Scott Hill2013-05-18T04:52:35-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=scott-hillCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Scott HillGood old fashioned elbow grease.Mooney, the Mail and Metag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12570852012-02-06T09:59:27-05:002012-04-07T05:12:01-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/Broadcasting House programme over the weekend. Thanks to the wonders of BBC iPlayer you can catch up here. Typically, I forgot half of what I wanted to say and failed, in the small time allotted to the very broad topic of the Daily Mail's impact on society, to produce a wholly satisfactory, coherent argument. Nevertheless, it was an interesting debate, but one I feel needs fleshing out further. But first, let us look at what was revealed during the 8 minute ding-dong.
My sparring partner throughout the debate was the Mail's very own Bel Mooney. Immediately, Bel was forced to concede that she regularly receives criticism for daring to write for the infamous paper. She even acknowledged that the Mail "gets things wrong and often prints things I don't agree with". However, she failed to maintain sanity. She went on to describe the Mail as a "paper of absolute genius" and, when I dared to raise an example of the paper's contradictory views on feminism, she declared: "Can we be more serious than that?" Coming from a Daily Mail defender, surely that must be the irony of all ironies.
Aside from the point I raised with regards to the double standard over feminism, I also managed to fit in a quote from a BNP activist ("The rhetoric of the Express and the Mail could come from one of our own newsletters"), stated that my parents merely buy the Mail for its supposedly superior crossword, challenged the paper's definition of what it means to be British (something that went ignored by both host and opponent) and asserted that Mr Dacre's new corrections box on page two is simply not enough to convince me that the paper's standards will significantly rise.
Regrettably, I was unable to draw upon all of my disturbing examples of Daily Mail indecency and duplicity. For instance, I did not get the opportunity to challenge Bel over a story published in the paper that ran with the headline: 'English speaking pupils are a minority in inner-city London primary schools'. This headline was a blatant lie. As is revealed within the story, pupils who speak English as their first language are a minority in a handful of schools, but the headline says something different altogether. Similarly, how about a piece published in 2010 that declared that Mohammed was Britain's most popular name among newborn baby boys. Once again, a complete fabrication.
Of course, Bel gleefully brought up the subject of Stephen Lawrence; repeating the commonly heard claim that the Mail led the field and helped gain justice for the Lawrence family. I wonder what the Lawrence family would have made of this 'Rise of the Black Squirrel' cartoon published this month. For that matter, what would they think of the BNP claiming that the Mail provides perfect propaganda for their election campaigns? The Stephen Lawrence case is merely being used by the Mail and its supporters as an unconvincing veil to hide all the prejudiced nonsense being spewed out on a daily basis.
Not once did Bel offer a satisfactory defence of (or justification for) the Mail's unabashed anti-Islamic/anti-immigration/anti-foreigners stance. Instead, she laughably asserted that the Mail speaks up for the "silent majority" of Britons who see immigration as a "serious problem". Unfortunately, I was unable to probe further as host Paddy O'Connell moved the conversation away from such murky waters. I would have loved to have asked Bel for hers views on Mail columnists such as Richard Littlejohn, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips and Kelvin Mackenzie. How does one go about defending the sickening, warmongering, bigoted, warped rants of such imbeciles?
Would she agree, for instance, with the following statement: Daily Mail columnists fuel xenophobic, bigoted attitudes by peddling their own false, ignorant opinions? Now there is an answer I would love to hear. Especially when the evidence weighs heavily in my favour. Between the aforementioned writers, they have mocked disabled protesters, accused Afghan migrants of jumping ahead of British soldiers in housing lists, banged the drum for war (the latest victim being Iran), have suggested that anti-depressants cause violent outbursts and, during the recent Scottish independence discussions, accused the Scots of "pocketing [a] whacking subsidy" from England. Classy!
Now, that is not to say there is no place for newspapers that sit somewhere between broadsheet and red-top; ground currently dominated by the Mail. However, it is imperative that said newspapers do not sink to the low depths of the tabloid media. The Mail is currently guilty of such behaviour. No amount of readership or website traffic justifies such repulsive conduct. But before the Daily Mail can begin to improve, individuals like Bel must at first accept that there is a problem. As Oscar Wilde once stated: "Everything popular is wrong". It is fair to say that this statement appears accurate, especially when looked at in relation to today's British media elite.]]>Sticking Up for the Tabloids - Someone Has Totag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12234172012-01-24T19:00:00-05:002012-03-25T05:12:01-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/The Scum Of All Newspapers."
Publications such as the Guardian have taken great delight in condemning the indefensible actions of some News International hacks, but, in many ways, have failed miserably in their own coverage. The Guardian have had to publish numerous (approximately 40) corrections and retractions due to false reporting and inaccuracies. This must surely be the irony of all ironies.
Kelvin Mackenzie, during his appearance at the Leveson inquiry, brought up the topic and asserted that had the Sun been so sloppy in its reporting it "would have come very very close to being shut down". He had a point. It is somewhat laughable that the broadsheets, so strong in their criticisms of the tabloid press, have proven just as adept at misreporting and fallacy. In the broadsheets efforts to enlighten us of the widespread unethical practices of the tabloids, they themselves have fallen into the trap of printing hearsay and tittle-tattle. Take the as-of-yet unscrutinised example of Charlotte Church's Leveson appearance.
They were, of course, taking Church's Leveson evidence as gospel; with no apparent effort being made to verify her claims. Thankfully, some of us did. A quick look back at newspaper reports from around the time show that there was indeed a 'countdown clock'; but it had nothing to do with any News International publication. In fact, it appears that tabloid newspapers like the Daily Mirror were ardently campaigning against the "sick" and "twisted" internet countdown.
Furthermore, despite claiming that the clock made her feel "horrible" and "uncomfortable" during recent interviewing, when questioned by Heat magazine in 2002 about her feelings towards the clock's existence she said, "I laughed my socks off". It would appear that Church is just one of a long line of bandwagon jumpers. As the testimonies filter through, the broadsheets are gleefully latching onto each and every denouncement - nothing more than gossip - as though it were fact. As the old proverb goes, "a lie will go round the world while the truth is pulling its boots on."
We were all told that approximately 6,000 individuals were the victims of phone hacking as news of News International's illegal activity first reared its ugly head. However, as often happens once the truth pulls its boots on, the facts are unveiled. It now stands that approximately 800 people were potentially hacked; yet even this figure could fall. The problem is that for every 10 people who heard the 6,000 figure, maybe only five will learn of the downgrading. The same can be said of Hugh Grant's unproven evidence suggesting that his flat was burgled by tabloid reporters. There is no proof that Grant's claims are accurate, but that does not matter, for the myth has already spread.
Another Guardian retraction concerned their false report that the Sun had hacked into Gordon Brown's son's medical records. Once again, a myth that has now planted itself firmly in the minds of the already anti-tabloid general public. The only retraction that did receive widespread coverage was that News of the World did not delete any of Milly Dowler's voicemail messages. The Guardian got it horribly wrong; splashing all over their front page back in July: "Paper deleted missing schoolgirl's voicemails, giving family false hope". Are these broadsheet lies any better than the unethical journalism carried out by Murdoch's publications?
The broadsheets supposedly represent grown-up journalism where fact-checking, ethics and morality is placed ahead of mass sales and crowd pleasing. Sadly, in an ongoing attempt to humiliate the tabloids, the broadsheets have embarrassed themselves by perpetrating shoddy, below-par journalism that makes the reports of the Daily Star seem worthy of an Orwell Prize. Whilst the Guardian and others would argue that they are trying to clean up journalism through shining a light on the unforgivable wrong doing conducted by redtops, they fail to grasp how their own poor performance of late will merely clarify in the minds of media critics that the whole industry is prone to mistakes and gross misjudgement.
