But, on the contrary, the video is the ravings of someone whose blind, rabid support for Israel leads to a distortion of the reality of the situation. Yes, it may just be ‘yet another nutter’, but I ended up writing a rebuttal to most of the things she says (below), in order that my friend had a more accurate description before him.

To pick on just a few points:

The Israeli blockade of Gaza is not internationally recognised. To cite just one organisation, the UN has called for it to be lifted. In November 2009 the UN’s secretary-general said:

Those heavy import restrictions, coupled with a near total prohibition on exports, have had a devastating effect on the Gaza economy. The blockade has also severely impaired the realization of a wide range of economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights.

Also, on a basic level, it amounts to collective punishment, which is prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (Israel flagrantly violates many of the Conventions other articles, too, so this is not surprising.)

The woman also says: “There’s no humanitarian crisis.” This is what the Israeli government says, but Amnesty International, CARE International, Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD), Medicines du Monde, Oxfam, Save the Children, and Trocaire have called the situation “a humanitarian implosion”.

From their joint report:

Movement in and out of Gaza is all but impossible and supplies of food and water, sewage treatment, and basic healthcare can no longer be taken for granted. As a result of the blockade and collapse of the economy, there is little money to buy food and limited food to buy. Food prices are rising and wheat flour, baby milk, and rice, among other essential goods, are increasingly scarce. During the period of May-June 2007 alone, these commodity prices rose 34%, 30% and 20.5% respectively.

As the humanitarian crisis intensified, the number of trucks carrying commercial and humanitarian supplies into Gaza plummeted. In the months prior to the tightening of the blockade around 250 trucks a day entered Gaza through the Karni crossing with supplies, now crossings like Kerem Shalom are only able to deal with a maximum of 45 trucks a day. In most cases, this number is barely reached.

This also addresses her claim that concerned groups would be able to ship aid through the Israeli port of Ashdod, have it checked by the IDF, and then have it sent into Gaza. Not only is the amount of aid restricted, but there are severe restrictions on the items allowed into the Strip.

For example, herbs and spices such as sage, cardamom, cumin, coriander, ginger, and nutmeg are banned (though black pepper and cinnamon are allowed). Children’s toys are also prohibited. On a more serious note, livestock, fabric for clothes, and building materials (needed to rebuild houses destroyed by the IDF) are not allowed in.

There are two entries in particular on the list that show the cynical nature of the blockade: wood for construction is banned, but wood for doors and window frames is allowed. (How are you supposed to put in windows or doors when you can’t build walls?)

(Note: This post was written several days before publishing, and before the Israelis announced they would apparently ease the restrictions on goods entering the Strip. Despite the rhetoric, it seems unlikely that the limits will be relaxed sufficiently. See Amnesty’s take.)

The woman also says that the one of the charities associated with the flotilla, IHH, is tied to terrorists. This is pure propaganda, with even a “think tank with ties to Israel’s Defense Ministry” saying there is “no known evidence of current links between IHH and ‘global jihad elements’” (Washington Post), as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting have pointed out.

Her account of what happened on the boat is just as bizarre as her view of the entire situation. Below is a roughly 10-minute long video filmed by those on board the boat, just before and during the raid.

Or, if you have longer to spare, filmmaker Iara Lee was on the Mavi Marmara and managed to smuggle out an hour’s worth of footage. I encourage you to watch the high-definition version

Also, her account of the soldier’s actions does not square with the autopsy results, which showed that “five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back”.

As for Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affair’s evidence of weapons found onboard the ship, the technical data of many of the photos shows that they were taken long before the flotilla set off.

And finally, she says: “What’s even weirder is that they had live streaming video cameras filming this whole thing.” Al Jazeera and Press TV had correspondents onboard the ship, transmitting their video live via satellite. When the Israelis closed with the ship they jammed ordinary radio signals, and confiscated all cameras and phones after they boarded.

There was also an expectation that the Israelis would try to hijack the ship, as it has happened before, so the journalists were there to record the voyage, and provide a record if they IDF assaulted the ship, as happened.

