Complaint to Searchlight.

This month’s Searchlight is up to the usual high standards.

There’s a fascinating, though deeply worrying, summary of politics in Hungary where extreme nationalist and anti-semitic discourse is becoming mainstream. The article on the latest antics of the National Front also provides some good comedy value. The most useful piece in the magazine is the report on the situation in Barking and Dagenham – the London borough where the BNP are optimistic about increasing their electoral success.

However, I’m slightly annoyed by this month’s front cover. It depicts Barking and Dagenham as a monopoly board with all the properties being wards in the borough. The wards with BNP councillors have Union Jack houses on them.

Surrendering the symbolism of the British flag to the far-Right is self-defeating for anti-fascists. We should be reclaiming the flag from these morons.

A minor quibble, but I’m evidently still in a pedantic mood.

Complaint to Dave of ‘Though Cowards Flinch’.

Comrade Dave of the blog ‘Though Cowards Flinch’ has written an assessment of today’s pre-budget report. He makes decent points on the good and bad aspects of Darling’s announcements.

However, I must protest at this: “About the best thing one can say regarding today’s pre-budget report is that it’s not quite so bad as Ramsay MacDonald slashing unemployment benefits in order to return public finances to some ‘order’”.

Whilst not wishing to detract from the central thrust of Dave’s post, my determination to try to rehabilitate Ramsay MacDonald’s reputation (at least partially) means that I can’t leave this be.

The public spending cuts eventually imposed by the National Government were more the responsibility of Chancellor Philip Snowden than Ramsay MacDonald. Snowden was the true disciple of orthodox economics; MacDonald was wishy washy on the subject and would have been pushed in any direction wanted by a forceful Chancellor. The Labour Cabinet also voted by a majority to accept the cuts, but Arthur Henderson made it clear he would resign from the government rather than let this pass.  

It’s wrong to demonise Ramsay MacDonald. It absolves people like Snowden who were more blameworthy. Anyway, instead of focusing on individual failures, it’s more interesting to ask why the Labour Party was so institutionally clueless when it came to the question of how to govern the country in a socialist manner.

Pedantic complaint over.

Islington’s Lib Dems want to take away free school meals because they do not understand the importance of universal public service provision.

It was recently revealed that Islington’s Liberal Democrats (who unfortunately are in charge of things around here) are planning to take away free school meals from the borough’s primary school children after the upcoming local elections.

They’ve never liked the idea of providing free school meals to Islington’s kids. The Labour group only just managed to get the policy passed at a council meeting. The Lib Dems have been complaining about it ever since and have been reluctant to implement the change.

In the latest edition of the Islington Tribune the Lib Dem executive member for finance explains his party’s position on the issue. Some of the critical points made by Councillor John Gilbert have some validity. For example, the issue of pupils coming to Islington’s schools from neighbouring boroughs is admittedly problematic. But then no scheme is absolutely perfect, and I’m sure that some sort of solution to this could be sought.

However, the principal Lib Dem argument is that free school meals should be opposed because some wealthy families will benefit from it. Some well-meaning folk may be persuaded by this point of view, but I’m not.

The previous situation was that only the poorest of the poor were given free school meals. There is substantial evidence that this targeted service provision was not wholly effective because of the social stigma associated with free school meals. The quality of the meals themselves also left much to be desired.

It’s been said before but it’s worth saying again: a service for the poor will usually end up as a poor service.

If the Lib Dem’s logic is taken too seriously, then perhaps we would end comprehensive schooling altogether. We would have free schools for the very poor and make everyone else pay school fees. Likewise the NHS, from which we all currently benefit and therefore take an interest in protecting and improving, would become a skeleton service for those at the bottom of society whilst everyone else would be expected to have private medical insurance (a bit like the situation in the US).

Our relationship with food is very important and is something Britain’s education system should be taking more seriously. Providing free school meals for all pupils is a step in the right direction. Lib Dem opposition to universal service provision of free school meals in Islington’s primary schools demonstrates the party’s lack of awareness, lack of imagination, and lack of political courage when it comes to this important issue.