Enough people are currently castigating News International for its despicable acts of criminality, but now it is time for serious scrutiny of the way in which the broadsheets and 'respectable' media are pouncing on the tabloid press - making them a scapegoat - in what I consider to be a measured effort to rid the world of what they consider to be lesser media outlets. We must not remain silent over this travesty through fear of siding with the common enemy. ]]>Where Has My Labour Party Gone?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12155212012-01-19T07:15:52-05:002012-03-20T09:51:00-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
The late Christopher Hitchens, commenting in 1983, stated: "The Labour Party, in its present form and in any likely future one, offers an image of Britain's decline rather than an answer to it". What the great man was alluding to was the stark fact that Labour is no longer the radical movement it started out as. The working-class, having found a voice, have once again drifted towards the periphery of modern civilisation. Surely the defining feature of any movement or party should be its willingness to lose an election rather than give up on its ideals. Shamefully, Labour appears more concerned with winning popularity contests than with standing up for the principles that provide the solid foundations of its very existence.
When Ed Miliband was elected Leader of the Opposition in September 2010, he was championed as some kind of extreme-left Stalinist; someone who was going to drag the party leftwards and cure it of its obsession with New Labour. Following Miliband's leadership victory, former leader Neil Kinnock famously declared: "We've got our party back". He should have known better. Over the last 16 months, Miliband's Labour has presented itself as a somewhat unorganised, incoherent mess. A truly successful Labour movement should be boasting of flattering headlines in such publications as the Guardian, Tribune and New Statesman. Instead, the bigoted knuckle-draggers at the Daily Mail were gloating, "Now Ed Miliband gets tough with onslaught against 'evil' of benefit scroungers".
That nauseating headline came following Liam Byrne's declaration that Labour would clamp down on benefit fraud, as well as putting an end to the "something for nothing" culture that has apparently spread across the nation like wildfire. Byrne symbolises all that is wrong with this current rabble of underachieving Tory impersonators. Despite receiving a salary that places Byrne firmly in the top 5% of earners, he still felt the need to claim £400 a month off the state for his food bill. His £2,400 a month apartment overlooking the Thames is also paid for by you and I. Does this really sound like a man capable of highlighting the plight of your average working-class citizen? I think not. Furthermore, does a party filled to the brim with privileged middle-to-upper-class professionals accurately reflect the fundamental values of left-wing tenet?
What Labour - formerly a party of dissent - should be doing is providing an intelligent alternative narrative. Why was Byrne not taking to the podium with a sheet full of facts and figures capable of making a mockery of David Cameron's stance on welfare? Why not point out that benefit fraud, whilst obviously being an unacceptable crime, accounts for less than 1% of overall welfare spending? Better still, in order to weaken the Tories position further, let the public know of the £16bn in means-tested benefits and tax credits that currently goes unclaimed each and every year. Ask Cameron if he is as willing to chase down these individuals as he is the so-called "scroungers". Now there is a response I would love to witness.
Instead, what we are left with is a party so desperate for power that it is willing to break away from traditional left-wing values and tackle the Conservatives by pitching their tent in the same field; 'anything you can do, I can do better' appears to be the unspoken motto. When the Tories are tough on immigration, rather than defend the advantages of migration, modern Labour simply repeats the right-wing assertion that immigration is out of control and running amok. When the Tories want to bomb Libya, other than a few honourable exceptions (namely, Jeremy Corbyn), Labour supports the notion for fear of being deemed awkward or too liberal. This must end now.
Margaret Thatcher once remarked: "We have to move this country in a new direction, to change the way we look at things, to create a wholly new attitude of mind". This sentiment, whilst originating from an undesirable source, has never been more applicable than in 2012. The Labour Party needs to stop accepting the conventional wisdom and start challenging the common narrative. Thus far, Cameron has dictated the terrain and forced Miliband to abandon his natural stances; leaving him looking incompetent and exposed. A party with a broad history of radicalism must not allow itself to meander carelessly towards the safety of centre ground. Until its members realise this, it shall remain a pitiful shadow of its former glorious self.
]]>When Will the Endless Military Defenders Confess to Their Stupidity?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12018932012-01-12T11:26:36-05:002012-03-13T05:12:01-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/urinating over Afghan corpses; laughing and mocking for good measure. Who now would dare to stand up and naively shoot down and ridicule the arguments of vociferous critics of the military? Who now shall continue to ignorantly preach the blinkered view that our armed forces are solely a force for good?
This latest video is not an isolated event. On the contrary, it is part of a sickeningly long history of war crimes perpetrated by NATO forces since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, that is not to deny that lots of sterling work has been conducted by some of our military representatives; but that should not trigger the overlooking of the countless acts of savage, barbaric behaviour. So, before the ardent numbskulls, for there are bound to be some, take up the challenge of wilfully defending the military per se, here is a list of considerations that I urge you to treat as a template for your altogether predictable responses:
* Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs' infamous 'Kill Team' was sentenced to life imprisonment in November for indiscriminately murdering Afghan civilians; something the judge described as hunting down innocent Afghans "for sport". The soldiers - or monsters, to give them their full and proper title - admitted to slicing off the body parts of Afghans and keeping them as trophies. Mr Gibbs may be released in 10 years time so that he can reunite with his son; lucky child. With role models like that, who needs villains?
* The Abu Ghraib fiasco. Where does one start when describing the atrocities carried out, in our name, at this repugnant prison in Baghdad? Rape, torture, sodomy, humiliation, beatings; the list goes on. Tales of teenagers being subjected to sexual abuse, prisoners forced to eat from toilets and detainees made to bark have been rife. What requires serious deliberation is the fact that not all these detainees had committed crimes; many of them were innocent, harmless civilians. Worse still, in the words of one former Brigadier General in-charge of Abu Ghraib until early 2004: "Rumsfeld authorised these specific techniques".
* Widespread prisoner abuse has been rampant throughout both Iraq and Afghanistan. Only this month, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that the US hand over all detainees to Afghan custody following reports of serious abuses being orchestrated by American soldiers. Strip searches and light deprivation techniques are said to have been used regularly; war crimes and human rights violations by anyone's standards.
The three examples outlined above demonstrate clearly how immoral the armed forces can be; and have been. However, let me spare my fellow Brits from having to beat their nationalistic chest, they are all case studies involving American military personnel. Fear not, the British will be getting it from both barrels shortly. Nevertheless, the argument that just because these examples involve US forces and, therefore, the British military are exempt from criticism is laughable. As allies, an illegal act from either nation reflects badly on all. But, as promised, here are the considerations for you British deniers:
* The tragic death of Baha Mousa will forever stain the reputation of our 'brave boys'. "Systematic abuse" and "unacceptable violence" was the verdict following an inquiry into the goings-on at a British detention centre in southern Iraq. Baha Mousa was a hotel receptionist. He offered no threat to the armed soldiers - or, for that matter, the country for which they were supposedly serving - yet was on the receiving end of severe beatings; resulting in 93 separate injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose.
* In December it was unearthed that a British soldier serving in Afghanistan had been dismissed from the army for bayoneting an innocent 10-year-old child. He was said to be suffering from "a hangover after a heavy vodka drinking session". What was the provocation for such a ferocious attack? The boy, running an errand, merely asked for some chocolate. How about that for democracy spreading?
* Let us not forget Bloody Sunday. The Bloody Sunday inquiry stated that "none of the casualties shot by soldiers was armed". With regards to the British army, the report asserts: "Many of these soldiers have knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing".
One incident can be explained; two can be excused. But when the evidence begins to stack up, it is our duty to start asking probing, uncomfortable questions. Shame should weigh heavily on the shoulders of those who choose to defend, or ignore, our military's shameful acts. How many tragic incidents do you write off as mistakes before you accept, albeit begrudgingly, that there is an institutional problem manifesting within our armed forces?