Also, the hijacking of the ship in international waters by the IDF was an act of piracy: the same thing that everyone got worked up over when it was poor Somalians doing it.

Since he’ll be voting in Lincoln, for Gillian Merron — the incumbent Labour MP, I’ll take a brief look at her record afterwards.

Also, I do realise that this post probably comes too late to be of much value (and of arguable value regardless).

Above image by “secretlondon123” on Flickr.

Let’s start from the top

Economics

Derricott begins by saying that one of the things he was looking for change “in the way our economy is managed”, which initially attracted him to the Conservatives. But the “change they were offering was not change that fitted with [his] values”, prompting him to move towards Labour. This is odd, since both Labour and the Conservatives (and the Liberal Democratics) have basically the same attitude towards economic management. The Tories would be the more fanatical of the three about implementing neoliberal economic policies — think Thatcher — but none of the three offer any kind of substantive change, as Politicalcompass.org write:

Economic power has transcended political power, to the detriment of democracy. Between the big three, there’s no ideological argument about whether the prevailing economic orthodoxy is best for Britain, but simply which of them can make market forces work best.

He goes on to repeat Labour’s PR line, that they

are the party or (sic) prosperity for all, not just the elite — put simply and in election terms — they are the party of fairness for all.

But this falls apart when you consider that income inequality in the UK is now the highest since 1979, and since Labour came into power in 1997 the poorest have gotten poorer, and the richest have gotten richer. According to Poverty.org.uk, “[t]he combined income of the richest tenth is more than the income of all those on below-average incomes (i.e. the bottom five tenths) combined.”

The poorest tenth of the population now have, between them, 1.3% of the country’s total income and the second poorest tenth have 4%. In contrast, the richest tenth have 30% and the second richest tenth have 15%.

Labour have now been in power for 13 years, and over that time

the proportion of total income going to the richest tenth percent is noticeably higher than a decade ago: 31% in 2007/08 compared with 28% in 1997/98.

It looks like the elite have been pretty prosperous under Labour, in contrast to those with the least in our society. That does not exactly shout “fairness for all” to me.

Iraq and Afghanistan

According to Derricott

many do not agree with Iraq or Afghanistan […] but I believe these are global issues not facing us because Labour has been in power.

Unlike some of the other things he lists, Iraq and Afghanistan are very much issues that are “facing us because Labour has been in power”. A state does not suddenly “find itself” in aggressive foreign wars of occupation. The Iraq war was certainly a war of aggression, and therefore the “supreme international crime” by the standards of the Nuremberg Tribunals held after the Second World War. According to Robert H. Jackson, the chief American prosecutor:

[It] differ[s] only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

It’s not a case of not agreeing, but rather recognising that our country — as it has so many times in the past — has committed the most terrible crimes possible, and continues to kill and oppress people in foreign lands.

Gillian Merron takes similar attitude to this, saying that she doesn’t regret voting for the Iraq war. You can read more about her shocking defence of the “supreme international crime” here.

“In bed” with racists

I’m not going to defend the Tories’ friends in Europe, because they are friends with some racists. But let’s not delude ourselves to think that they’re the only racists connected with part of the British political establishment.

Britain has a pretty comfortable relationship with Israel, which is following an apartheid-like policy toward the Palestinians (along with many other heinous crimes which I will not go into now). Yet Derricott did not see fit to mention them, and probably thought nothing much of NUS president Wes Streeting’s visit to the country last year. The view of the Israelis as following racist policies is not a fringe one, by the way.

“Hope” or “the nasty party”

Ultimately there is a choice in this election, between hope and economic development or the same old nasty party which would look to cut their way to success – between a party for the working class and a party that would benefit 2000 of the wealthiest families through inheritance tax, between substance and style.