Oops.

“Dubai’s enthusiastic embrace of capitalism, which some find disconcerting, is exactly what the Middle East needs.”

This article was perhaps not Sunny Hundal’s best prediction ever?

(Hat tip to Gene at HP)

Thuggish behaviour rewarded with air time?

I nearly choked on my Weetabix when I heard a spokesman from ‘Islam 4 UK’ being interviewed on the Today programme this morning.

Islam 4 UK, otherwise known as Al Muhajiroun, are a bunch of extreme Isla-mentalists who recently pelted Baroness Warsi, the Tory peer, with eggs because they consider her to be a bad Muslim  (I suspect any woman who gets involved in politics is a bad Muslim in the eyes of these nuts).

What kind of message does this send out? That fringe groups engaging in anti-democratic antics will be rewarded with an opportunity to explain themselves on Radio 4’s most popular programme to its millions of listeners?

Ridiculous journalism. I have complained to the BBC.

When out canvassing…

…and you come across someone’s house where all the windows are plastered with posters of Prince Charles, you know you’ve found yourself a genuine loony.

Am I right or am I right?

Hizb ut High School Musical and the continuing confusion caused by faith schools.

The ‘Hizb ut Tahrir running faith schools’ scandal got big this week.

The Tories made a mess of things by getting the details wrong and embarrassing themselves in Parliament. More fool them. It is not quite a simple case of anti-extremism funds being given to a bunch of extremists.

However, it is still apparent that the state is willing to hand over money to religious organisations and entrust them with educating children even if officials have little idea what these groups’ religious beliefs are exactly or what political organisations (such as Hizb ut Tahrir) they share members with.

For instance, Newsnight dug up an article written by the headmistress of one of the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation schools (the ’charity’ given funds to run faith schools) in which she churns out the usual Isla-mentalist nonsense about the importance of hating democracy and refusing to integrate with Western culture.

How exactly does the screening process work when the Department for Children, Schools and Families is deciding which religious organisations should be allowed to set-up faith schools? How much effort are they putting into examining that fine line – that oh-so-delicate balance – between people who are very very sincerely religious and those who are ideological nuts?

The goal of the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation is to develop the “Islamic personality” of young British Muslims. Hizb ut Tahrir also likes to bang on about the “Islamic personality” and this shared outlook is being used as evidence that the schools are promoting dangerous Islamism.

But ultimately all faith schools seek to develop children with religious personalities – whether they are producing good little Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever.  If we’re not comfortable with public funds going towards an organisation that sees education as a tool for creating Islamic personalities then why are we cool with other religious groups doing the same?

In my opinion the government’s support for faith schools is well-intentioned but misguided. It is hard to make judgements about religious groups and how appropriate it is for them to be involved in running state-funded schools. Much simpler and much fairer to have a system where all schools are run along secular lines.

Sadly, getting to such a situation from where we are at the moment would not be easy and I don’t think anyone has the political imagination or courage to call for the leap.

On a more positive note, it’s nice to see the media starting to get quotes from the excellent new group British Muslims for Secular Democracy when covering a story about Islam in Britain. For too long lazy journalists have just asked the Muslim Council of Britain for their views. Considering how many Islamists there are in the MCB it has been a mistake to present them as  representing British Muslims. Recognising that British Muslims do not form a homogenous block of opinion is progress.

Running up that Stamford Hill

I’m currently working on a job that requires me to spend all day knocking on doors in Stamford Hill, Hackney.

Stamford Hill is home to Europe’s largest community of Hasidic Jews. This makes it quite an interesting place to spend all day walking around. I’ve been reading up on the origins of Hasidic dress to try to get some idea of why they wear such crazy clothes.