]]>The Real Villain of the GOP Race is the President Himself (Part Two)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11986492012-01-11T07:02:36-05:002012-03-12T05:12:01-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/Continued from Part One...
Hard to imagine any sane individual voting for this guy, right? Wrong. It is now public knowledge that President Obama embraced Uzbekistan's tyrannical president, Islam Karimov, in return for the opening of crucial supply lines into Afghanistan. Obama has since rewarded the central Asian republic with a 50% increase in financial aid for their compliance. For a man who preaches peace and diplomacy - lest we forget, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 - his willingness to negotiate with, and prop-up, a regime that regularly brnus dissenters alive and is fond of raping, electrocuting and suffocating its own citizens is highly perturbing.
If condoning the appalling acts of President Karimov were not bad enough, Obama's attempts to overturn the worldwide ban on cluster munitions last year ought to provide the cherry for this warped imperialistic cake. One must ask oneself, are these really the acts of an anti-war saviour? It was only in 2009 that the new president was being celebrated and congratulated on his, seemingly, well-intentioned decision to support a total ban on the lethally inaccurate weapon. But how things change. Cluster bombs scatter hundreds of bomblets across a wide area and have incessantly killed and maimed innocent civilians long after bloody conflicts end. Why Mr Obama saw fit to try and ignite a renaissance in the despicable armament is not wholly clear; but one suspects corporate profit had something to do with it.
Having spiralled your way through this tangled web of criminality, allow your hazy mind to take just one more horrifying revelation. Here goes. President Obama ordered the killing of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on 30 September, 2011. Drones were sent to assassinate the radical cleric without due process; Awlaki's 16-year-old son also lost his life that day having been caught up in the deadly strike. But, as Antiwar.com commentator Jason Ditz points out, "Killing children with missiles isn't exactly new to the president". Moreover, the president actually takes pleasure in the murderous acts. In May 2010, at the Washington Formal Prom, Obama saw fit to distastefully share a joke, with what was clearly a small-minded crowd, about the existential threat posed by a predator drone.
Political writer Alex Pareene, of Salon, remarked: "The president is evincing a casual disregard for those lives he is responsible for ending by making a lighthearted joke". Of course, you would not know that the president had just produced a nauseating piece of rhetorical garbage judging by the way his listeners lapped it up like giggling little girls. As an aside, nobody even questioned the fact that his 'joke' was based around the notion of someone wanting to sleep with his underage daughters. Classy. The fact is, though, that President Obama has indiscriminately dropped unmanned planes on far-away regions without the slightest molecule of regret or concern. And the American public continue to gullibly regard him as a progressive.
Overwhelmingly, this imagined campaign has reeked of the worst excesses of right-wing jingoism and violence. Not even in Michele Bachmann's wildest of wildest dreams would she dare to run a parallel operation based on such sheer warmongering and destruction. Yet, what is palpably being misunderstood is the fact that this fails to be an abstract concept. It is the reality, the actuality and the phenomenon that is President Obama. Paul Krugman was being polite in July when he described the president as a "moderate conservative"; for he is clearly worse. And consequently, the Republican challengers to Obama's crown have had to manoeuvre even further towards the right; way out on the periphery.
Inevitably, this makes the Romney's, the Paul's and the Santorum's appear unelectable; which, it goes without saying, is true. But that is not, and should not be, the point. The GOP has been severely weakened as a result of the president's right-wing positioning, leaving Obama free to spread his lurid interpretation of liberalism and progressive politics; all with the backing of his wretched partisan bandwagon. It is political triangulation of the highest calibre; not witnessed since Clinton's tenure at the top. Wrongly, and to the detriment of democracy, Obama will face no real threat come November. The right are too segmented and the left continues to sit back silently, absorbing all the false promises and deceitful acts. If the Republican's want an irrational, trigger-happy right-winger in the White House they would do well to stick with what they currently have.]]>The Real Villain of the GOP Race is the President Himself (Part One)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11894442012-01-06T11:49:44-05:002012-03-07T05:12:01-05:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
Frontrunner Mitt Romney is suffering from what I shall refer to as a sinister and weird Mormon problem, up-and-coming Rick Santorum is, by any true believers' standards, a complete and utter loon, which is also a tag all-too-easily synonymous with the recently humbled Rick Perry, who, following an on-going drought in Texas, declared official "Days for Prayer for Rain" back in April last year.
Yet, before I sink to the similarly low depths of much of the media, I shall refrain from dissecting the Republican nominees too much; for they are not the most important, nor indeed, the most interesting segment of this excruciatingly predictable election campaign.
Instead, I would like to propose that we imagine for a moment, if you will, that a Republican was in the White House and a young, enigmatic idealist named Barack Obama was their greatest challenger. Rather than use those phony, over-polished slogans - "Change we can believe in" - we shall pretend, for the sake of clarity, that his campaign was made up of pledges mirroring the reality of what has transpired since 20 January, 2009.
"Change I cannot, and will not, implement" would have been, perhaps, a more accurate description of things to come. Firstly, let me notify you of an overlooked gem buried deep within Obama's ideological past. Often celebrated for his charismatic manner and pitch-perfect presentational skills, Mr Obama must have been having something of an off-day when he was asked to comment on same-sex marriage during an MTV interview back in November 2008.
Despite being championed as a voice of the left - a socialist, no less - Obama brazenly asserted that marriage should be "between a man and a woman". It is one thing being heralded as a progressive, but it would be helpful to, at least occasionally, back this up with proof and action.
Had Obama's archaic stance been unveiled more acutely during his ruckus with Senator John McCain, there is no guessing how many votes that would have cost him. Nevertheless, domestic faux pas aside, it is President Obama's foreign policies that would surely have made it harder, nigh on impossible, for him to gain the presidency. Traditional lefties are renowned for their opposition to warfare; in other words, imperialism is the devil. So, quite predictably, to avoid being labelled as a "moderate conservative" - that was to come later - Obama ardently endorsed diplomacy; regularly spreading anti-war rhetoric as if liberally manuring a field.
Now, once again, the powers of imagination are called upon. Conceptualise a presidential candidate pledging the following: I shall sell weapons to the most brutal dictator in return for permission to pass weapons to military units in neighbouring countries. I shall lead efforts to overturn the sickening global ban on cluster bombs; what harm have they ever done? I promise to assassinate American citizens without the bother of trials or charges if they dare to so much as criticise American foreign policy. On top of that, despite the multiple horrors inflicted by drone strikes, I shall joke about them shamelessly, just because I can.
To be continued...
]]>Militarisation of Britain Should Trouble Us Alltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11748772012-01-02T04:22:07-05:002012-03-02T05:12:01-05:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/Guardian prior to my long overdue Christmas break I stumbled upon a fascinating piece by George Chesterton that spoke beautifully of Britain's unconditional love towards all things military related: "Britain has been drawn into a deep sleep about war", warns the author. And he happens to be right. The tip of the iceberg has been the monumental rise of the Military Wives choir; culminating in their single, Wherever You Are, reaching Christmas number one. This year also witnessed the fourth annual Sun Military Awards (televised, of course), a serving soldier performed on the X Factor and the continuation of the propagandist Help for Heroes campaign.
Not one of these events would be detrimental in isolation, but, when combined, form an unpleasant amalgamation that causes Britain to take leave of its senses. As a nation, we no longer question the 'brave' acts of 'our boys'; Deepcut Barracks and Abu Ghraib seemingly a distant memory. Torture, sexual harassment, electric shock, sleep deprivation; not the handy work of our courageous heroes, surely. In fact, the whole puzzling desire to be a member of our armed forces is never questioned. As the brilliant academic Angus Calder once pointed out, "The military career requires wars for fulfilment". Pro-military cheerleaders will claim that they fight for their country and keep ungrateful cretins like myself safe and secure. Not once do they dare grasp the notion that some servicemen may enjoy the addictive nature of warfare.