This passage is just a regurgitation of Labour’s PR line, so when he said he was going for Labour Derricott really went all the way. There is no such dichotomy between the two parties. They’re both “nasty” parties — one cannot argue with Labour’s 13-year legacy — and treating one party as if they’re organising the Second Coming is just farcical, particularly when they’re both advocating fairly similar policies on just about everything.

A quick note on Gillian Merron

I’ve expressed my disgust with Merron’s defence of the Iraq war previously, but her conduct more generally is not encouraging. I will not spend too much time on this, but rather point out that since she became an MP in 1997, Merron rebelled against her party just nine times in the 3,063 votes she attended. Her voting record is the same as Gordon Brown’s.

According to TheyWorkForYou.com, Merron has voted

• “very strongly” for keeping nuclear weapons,
• “strongly” for introducing tuition fees,
• “very strongly” for the Iraq war, and “very strongly” against an investigation into it,
• “very strongly” for Labour’s draconian ‘anti-terror’ laws, and
• “very strongly” for introducing ID cards.

There’s no point listening to anything she says, just assume you’re getting exactly what the Labour party wants: war, curtailing civil liberties, and privatisation.

Update 11.51am, May 6th, 2010:

In light of this, what follows does not really matter.

Words inside square brackets below are my comments.

Q. Do you regret voting for the Iraq War?

No. I regret the loss of life. I regret its controversy. But I do believe it was the right thing to do, and why did we do it? That’s what matters. Probably what I should say to Robert, and to anyone else, is that probably the hardest decision you can make as an MP is about military action. I would never take it lightly, but the security of Britain and the British people has to come first. And if there is a threat to British security — and the truth is these days it’s international, I mean, you might go on to Afghanistan, but it’s about where terrorists work from, because they don’t recognise borders and they don’t show passports, to wreak havoc, and we can remember the July bombings.

[The idea that Iraq had connections with terrorist groups such as al'Qaida has been thoroughly discredited by now, and I'm shocked that Merron would dredge up something like that. Then again, she seems to insist that Iraq was a threat to Britain, something also equally discredited, and before the invasion.]

So I regret it was necessary to take military action, and y’know there’s more to do — see we didn’t just take military action, I mean I was an International Development minister — I didn’t deal with that particular part of the world, I was responsible for our work dealing with poverty in Africa — but I know that whenever, it’s the same in Afghanistan, it’s not just the Ministry of Defence that’s working there, it’s actually three areas coming together, it’s the Foreign Office — it’s foreign affairs, it’s diplomacy, it’s building relationships — but it’s also International Development. So it’s about stabilising a country so it can run safely and securely for the benefit of all — including their own people — but for our benefit too. And international development — giving people ways to earn an income that is not illegal, which is not linked with military action, is so important. But I wouldn’t pretend for a minute that these are easy decisions, because they’re not.

[It wasn't necessary to take military action. The stuff about "building relationships" and "stabilising a country" are just so hilarious I won't even bother to go into much detail, other than the "stabilisation" happened in ways desirable to US and British military, political, and economic interests. Also, Britain's "international development" efforts leave much to be desired.]

Q. But after the decision was made, it’s been revealed there was no great threat, because the 45 minute claim was false, al’Qaida has no ties with Iraq, and Alan Greenspan […] has actually said: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Well it wasn’t, I mean it wasn’t, clearly it wasn’t that. You can find, we can find, I’m sure I could come in with quotes from other people to support it. I honestly think, listen it was the most controversial thing, nobody would have done it to be popular in Britain, would they? Certainly, I have always said that was the decision that I took, I’m prepared to stand by it, I’m prepared to explain it. And people will judge me on it. But, everybody had a different decision and a view, and yes many people thought it was wrong, and many people thought it was right. And all I’d say to you, and I feel this very sure, in a very sure way, is at the time make the very best decision in the interests of your country that you can take, and we all have to ask ourselves ‘what would we do’?

[The advantage of the people criticising the war is that they have a tendency to adhere to the facts. We could quote Bush or Blair, but that doesn't mean what they say is correct. The line that "nobody would have done it to be popular in Britain" reveals a shocking amount of contempt for the British public and democratic control over government.]

