suffering acutely from their weakness in the sphere of communications. Of course the challenges are considerable. The operation would need editorial integrity and a genuine pluralism. The temptation to make it the rote deliverer of a trade union or Labour Party line would have to be resisted. But surely no one could deny that the need for an alternative space for deliberation and debate is very pressing. The risk of losing some money is there, of course, but the risks of doing nothing are much more serious.

Perhaps we could draft Owen Jones as the network’s first director of programmes? True, he’s no David Icke, but we have to work with what we’ve got.