Similarly, whilst cheerleaders preach that we ought to be grateful for all the hard efforts of our military personnel, they never once stop and comprehend what exactly it is we ought to be grateful for. Labour leader Ed Miliband, in his Christmas message, thanked the army for making Britain "secure, peaceful and happy". I do apologise Ed, but I was totally unaware of the fact that the UK was insecure, non-peaceful and unhappy prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously I was not paying attention properly. Not for a moment was any consideration or goodwill passed on to the millions of widows, orphans, homeless and maimed of the aforementioned nations. They, of course, were merely collateral damage.
The common and preferable narrative is that the military is solely an agent for good. If only that were indeed true. Yes, many of our serving men and women are extremely brave and decent people, however, that does not, and should not, eradicate the sad reality that too many within our military are wrongdoers; unworthy of adoration. Shameful tales of drunken soldiers wilfully injuring innocent children are brushed under the carpet. God forbid anything gets in the way of Britain's blind hero worshipping. The main side-effect of this is that ordinary citizens no longer question and scrutinise the justifications for war. Politicians are given an easy ride.
By blindly endorsing the goodness of our armed forces we are consequently unable to make informed judgements over whether or not what we are doing is right. Stopping wars is becoming infinitely harder and unachievable. Debate surrounding why we are still fighting in distant regions has all but vanished from society. Enter any pub and all you will find is a Help for Heroes bucket placed on the bar with not one customer engaged in a conversation denouncing Britain's foreign policy. We are all the worse for it. Come to think of it, nobody is engaging in the imperative questions of our time: Why is the west so willing to resort to violence in the aftermath of the Cold War? Why is Britain engaged in so much conflict when its sovereignty has not been remotely threatened by any other state?
The normality of warfare also poses dangerous implications for the future. As Britain's gullible public dutifully slobbers over anyone who happens to possess a military uniform, our political elites are covertly plotting a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. How many Jonjo Kerr voters, Military Wives listeners or Help for Heroes donators are even aware of the looming encounter? How many of them even care? Not too many is my prediction, for they have been programmed through the militarisation of our popular culture to ignore such nasty goings-on. So, by all means, indiscriminately and instinctively ritualise the achievements of 'our boys', but do not think for one second that you can innocently bemoan the next batch of bodies to pass through Wootton Bassett having done nothing to prevent the next bloody conflict. ]]>Will it be a Happy New Year for Ed Miliband?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11589172011-12-19T17:04:51-05:002012-02-18T05:12:02-05:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
Latest ICM polling indicates that the Tories currently enjoy a six-point lead over Labour; the party's biggest lead for over a year. What will be of most concern to those within the Labour ranks is the fact that this sudden surge of support for Cameron follows both the autumn statement and the EU Brussels summit. When the country would ordinarily be in dismay, instead, they find themselves unable to put their faith in a Labour leader who clearly - and wrongly - feels the country is moving leftwards. The reality is that the nation is in fact edging, politically, towards to the centre ground; if not rightwards. The main attestation of this is UKIP's recent stream of popularity.
So where is Ed going wrong? (How long is a piece of string?) His first, and most fatal, mistake is his judgement over which direction Britain is moving. A plethora of recent events have highlighted the nation's casual shift towards conservatism and traditional Tory stances. The riots. The EU. The welfare state. The economy. Whatever the issue, Labour are seemingly singing from an entirely different hymn sheet than the general public. Whilst 'Red Ed' was concerning himself with the deep-rooted social problems driving August's wild looting spree, YouGov was reporting that 65% of people supported the use of plastic bullets; 77% of those surveyed felt that the army should be sent in to clampdown on dissenters.
In relation to the welfare state, Ed Miliband has been - unsurprisingly - quiet. He has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that there are undoubtedly individuals incessantly sponging off the state. Conversely, Cameron has placed it at the top of his agenda. The latest British Social Attitudes survey emphasised how, and why, Cameron is so on the money in comparison to Ed Miliband's overly leftist rabble. Over half of those asked believe that benefit payments are too high. Now, regardless of whether or not you feel £67.50 a week is sufficient income for which to survive, the most important thing for Labour to do, if they have any intention of returning to power, is to address the publics' anxieties.
Thus far, they have not. Miliband has forgotten the golden rule of politics. Do not be afraid to morph, modify and rework. He could learn a thing or two from the ultimate amender; Tony Blair. Blair knew to be progressive, with the right amount of conservatism. Principled, but no ideologue. A moderniser, but not an extremist. Perhaps Miliband will learn in time. The question is: how much time does he have? With heir apparents lining up en masse - David Miliband, Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls - the current Labour leader will need to get his act together. And fast. Thankfully for fans of this left-wing idealist, Ed is no old dog; new tricks can be learnt.
Opposition is a long, hard slog. The problem with Labour since Ed's tenure is that they have panicked; rushing to challenge the Tories on near enough every issue. Be it economic policy, immigration figures or pension reforms, Labour have popped up offering their alternate proposals. With four years to go until the next election, we do not need this. Instead, lessons need to be learnt from smart-minded individuals in the shadow cabinet. Individuals such as Jim Murphy and Stephen Twigg. Unlike colleagues Chukka Umunna and Rachel Reeves, Murphy and Twigg know how to express their perspective without forfeiting dignity. Rather than bombard the electorate with ceaseless appearances on political shows, the shadow defence and education secretaries sporadically offer their incite and wisdom.
This is the way forward if Labour is to regain a significant lead in the polls, and, more importantly, a considerable leap of faith from average citizens across the country. Had Labour not been so keen to criticise and condemn the Tories at each and every opportunity they may still be reaping the endless benefits of being in opposition. Sitting back and allowing the Conservatives to self-destruct ought to have been Plan A. Perhaps, rather than continually knocking the Tories' inability to change course, Labour should be self-reflecting and taking their own detour. Only then can Ed Miliband enjoy a fruitful 2012; though time may well be running out.
]]>Party Funding is a Serious Issue, Regardless of Which Side You're ontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11418432011-12-11T11:56:23-05:002012-02-10T05:12:01-05:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/There can no longer be large donations to political parties" said Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser under Tony Blair, earlier this year. Levy was making his comments to the committee on standards in public life in January; a committee set up to look at possible reform of the party political funding process. Other major Labour donors, such as Lord Sainsbury, echoed Levy's sentiments, suggesting that parties ought to be 85% funded by the state. The committee's review - entitled 'Political Party Finance: Ending the big donor culture' - was published last month and, among its many recommendations, stated firmly that "the only way to remove big money from party funding is to put a cap on donations, set at £10,000".
An acknowledgement was made that this would mean parties "cutting their spending, particularly their spending on campaigning", which would subsequently result in a greater effort to "engage with a larger number of individual supporters". No bad side-effect given the current levels of animosity towards the political elite. Yet, no sooner had the committee made its findings public, politicians from all sides were quick to denounce the conclusions as nothing more than an extra burden on impecunious taxpayers. Conservative party chair, Baroness Warsi, claimed that "the public will simply not accept a plan to hand over taxpayers' money to politicians". Tim Farron, Liberal Democrat president, reiterated the point saying that "now is not the time for more public money to be spent on politicians".
The problem is that all political parties, especially the Conservatives and Labour, rely heavily on hefty donations from wealthy endorsers. Traditionally, Labour has always enjoyed the unconditional support of the unions whilst the Conservatives have happily spent the money of rich City backers. Were the proposed changes to occur, both parties would have to dramatically rethink their strategic alliances by reaching out to new factions. The recommended alterations would also increase accountability, as, when taxpayers are forking out towards campaigns, manifesto pledges would gain all the more importance. If you think public anger over the Liberal Democrats tuition fees U-turn was bad, imagine what it would have been like had the public paid for the campaign in the first place.