Q. [This question was about Iraqi deaths. The figure cited ('1 million in 2006') was wrong (the 2006 figure in The Lancet was 600,000). But the point still remains, and more recent estimates put deaths at over a million.] How’s that supposed to bring stability to a country?

Well there’s all sorts of figures flying around, but you also do have to remember what Saddam Hussein did. He tortured, and killed, and terrorised his own people, so we haven’t gone in there to kill Iraqis. And let’s also remember our troops are home now, and it was a job that they did with great skill on our behalf and I pay tribute to them, but they did it for the interests of the British people, and that was right to do. But Iraq today is a better place than it was under Saddam Hussein. Girls go to school, women and men can vote, and not be killed like they were before, and tortured and terrorised for it, there are water systems in place, there is an emerging economy. It’s going to take a long time, but that doesn’t mean you walk away from difficult decisions, and difficult things, you do it. And let’s also remember we weren’t there alone, it as actually as part of an international coalition, and we were part of it. But it’s about — and you can take a different view and I completely respect that — but it’s about putting the interests of British security first, and a government has to do that.

[Again: the facts show a huge number of Iraqis have died because of the invasion. "We haven't gone in there to kill Iraqis" displays the usual belief that our government is benevolent, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. In their torturing, killing, and terrorising, the US and Britain are also very similar to the way Hussein is described here. The troops did not do it on behalf of the British people — and Merron has just admitted this, by saying the war was vastly unpopular — they did it on behalf of the state, which is a very different thing. The post-invasion killing was clearly on a scale much greater than that carried about by Hussein. Merron also seems to be mixing up her wars when she says "Girls go to school" now (see image below). As for water systems, etc, the US and UK helped to create misery throughout the 1990s through the sanctions regime, which UNICEF estimated led to the death of 500,000 children — claiming these things as positive post-invasion steps, when viewed in the light of past behaviour, is barbaric. The "international coalition" barely deserves referring to, and "British security" was discussed above.]

And at that, I leave you with this image of Saddam Hussein flanked by Iraqi schoolgirls in the 1970s. (From Wikimedia Commons.)

As always it’s a two-horse race between the Conservatives, who hold the seat, and the Liberal Democrats, who have been the main challengers for at least the past decade.

The choice

The Tories

Edward Garnier is currently the MP for Harborough. He’s been in the job for 18 years — almost my entire life — and is also the Shadow Attorney General.

While his voting record isn’t utterly terrible, I disagree with some of the stands he’s taken, and with many of the national party’s policies.

The Liberal Democrats

Zuffar Haq is the Lib Dems’ candidate. I’ve got no idea who he is. From the material his party has on him, he sounds like a nice bloke (surprise!). According to them, he’s “our local champion”.

Great stuff.

I know nothing about the guy. I don’t know who he is, what he’s done, or more importantly what his political beliefs are. I agree with the Lib Dems more than I do with the Conservatives, but that’s not saying a lot, and I have some serious issues with some of their policies. (They’re too hawkish on military spending, too reactionary on immigration, and too business-friendly in their economic policies, to name just a few areas.)

Off the table

Almost everything is off the table.

Let’s say I was to vote, and could pick any of the well-known national parties. I’d choose the Green Party, because I like a fair amount of their policies. Not all, but to me it seems like they’re the only somewhat-mainstream political party that actually have their heads screwed on most of the way.

Right, so I’ve found a political party I can identify with, at least a bit.

But I can’t vote for them.

Wonderful: Even if I wanted to, I can’t vote for them. They’re not on the ballot.

Even better: Even if I could vote for them in my constituency, it wouldn’t matter. My vote would be discounted, because the Conservatives are probably going to get in, and if they don’t the Liberal Democrats will.

So what about changing the voting system?

Changing the way we elect MPs may help. A little. But not much.

Let’s say I voted for the Green Party, who would have no chance of winning the seat (even if they were on the ballot). If it’s Single Transferable Vote then my second choice would be the Liberal Democrats who, as mentioned, I don’t agree with a lot of the time.