Hackney’s Hasidics obviously want to keep themselves culturally distinct, but in some of the streets in the neighbourhood residents of other religious persuasions can be found. There surely aren’t that many areas in Britain where most of the doors have either Talmudic or Koranic texts stuck onto them, where there’s a synagogue twenty metres away from a Muslim Community Centre, and where all the women are wearing Tichels or niqabs!

Anyways, I’d better get back to work before Sabbath-o-clock.

Shalom!

Why would Nick Griffin become Lord Griffin of Barking anyway? He was born in Barnet and lives in Wales.

A certain Labour MP seems to be arguing that we should oppose reforms such as increasing use of proportional representation and democratising the House of Lords because the result will be “Lord Griffin of Barking”.

PR and an elected second chamber = More Nazis in the legislature, apparently. So shame on anyone who wants such reforms.

Tom Harris thinks the retort to his characteristically sophisticated argument will be “Ah, you can’t stop the BNP by gerrymandering the electoral system. You have to beat them with argument”, to which he replies “And how did that work out in the European Elections?”

If Mr. Harris had been reading his copies of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight (or even if he had just spent more than 5 minutes thinking about the issue) he might appreciate that anti-fascist activism doesn’t simply rely on trying to stop the BNP through having better arguments than them. In-fact, relying solely upon such a strategy (as many advocates of platform-sharing seem to be) is pretty useless.

Far better to have A) mainstream parties offering popular policies that retain the support of enough people in communities vulnerable to the BNP so that the fash find it harder to get elected and B) mainstream parties campaigning hard on the ground and keeping in close contact with the voters in those communities so that the fash find it harder to get elected.

So basically Tom Harris’ arguments are tosh and he’ll have to do better to justify his sneering at supporters of reform.

Papists, the Presidency, and the European Project.

Apologies for the lack of posts in recent days. I suffered a slight breakdown after all the excitement of Herman Van Rompuy being designated the first permanent President of the European Council and have only just started to recover.

Much comment has already been made elsewhere about the choice of Van Rompuy as Euro Prez. Some see this cautious decision as evidence that the EU remains an intergovernmental organisation where individual states don’t want to be overshadowed by a powerful supranational polity. I would tend to agree.

Others simply make jokes about ‘Rompuy Pumpy’ being a boring character, dismiss the entire process of European integration as anti-democratic because it’s a bit complicated, and then concentrate on informing the British people about far more important news events such as the insects being poured between Katie Price’s mammaries on ‘Celebrity Jungle Factor’ or whatever its called. I tend to get annoyed by this.

Something that struck me is how one aspect of Van Rompuy’s character makes him a perfect candidate for being the first permanent President: he is a committed Catholic.

Many studies of the EU suggest that Catholicism plays a vital role in encouraging pro-integration sentiments.

Three of the original instigators of European integration – the Christian Democrat politicians Konrade Adenauer of Germany, Robert Schuman of France, and Alcide de Gasperi of Italy - were all very hardcore Catholics whose faith greatly informed their support for greater unity in Europe.

Euroboffins Nelsen, Guth and Fraser conducted some research using public opinion polls and found that throughout the period 1973 to 1998 European Catholics were far more likely to support the EU than non-Catholics, even when other factors were controlled. Countries with sizeable Catholic populations tend to be the most pro-EU whilst Protestant states such as the UK and Sweden are the most Eurosceptic. (Poland’s a funny case before anyone points this out!)

Picking Herman Van Rompuy for the Presidency is therefore consistent with the Catholic tradition that lies at the heart of the process of European integration. This is a man who apparently goes once a month to meditate in a monastery amongst silent monks. He is also opposed to letting Turkey into the EU because he feels letting in a Muslim-majority nation would clash with Europe’s fundamentally Christian values, or something like that.

Of course, there was another devout Catholic wanting the top job, but things did not work out so well for him. I am simply pointing out that Catholics of strong religious conviction have played important roles in the history of European integration; not that the EU is a Papist-run conspiracy (as loons like Ian Paisley think). Obviously being a Catholic was not enough to help Blair in the diplomatic wranglings over who was to get the Presidency.