Two recent issues have helped highlight the difficulties thrown up over party funding; the public sector strikes and the EU summit in Brussels. Recent Electoral Commission figures showed that 86% of Labour's current funding comes directly from the unions. Whilst there is a credible argument to be made over the fact that these are voluntary donations taken from union political funds, the Tories have incessantly accused Ed Miliband of being in the union's pocket; and with figures like that, it is hardly surprising. Only 13 private donations have been made to Labour since Ed's leadership victory, leaving him wide open to allegations of favouritism towards the union movement's causes. During a recent PMQs session, Cameron used the pun, "They're all shouting in Unison", in reference to Miliband's failure to condemn the public sector's mass walkout on 30th November.
Loyalties towards the union movement even divide opinion within the Labour party itself. Ed Miliband said following the 30th June walkout that "it was a mistake for strikes to happen". Mehdi Hasan revealed in the Guardian how one shadow minister had told him: "It doesn't do Ed any harm with the general public to be heckled at the TUC". This suggests that, behind the scenes, Labour is wary of appearing to side with trade unionists too much for fear of alienating a significant bulk of the electorate. But, what must not be forgotten is that, as Owen Jones points out in Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, Labour was founded "with the specific mission of representing working-class interests in Parliament". However, as Labour moved ever closer to the centre ground under Blair, they began distancing themselves from the unions. Since Miliband's reign, Labour has slowly gravitated back towards working-class causes; albeit steadily.
Last weeks decision by David Cameron to veto a treaty change to help save the Eurozone was met with stern criticism from left-leaning pro-Europeans. The Conservatives over reliance on the City was utilised to the full by Labour as they accused Cameron of putting the interests of his party ahead of the interests of Britain. Pandering to his Eurosceptic backbenchers and an unwillingness to impose a Financial Transaction Tax on his City friends have been emphasised as the main factors behind Cameron's verdict. Both theories are hard to disprove, but it is the latter one that strikes the biggest chord in the party funding debate. Recent figures by GMB reveal how 60% of Tory funding comes from rich backers in the City. GMB general secretary, Paul Kenny, said: "They are the same old nasty Tories now in the pockets of the predatory elite". Perhaps this is why Cameron refuses to even consider any scaling back of the City's powers.
There are numerous other debates that ought to be taking place surrounding Britain's relationship with the EU, but, due to a petty desire to point-score, Labour has concentrated on denouncing the decision based on Tory party loyalties; a topic that laughably resonates as much with Labour as with the Conservatives. And that is the main concern over the party funding dilemma; it stifles perfectly credible disputes. Were funding not an issue, these two events would have been based on their merits instead of deep-rooted ideological adherence. As Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, asserts: "The issue [of party funding] is too important to be shelved until the next scandal brings it to the fore".
He continued, "All three parties now depend on very large donations from a small number of rich individuals or organisations. That cannot be healthy for democracy". As these two episodes have proven, party political funding plays a damaging role in both our policies and our democratic system. There should be no more hiding behind the unions or sucking up to the City; Britain's political parties must connect more with a wider audience, and, as a consequence, the public must accept that it is beneficial and progressive for taxpayers' money to be spent funding our main political parties. The committee's report concludes by pointing out the need to safeguard the health of democracy in the UK; surely this is an issue beyond party politics and ideological tendencies. This is genuinely a matter of national importance.
]]>Slaying Three Tory Liestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11290622011-12-05T08:08:30-05:002012-02-04T05:12:01-05:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
We have witnessed riots and protests, in-house quarrelling (within both Westminster and the UK) and widespread governmental corruption (Hackgate). To state that the coalition's rule has been blighted by downbeat and damaging events would be to state the very least; it has been a monumental catastrophe. Yet the Telegraph's latest poll appears to suggest that the public are simply failing to absorb the sordid realities staring them in the face.
Now admittedly, ICM's poll does contradict many of the polls over the last year showing Labour to have a slight lead - usually two or three points - over the Conservatives, but it is worthy of note nonetheless. This latest survey had the Tories on 38% and Labour two behind on 36%. Strangely, this turnaround follows George Osborne's frightening autumn statement that warned of additional years of austerity. So, do the general public not grasp what spending cuts actually mean or do they willfully accept an inevitable decline in their quality of life? Either way, incompetence and ignorance is seemingly rife.
It is hard to measure why exactly Cameron and Osborne remain so liked and trusted; and even harder to swallow just how unpopular Miliband and Balls appear to be. When only the extremely wealthy have been proven to benefit from Tory policy how come they enjoy such prevalent backing? What can solely be concluded from this is that Labour's message is failing to break through and resonate with the electorate. Admittedly, this is largely the by-product of having such a right-leaning mainstream media, but Labour MPs must also take their fair share of the blame. Despite entering political debates armed with an array of overwhelming statistics and facts, Labour endorsers are not defeating Tory advocates decisively enough.
In order to slay the Conservative's effective propaganda beast we on the left must not be afraid to speak out and challenge conventional wisdom and the status quo. To assist you, here are three valuable counter-narratives that may come in useful:
PAYING OFF THE DEFICIT:
As last Wednesday's mass public sector walkout suggested, there is a passionate feeling amongst hard-working members of society that they should not be made to pay for the mistakes of a small elite of rich bankers. Paying off the deficit ought not to be the responsibility of low-to-middle income earners. There are numerous other ways the government could cut the deficit: a tough crack down on tax evasion (which costs the Treasury £70bn annually), greater tax on banks and promoting economic growth via a stimulus (which would reduce unemployment, increase tax revenues, cut welfare spending and boost consumer expenditure).
The Conservatives incessantly speak of how they inherited an unmanageable situation which in itself is a myth. Brown's Labour government did not cause the current financial mess; the banks and private sector did. Up until 2008, the Tories matched Labour spending pound for pound and have only changed narrative for propaganda purposes. Before the banking crash, Britain had a manageable deficit on a similar level to most major world economies.
DIVIDING THE NATION:
The Tories, by continually trampling over the public sector, have managed to successfully divide Britain in order to rally support and justify their actions. They have alienated the public sector - transforming nurses, teachers and trade unionists into antagonists - and deflected attention away from factual argument and discussion. This is because they are all too aware that were the debate to evolve around facts they would lose. The reality is that Osborne's economic policies have failed miserably, and now, in a desperate attempt to bolster the Treasury, public sector employees are being treated as scapegoats. The vicious propaganda campaign has been relentless, helping to turn a large proportion of mass opinion in favour of unfair and unjustifiable reforms.
ALL IN THIS TOGETHER:
Since May 2010, Cameron and co. have repeatedly peddled the lie that we are "all in this together". This narrative is meant to merge the nation and build a sense of unity amongst citizens. If only the lie were true. As the OECD's recent report demonstrates, inequality has risen faster in the UK than in any other major economy. These findings are based upon income averages. It has been found that the top 10% of earners bring home 12 times more than the bottom 10% (up from a ratio of eight to one in 1985). Also of importance is the fact that the average income gap within major world economies is nine to one. Shockingly, the share of income taken by the top 1% of UK earners has doubled since the 1970s; increasing from 7% to 14%.
Whilst it is undeniable that the Tories still enjoy a disturbing level of support, Labour need to ram these messages down the throats of anyone willing to listen. With mass media on the side of Cameron, Miliband needs to rally his comrades and equip them with the knowledge and confidence required for this bitter conflict. It is going to be a long, hard slog, but come 2015 the nation needs to be aware of the alternative. Austerity is not the only answer in these tough economic times. Propaganda has infested the discourse and diverted pressure onto Labour, but, as former Guardian editor C.P Scott once remarked: "Comment is free, but facts are sacred". Labour and the public must know the facts if we are to counter this horrible Tory dominance.