How is this “democracy”? How is this me having an influence on the political process? How is this my chance to have my views counted, my opinions considered?

It’s not — which is why I’ve been saying I won’t vote.

There are too few occasions where journalists stop and ask themselves why. Not just “why” as one of the five “w”s, but more broadly.

Why am I writing this story? Why is it important? Why is this whole area important? Why are things as they are?

I’m guilty of not asking “why” enough. Most journalists are, too.

It’s time to ask myself: “Why the Students’ Union?”

Why is it important? Why does it exist? Why do the people involve get so worked up, one way or the other?

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for a while, having started a mind map outline back in early January. Mike Hodges wrote an article that may sound similar, but this will be cover more ground, and try to provide some answers to the questions raised above, and in his piece.

People and perspective

Unfortunately it’s necessary that I start by stressing that this is not about the individual people involved.

As far as I’m aware, everyone involved in the SU is sincere and believe they’re genuinely working to help their fellow students.

People may have grievances against individual officers. They may believe they’re incompetent, or lazy, or whatever. That doesn’t matter. It distracts us from the real issues at stake: the place of the SU as an organisation.

We shouldn’t think solely in terms of “this person’s doing a bad job” — though since the full-time officers get paid that is a legitimate concern.

Instead we should take a step back and get a broader perspective.

The main reason I was so cynical about the SU elections is that it really doesn’t matter who gets in. While the elections may have been important for the individuals involved, since it would have a considerable effect on their lives, they meant nothing in a wider context.

By concentrating on the elections, the back-and-forth, the campaigns, we helped make the whole thing legitimate, without really asking what it was all about.

What is it?

Let’s start with an overview of the SU.

It claims to be the “representative” body for students at the University of Lincoln, an institution which they say they are independent of.

It is an opt-out organisation. All students are members of the SU, unless they ticked a box on the back of their enrolment form. Very few students (~15%) vote in the SU’s elections.

The SU is staffed by a team of elected, full-time, paid student officers (six in 2009/10, four in 2010/11), who are assisted by elected part-time student officers, and some (non-elected) paid staff.

It is almost fully funded by the university, which gives the SU a grant of around £350,000. They also cover room costs, maintenance, utilities, and staff salaries.

(The SU’s staff mysteriously disappeared from their Companies House filings, going from 7.4 full-time equivalent staff to 0. This happened when it changed from being a co-operative to a charity limited by guarantee (essentially a private company). The only salaries taken out of the block grant are those for the full-time student officers. Therefore it is safe to assume that the university covers staff pay.)

Most students’ involvement with the SU will probably result from them being part of a sports team or society, which are managed and partly funded by the organisation.

The more “political” side involves the SU’s interaction with the university, in an attempt to influence the institution’s policies. The people most responsible for this are the full-time team, particularly the president and the vice-presidents for education and welfare.

It’s this role that I’ll be looking at here. Since the sports and societies aspect is mostly administrative, I have no real problem with it. Shane Croucher has said that this function may as well be taken over by the university. I don’t disagree, but I will not make that argument in this post.

So what is the issue at stake?

Power and representation, and claims to power and representation.

The SU claim that they represent Lincoln students. This claim comes from the vast majority of students at the university being members of the SU. But the amount of people who actively participate is far lower — just look at the election turnout.

The SU don’t have a mandate. They don’t have the support of the students. The students of the University of Lincoln are boycotting the Students’ Union.

This is why I’m so cynical and dismissive whenever an officer says they’re trying to do something for, or on behalf of, the students here.

It’s just ridiculous. It has as much grounding in reality as me standing up and saying that I’m going to do something for the people of West Parade. I could get a few people to support me (maybe even 10% — more than what Chris Charnley got when he was re-elected), but the idea that I somehow represent those living on West Parade, and know what their preferences are, is just absurd.