]]>Old Hunters Lodge, Whipsnadetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11252902011-12-02T08:48:25-05:002012-02-01T05:12:01-05:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
Thankfully, this ambience carries through into the bar-lounge. My guest (K) and I were warmly welcomed by the barmaid, who, following a beaming smile, immediately asked what drink we would like. I opted for a pint of cider whilst K chose her traditional vodka and diet coke. The bill for these was added to the tab. Having pre-booked a table - and having arrived early - we enjoyed a short moment reflecting upon the various characteristics of the bar area.
An interesting combination of sinking sofas, wooden tables, tall bar stools and armed chairs dominate the décor whilst a beautiful and inviting open fire takes centre stage. The low ceiling and warm colour scheme help create a cosy atmosphere where one can easily snuggle down and lose track of time. Luckily, we arrived during a busy period, leading to a noise level that sat just the right side of pleasant. In fact, the occasional loud laughter manifesting from a tipsy local added greatly to the overall appeal and experience.
Somewhat strangely, we were offered a menu and asked to choose our food before being seated in the restaurant section of the building; but, aside from being slightly puzzled, K and I went on drinking our drinks whilst pondering what the rest of the pub might have to offer. And we weren't to be disappointed. Before finishing our drinks we were whisked off graciously towards the restaurant. Following a short but pleasant weave through old wooden beams and wonky old doors we found ourselves in the restaurant.
Obviously newer, the restaurant offers a completely different experience altogether. Congenial music greets you softly as candles glisten all around. You are transported from a lively and traditional country local to a chic, modern and somewhat Parisian setting. The decoration is minimal but with enough stand out features - such as the adorable little depth pictures hanging on the wall - to keep you eyeballing the room. As we took our seats some delectable warm seeded rolls were offered as an appetiser.
And so, after not too long a wait, we were tucking into our starters. K decided to stick to a fish theme throughout the meal, choosing the pan fried scallops in a white wine sauce with crispy pancetta (£7.95). The scallops were cooked perfectly and, along with the crispy pancetta, provided one of the nicest textures known to man. I had the chef's pate (£6.55), which involved chicken livers, brandy, wine, onions, herbs and cream. Regrettably, my toast was slightly cold, but overall the dish was a beautiful way to start.
Onto the main courses: Sticking religiously to a theme of fish, K went for the trout bretonne with prawns and mushrooms (£11.95). It truly was a lovely piece of fish - served whole - accompanied by some squeezable lemon. The trout was tender and just fell off the bone; a real delight to devour. My chicken a la king (£13.50) was a pleasing combination of diced chicken breast with a creamy onion, pepper, mushrooms and sherry sauce served with rice. Both meals were wonderful, if a little filling.
The meals alone would have proven enough, but alongside your dishes you are presented with bowls of potatoes and mixed vegetables. We were given a dish full of new potatoes, another dish filled with gorgeous sautéed potatoes and another with a mix of seasonal veg (cabbage, runner beans and cauliflower). Whilst all being perfectly edible, when served alongside such hefty portions it was a little too much. A lot of the new potatoes remained uneaten and, as a result of the beautiful aesthetic elements of the sautéed potatoes, my rice had to play second fiddle.
However, despite the overwhelming portion sizes, we left the table feeling full yet not too uncomfortable. A dessert was not necessary - though they were offered and a wide selection was available. As time was not on our side, we could not resume our session in the bar afterwards. But, were we not in so much of a hurry, that would have been the perfect way to end the perfect evening. Laughter and chatter was now in full swing with a nice mixture of young and old drinkers mingling together.
Any preconceptions of country pubs are blown away by this suburb modest environment. Strangers and first-timers are welcomed as if they had been coming for years. There is no apparent dress code, meaning you can come as smart or as relaxed as you wish. The only requirement is that you enjoy yourself and have a good time; and if you ask me, that is not a bad obligation to have.
Price of evening: £54.60
Value for money: 4/5
Overall enjoyment: 5/5
]]>Is Britain Losing its Morality?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11127232011-11-29T13:00:00-05:002012-01-29T05:12:01-05:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
Now, I understand that we are in tough times at the moment - Arab Awakening, Eurozone crisis, domestic spending cuts etc - but rarely have I been as incensed as I have been recently.
Two recent news stories sent my blood pressure soaring. They made me question everything I believe in. It forced me to ponder: are my principles that unique; that much of an alien concept that nobody else could ever possibly concur with them? Am I the only one seeing these stories; the only one willing to speak out against the inequality and injustice currently spreading through this very country like wildfire?
The first story to catch my eye was the announcement of the coalition's new £1bn scheme to try and reduce youth unemployment.
However, as if often the case with this administration, this plan has many flaws and blemishes. Firstly, as an aside, this new scheme looks remarkably similar to Labour's Future Jobs Fund (FJF); a programme described by the Conservatives in their 2010 manifesto as a "failing employment scheme".
Fundamentally, the new scheme will provide a subsidy for companies willing to employ 18 to 24 year-olds. It differs only from the FJF in that it does not include public sector jobs. But it was not the embarrassing U-turn that troubled me; on the contrary, it brought a smile to my face.
What troubled me was the nagging doubt in the back of my mind: how will this new programme be funded? After all, we are supposedly bankrupt right? With our coalition partners incessantly asserting that they will not spend a penny of new money, a few immediate suggestions sprang to mind. A tax on banks perhaps? A wealth tax on the asset-rich? Or maybe even a donation from Cameron himself; it appears he is not short of a few quid! But then reality strikes. As reported in the Financial Times yesterday, the subsidies will be funded through the real-term cuts in family tax credits. It is expected that George Osborne will not be increasing family tax credits in line with inflation; thus enabling the £1bn saved to go towards the new jobs plan.
In other words, it will be low-to-middle income earners having to lose out for the benefit of the economic recovery; not the individuals who caused the catastrophic mess in the first place. If Labour are serious about wanting to regain power in 2015 they will do well to attack this abhorrent decision and provide plausible alternatives that strike a chord with average citizens. Alongside the suggestions outlined above, a tax on bankers' bonuses would surely be the most obvious place to start. Another option, not to be overlooked, would be to fund this jobs scheme with money saved through stopping affluent pensioners receiving winter fuel allowance? Either way, it is morally wrong to keep taking from the least well-off in society; especially when we read almost daily of massive pay rises and bonuses within the higher echelons of the private sector.
The second story angered me in relation to the first one. I stumbled across new research carried out by the Tax Justice Network. They found that tax evasion costs the UK approximately £70bn annually. But where is all the anger? Why are Cameron and Osborne so quiet on this sickening fact? Who knows? All I do know is that it is extremely patronising of Cameron and the Sun to team up and make tackling benefit "scroungers" their biggest priority. Benefit fraud costs the UK £1.5bn a year; a figure dwarfed by that of tax evasion.
If the coalition were serious about reducing the deficit surely they would get their priorities in order; unless, of course, their decisions were in fact ideologically driven as opposed to being driven due to economic necessity. Another example of an ideologically driven agenda comes from last weeks claim from Tory minister Francis Maude that the public sector strike on the 30th will cost the economy £500m. Despite his insistence, the figures he quotes do not add up under close scrutiny. Money gained through not having to pay striking workers has not been included in this figure and childcare costs and lost work is hard to predict as some employees will bring their children to work whilst others will call upon the services of grandparents.
What is clear though is that when combining the stories a clear Tory ideological agenda is unearthed. Cameron calls union members "irresponsible" yet does not offer equivalent condemnation of rich tax dodgers.