It gets worse

As mentioned earlier, I have no reason to doubt the officers’ sincerity, but what they believe — about their work, about the SU, and about Lincoln students — has little connection to reality.

Matters get worse when you consider the control the university has over the SU, and that the primary task the organisation has set itself is lobbying the university.

How do you think the recent BASSA strikes against BA would have gone if the union was about 95% funded by the airline? Differently.

The Students’ Union is not a union

No action is required to become a member, members do not get involved in any significant way, and the organisation is almost wholly funded by the institution it’s attempting to influence.

I’m not saying that the issues the SU is trying to address should be ignored and no action taken. I’m not saying that students should not work together to influence our university, or higher education more generally.

What I’m saying is that the Students’ Union is not the way to do it. It is fundamentally flawed, and I’m not sure there’s a way of having a Students’ Union that isn’t, at least in the way they are currently constituted.

Mike Hodges asks in his article:

The second question that needs to be asked is do we really need a Students’ Union as currently constituted? In my mind, a Students’ Union should be run much like a conventional union. For the protection and support of its members during times of crisis. Do we really need a Vice President of Activities, a Vice President of Welfare and Diversity or even a Liberation Officer? Should anyone be paid for their work, apart from covering expenses? When I was as a union representative (UNISON) I did not receive payment but was expected to work for nothing.

Is it time for the Students’ Union at this university to take a good look at itself? Ask some hard questions concerning its organisation and its relevance to the student body? Possibly consider cutting itself down to a streamlined organisation, staffed purely by volunteers, who concentrate on acting as advocates for those students in need of help?

The Students’ Union cannot “take a good look at itself”, and “cutting itself down to a streamlined organisation” would not address the central problems.

Maybe there’s a case to be made for establishing a more conventional-style union for students. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that such reforms can be achieved within the present system.

If we’re serious about campaigning against fees, for example, let’s get a group of people together who are dedicated to doing the boring, day-to-day work of campaigning, spreading the word, and organising on a grass-roots level.

Let’s not try to do this through an organisation funded by an institution dependent on fees for its survival.

If we’re serious about this, students need to start afresh.

But because I follow people like Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Channel 4 News, and occasionally check in with the mainstream media, I haven’t been able to completely seal myself off from everything.

As has been written by smarter people, the whole thing is essentially a farce. The inquiry’s own “Terms of Reference” say:

We will therefore be considering the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.

The explicitly stated goal of the commission isn’t to get any kind of justice for the victims, nor hold anyone to account for the UK’s role in the “supreme international crime“, in the words of the American chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Robert H. Jackson:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

The inquiry’s goal is to aid future UK governments by looking at the “lessons” of Iraq. But as the ever-perceptive editors of Media Lens note, “the use of military and economic force to control and exploit the world is non-negotiable” for the interests that control the major political parties.

We are free to vote for the Labour party to attack ‘threatening’, but in fact defenceless, Third World countries, or we can vote for the Conservative party to do the same. We can buy the Guardian that respectfully hypes the ‘threat’ as defined by ‘official sources’, or we can buy The Times that does the same.

When public scepticism erupts in response to resultant extremes of criminality and violence that even the media are powerless to deny, the illusion must be bolstered. Then Tweedledum-Tweedledee will choose from their own to rig an “inquiry”, while their media allies present the process as something other than a farce. [Source]

Obviously, this is something that is not even considered by the mainstream media. For Britain’s most ahem “left-wing” broadsheet, the Guardian, the Iraq war was the result of “monstrous blunder“. In an editorial the day after the announcement of the inquiry, the paper wrote:

No, the real reason an inquiry is needed is to draw together what we already know, and in its light to try to grasp how such a monstrous blunder could have been made. What went wrong with the structures, the culture and – yes – the individuals in Whitehall, such that the country could be led into a bloody conflict on a false prospectus?

What’s wrong (not “went wrong” — fundamentally wrong) is plain to see. The UK has been involved (not “led into”) in numerous “bloody conflicts”, but normally there is little need for hand-wringing over the “blunder” of war, because it’s not usually considered a “blunder”. Normally it goes well. For us.