Why is this and what does it tell us? Yet what ceases to amaze me is that Britain does not appear as infuriated by this as I am. Flagrant lies, bias towards the wealthy and clear double standards ought to be enough to get tens of millions of us marching on Downing Street; but this scenario has failed to materialise. Instead, the humble great British public remain silent and tacit. Where has our morality gone?]]>Where the Leveson Inquiry Falls Shorttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11119412011-11-27T18:00:00-05:002012-03-19T07:00:19-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
All of last week, Sky News and BBC News were showing continuous coverage from the Royal Courts of Justice as events unfolded, meaning that those of us engrossed in the 24-hour news culture have had no option but to yield to the commotion.
It has been unavoidable. Yet strangely, as more and more evidence - evidence used loosely here as most of what has been said appears to be anecdotal - is produced, I find myself disappointed and somewhat bored by it all.
Undoubtedly this is an important issue and a topic that deserves serious scrutiny, but I fear an anti-climax is the most conceivable conclusion to this sorry saga.
We all know the history. Widespread malfeasance, illegal phone-hacking and unethical journalism has been rife within several newspapers - most evidently at the News of the World, though according to some not solely - and, as a result, this inquiry is looking into the culture, practice and ethics of the press.
Public support for such an inquiry came following revelations that murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked; resulting in the deletion of voicemail messages that subsequently led to false hope surrounding the prospect of her survival.
However, as these first few days have proven, the Leveson inquiry has spiralled into a celebrity circus; a fanfare of famous faces all keen to have a pot-shot at their supposed tormenters.
Of course, that is not to make light of the genuine grievances felt by these celebrities, all of whom have suffered serious violations of privacy.
But crucially, they must not be allowed to take centre stage in these proceedings. The wider picture must be seen. I have no doubt that a major outcome from this inquiry will be the hefty shake-up of privacy laws. Therefore, Sienna Miller, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan shall gain their desired ending.
But what about the Dowler family? What about the average hard-up citizen who cannot afford to sue publications for defamation and libel? Those are the real questions and answers that need addressing if anything is to be ascertained from the whole episode.
However, a more pressing issue concerning me is the apparent letting-off of the public; the ones, after all, who were all too happy to purchase the News of the World knowing full well what kind of journalism they were producing.
Without wishing to sound snobby, it has to be said, the same applies to readers of the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and any other immoral tabloid that publishes sordid and objectionable tales.
How much blame can we as consumers take? If there was no interest in such stories, the papers would not be so keen to print them. Yet we, the 'innocent' consumer, will not be facing questioning at the Leveson inquiry. We will not be made to justify ourselves. Surely, for that reason alone, the whole trial can be deemed bogus.
Can we blame newspapers - when readership and circulation is in sharp decline - for printing tacky celebrity stories or revealing exclusive and shocking (albeit, illegally gained) details surrounding popular high-profile news stories?
If it boosts sales, why not? Did any of you care when you picked up for copy of the Sun about the invaded privacy of Kate and Gerry McCann? Flogging papers is seen as first priority in the eyes of many hacks and editors; breaches of privacy are merely collateral damage. How many of you questioned the so-called guilt of Chris Jefferies following the media witchhunt he found himself a victim of? My bet would be that judgements were made based on both the individual's image and a willingness to blindly soak up the tabloids conclusions.
So yes, the inquiry will be splashed all over 24-hour news and front pages across the land, and yes, the findings will be interesting (if not wholly satisfying).
But no, this is not a flawless procedure taking place, and no, it will not get to the bottom of the most serious and damaging aspect within our culture: our obsession with gossip and celebrity.
The British public, as well as tabloid newspapers, must tackle its faults if we are to gain a better standard of journalism in this country.
You are fooled if you believe that the problem is not a combination of both profit-inspired publications and gossip-hungry consumers. Unless we realise this, the entire Leveson inquiry may as well not bother continuing as we all would have missed the point. The point that ought to be blatantly slapping us all around the face.
]]>Tories! Putting the 'N' in Cuts!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11057772011-11-22T18:00:00-05:002012-03-19T06:58:52-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/ Gold-plated has been utilised as a supposedly cutting remark, notwithstanding that fact that, when thinking about it, to be gold-plated signals inferiority as opposed to superiority. Indeed, if I were given the choice between a gold watch and a gold-plated watch, I know which one I would purchase. Nevertheless, petty linguistic squabbles aside, there is a very real and genuine case to be made in support of the unions in their ongoing melee with the Tories.
First and foremost in my argument is the simple, and accurate, assertion that the Tories are in fact hopeful that the unions will walk out and stage numerous protests over the coming months. These pension reforms have provided Cameron with a window of opportunity to finally finish what Margaret Thatcher started during her reign as Conservative leader.
Her war with the trade unions was an incomplete battle and one Cameron's right-wing rabble had every intention of finishing the moment they stepped foot inside Downing Street.
Workers rights have never been top of the Tory agenda, except now, with the full backing of the majority of mainstream media outlets, they can irrevocably endeavour to stick the final nail in the public-sector coffin. Cameron knows that, with headlines such as "The gold-plated council pensions funded by you", the majority of public sentiment will be against strike action.
Blatant myths have been fabricated and re-told in order to rally the ignorant masses. The most common of these myths is that public-sector pensions are "unaffordable" and "untenable". This fable has been exercised in order to alarm an already anxious public into believing that our hard-working teachers and nurses are in some way culpable for the current financial mess Britain finds itself in. If only the fable were accurate.
Ironically, in 2007, David Cameron had the bare-faced audacity to accuse Gordon Brown of hitting "those who have worked hard and saved for their future" by pushing through, you guessed it, pension reform. Clearly Mr Cameron has forgotten his deep underlying concern for hard-working Brits if his latest ideologically-driven proposals are anything to go by.
Far from being an economic necessity, the proposed changes, whereby employees must work longer and pay more at a time when inflation is at a record high, are undoubtedly the result of a much-desired Thatcher-inspired conscious political decision. Yet, our unquestioning, inattentive and morally-absent general public cannot for the life of them see this.
They merely pick up their newspaper, voluntarily absorb the lukewarm diarrhoea being spoon-fed to them and then have the impudence to criticise the teachers who educate them and the nurses who cure them.
What should be plain to see for anyone of even the smallest level of intellect is the incontestable reality that these reforms are merely a small chunk out of the corpulent carcass known as naked deficit reduction. Having made so many ill-judged guarantees that, over the course of this parliament, Britain's deficit would be significantly reduced. Cameron pledged in the Financial Times that he "will not falter" in his self-appointed mission to reduce the deficit.
However, with growth stagnant and unemployment rising by the day, the Tories are resorting to desperate and impulsive channels in an effort to bolster the cash-light Treasury. Regrettably, yet not altogether surprisingly given the Conservative's track record, the public-sector, along with the most vulnerable and poor strands of our society, are taking the biggest hit.
Take the recent announcement that benefit payments are to be increased in line with a six month average inflation (4.5%) instead of the traditional, and much fairer, monthly inflation (5.2%).
Considering welfare payment cuts have already been implemented, this emphasises a not-so-covert programme aimed at bleeding the last drop of blood from the least well-off.
Furthermore, the decision to exempt pensioners from this new initiative underlines the conservative mentality: they will do anything to remain in power and see through their warped objectives. They know all too well that pensioners vote in huge numbers at elections and any policy taking aim at them would automatically achieve a significant deduction in popularity at the polls. I am hoping, by now, that the penny may be starting to drop for some of you.
Let us broadly look at who has suffered most following the disgusting antics of the banks in this country; the very banks and bankers who helped bring about our current economic disarray. Firstly, it is imperative to point out that they themselves have not suffered. The Tories have not imposed sanctions limiting the amount of money set aside by banks in order to nauseatingly shower senior executives with multi-million pound end-of-year bonuses. Then, to add insult to injury, it was revealed that the average FTSE 100 director received a 49% wage increase this year; conversely, average worker pay increased by just 1.8% (well below inflation). Now, by my reckoning, a semi-coherent chimp could deduce from these stats that it ought to be the bankers paying off the deficit; not the hard-working cog of Britain's ever-rusting mechanism.
Yet somehow, and I do struggle to comprehend why, our current administration blindly believes that "we are all in this together". Of course, they say this to justify the bleak fact that the police are facing front-line cuts, the NHS is undergoing major, not to mention unwanted, changes, all public-sector workers are having to forfeit their pension payments and all of us suffered a £520 dent when VAT rose to 20%. But worryingly, the Conservatives continue to enjoy a decent level of public support; especially with regards to opposition to striking public-sector employees.
This beggar's belief. The one theme that incessantly occurs when speaking to private-sector workers is that of fairness: if we are undergoing pay freezes and cuts, so must the public-sector.
A race to the bottom has unnervingly manifested as a result. Aside from the small issue surrounding ethics and morality, to want a whole sect of workers to suffer just because another is struggling to maintain the healthy advantage usually enjoyed over it is baffling. So what if the private-sector no longer enjoys a massive pay gulf over the public-sector?
Is it not fair to say that it is the public-sector that provides the backbone of this nation's cadaver; my use of lexis to signal a belief that the country is fast becoming corpse-like. Project managers, event managers, consultants, you name it, we do not necessarily need them; they do not have an effect, be it positive or negative, on our daily lives.
On the other hand, teachers, nurses, bus drivers; the opposite is indeed true. They shape our world on a monthly, daily, hourly basis.
I for one shall be thoroughly endorsing the action taken on the 30th and will continue to support the unions in their bid to bring about fairness and equality. Whatever the Tories say and whatever the right-wing media contends, remember just three things:
1) Two-thirds of private-sector employees are not enrolled on a pension scheme (compared to just 12% of public-sector workers), begging the quite palpable question: do they even care about pensions?
2) Imagine a Britain without the public-sector. Imagine if they all pulled out of their pension schemes, where would that leave our deficit reduction plan?
It is no surprise that as Britain's union membership has decreased (currently standing at 26.6%), inequality has soared.
That is why we must unite whenever issues concerning trade unions and public-sector workers arise: they have the potential to benefit us all. ]]>The Left's Problem with Warfaretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11001692011-11-17T16:38:29-05:002012-03-19T06:54:54-04:00Scott Hillhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hill/
A frequent and somewhat unrefined narrative goes as such: if you are right-wing you support war, whereas if you are of a leftist persuasion you oppose such confrontation. If only it were that simple. The reality is that warfare is not merely the black and white scenario many make it out to be. The truth is that warfare and militaristic intervention is one of the most polarising topics out there in the political sphere. It splits not just those on opposing ideological sides but those who share similar, if not identical, political beliefs. Tragically, this has a detrimental and destructive impact; particularly on the left. Unlike the right, who usually hold firm and united on such issues, the left finds itself divided and at loggerheads.
Strangely, the concerns surrounded military deployment wound the left on two fronts; the passionate anti-war movement and the influential pacifist faction. Both splinter groups' anxieties merit considerable deliberation. First, I shall endeavour to conclude the pacifism versus warfare dispute before tackling the problems surrounding the anti-war concept. It is imperative that we grasp and dissect the two theories in order to fully comprehend the problems they create. An anti-war movement is a movement established in order to oppose a nation's decision to go to war or carry out armed conflict. Pacifism differs slightly in that a pacifist is opposed to war and violence in general; this is not tied to a specific circumstance, unlike anti-war sentiment.
George Orwell once wrote: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other". Essentially, by this, Orwell was asserting - correctly - that pacifism is a hypocritical stance. On the one hand they wish to avoid violence, yet, by remaining non-aligned, inadvertently give the other side an advantage. A recent example would be Iran. Pacifists will, and do, claim that western powers must not bomb Iranian nuclear facilities in order to avert them becoming the tenth nation to possess nuclear weapons. Yet what they obdurately refuse to acknowledge is the potential damage that a nuclear-armed Iran could cause to world peace.
Naturally, their argument does carry some weight. They claim, as Mehdi Hasan does, that why should Iran not have nuclear weapons when nine other countries are already in possession of such harmful tools (especially when North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and China are included on that list)? But crucially, pacifists downplay the numerous threats made by senior Iranian officials. Iran's chief nuclear envoy, Ali Larijani, claimed that whilst Iran had no plans to use nuclear weapons, "If we are threatened, the situation may change". A pacifist mentality would absolutely have allowed Nazism to spread unchallenged and many more lives would have been lost; all because of a wishy-washy belief in never bearing arms. Can we risk allowing Iran the first move?
Many on the left wholeheartedly criticise right-wing thinkers who ardently support foreign invasions. And with good reason. In fact, you would be hard pushed to find anybody on the left who admires imperialism, let alone the notion of invasion for financial or material gain. Nevertheless, some militaristic interventions can, and should, be justified for defending concrete left-wing principles. The invasion of Iraq for instance, whilst being fraudulently sold on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, was somewhat justified on the grounds of defending women's rights, secularism and democracy; all noble leftist causes. The removal of such tyrants as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and Muammar Gaddafi can only be a good thing.
What is objectionable however is the manner in which this occurs. Yes, I was delighted to witness Gaddafi's removal, but did not care to see him murdered at the hands of boisterous rebels. I am a firm believer in justice and would ideally have liked to see him stand trial for his many crimes. The same can be said of Osama bin Laden. He should not have been executed; a grim outcome many on the right were ecstatic about. Despite this, I am almost certain that the majority of citizens do not desire warfare, thus belittling the basic definition of what it means to be anti-war. More necessary is the ability to differentiate between worthy battles and avoidable ones. Vietnam, for example, was avoidable; as was President Clinton's callous attack on Sudan during his tenure.
Regrettably, the anti-war movement has transformed into a trendy bandwagon entity. It lacks any intellectual credence and merely bombards pro-interventionists with slanderous labels such as 'imperialists', 'warmongers' and 'neo-cons'. Instead of evaluating each and every case on its merit, all foreign policy is treated with the same contempt. Derision is the name of the game. Worse still, anti-war campaigners often fall into that unforgivable trap of siding with the antagonists. Celebrated activists John Pilger and George Galloway are the worst culprits. As recently as 2005, Mr Galloway, during a visit to Damascus University, stated, "Syria is lucky to have Bashar Al-Assad as her president"; the same president currently murdering his own citizens for demanding true democracy.
In recent years, there has been an alarming failure by the left to identify worthwhile democratic interventions. Even when motives have been suspect, such as William Hague's recent divulgence that Libya was about oil, it is vital that the left remembers the fundamental principles for which it stands; freedom, equality, human rights and emancipation. Adopted poster-boys Pilger and Galloway - not to mention Michael Moore - have, if anything, decreased the credibility of the left. To be leftist does not mean to automatically oppose military involvement; on the contrary. Rather, the left ought to be providing what should be mandatory scholarly analysis required for each proposed military involvement.
Whilst the right remain religiously united in all issues relating to war, the left continue to avoid the subject through fear of internally dividing. This must end if we are to regain integrity. Ironically, the left have made unconvincing, and somewhat feeble, defenders of humanitarian values in recent times. A world without Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic and, hopefully, sooner rather than later, Bashar Al-Assad is incontestably a better, safer and more democratic place. Yes, the imperfections of Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy and other western leaders are plain to see, but this should not blind those of us of leftist affiliation of the need to aid far away sufferers who struggle-on daily without the basic rights we in the privileged world take for granted.
]]>