Blair’s bullshit

So, let’s get to the point at hand: today Tony Blair is testifying before the inquiry. The Guardian is reporting that he believed “beyond doubt” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.¹

I was hoping to write something at least somewhat-interesting on what he said today, but I physically can’t. Go ahead, read for yourself. For anyone familiar with even some of the facts, the mendacity on display is utterly mind-bending.

For example, take what Blair says on the pre-invasion sanctions, imposed during the 1990s:

Blair told the inquiry that prior to 9/11 the British and American policy of containing Saddam’s regime with “smart” sanctions had been worth trying, although there were holes in the way they were working.

This is an interesting position to take. I wouldn’t exactly refer to the unnecessary deaths of over half a million under-fives. Here’s what UNICEF said in 1999:

[I]f the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: “Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war.”

The rest of what he says is of the same character, and the mendacity will by typical for anyone familiar with what those in power say, and what the facts really are.

What is particularly striking is how Iran is singled out. No points for guessing why.

The collapse of the news industry speaks volumes. It shows that people aren’t interested in the news and, if they are, they’re probably not willing to pay for it.

The corporate (or ‘mainstream’) media is sinking, and is doing everything it can to stay afloat: sacking staff, erecting pay walls, or simply closing some publications.

This, and the things that have caused it, should be celebrated by those in power.

Breeding apathy.

The majority of newspapers’ income comes from advertising revenue, which has decreased as circulation has decreased. Why should advertisers continue to pay so much money, when they’re reaching fewer people?

A commonly accepted view for circulation decline is that it’s because readers can often get the same content online, effectively for free.

Another, but not discussed, reason is that the news media has ceased to have any relevance to their daily lives.

For example, let’s take local newspapers. Their circulation has dropped massively. Many commentators may fret over what this means for “local democracy”. It means precisely nothing for local democracy, as it does not exist in any significant form.

Very few people actually vote in local elections. We can be fairly confident about concluding this is because they believe the outcome will not affect their lives in any meaningful way. They’re probably right.

Most issues of any significance are decided in Parliament. There, too, the public have little influence. The electoral system is a complete joke, producing governments from a party with the support of a minority of voters, let alone the population. ((In the 2005 election, the Labour party got just over 35% of the popular vote. This is just over a fifth of all eligible voters.))

Not only that, but there are no significant differences between the two parties that could conceivably win an election. In John Pilger’s words, they “have converged into a single-ideology business state, each with almost identical social, economic and foreign policies.”

This leaves no real choice for the public. To pick one example, the majority of the British public were opposed (pdf) to the Iraq war, perhaps two million Britons protested against it, and yet two-thirds of MPs voted for it.

Even the most cursory look at the state of our democracy shows it is not healthy, or even functioning. So when those who own the corporate media claim, like James Murdoch did recently, that it “plays a vital part in a functioning democracy”, they can be dismissed outright.

And this analysis doesn’t even consider the causes of our broken democracy, or the role of the corporate media in propping up the “business state” system.

Business won.

Corporate power should revel in this. The system that suppresses real dissent, and often basic facts, has been ridiculously successful.

Not only has it succeeded in hiding the truth from its readers, but the gap between what the media claim ((e.g., the great battle between the two main political parties, the benefits of globalisation, etc.)) and the reality the public can observe for themselves has caused shocking amounts of apathy and feelings of impotence.

The best part about this is that people aren’t turning to radical publications either.

The corporations who own the news media may feel somewhat sore, given the crumbling of once (and often still) profitable activities. But they have absolutely no interest in ratting out the rest of corporate power, because they have sticky fingers in many economic pies.

Original WordPress comments:

Shane Croucher:

So what could replace the corporate-owned media?

Do you believe a new age of political radicalism is needed to kickstart some kind of revolution?

I see what you’re saying, and I can’t fault it, but….what next? If you know what I mean. It just seems like we’re forever stuck.

Rob Wells:

I’m very pessimistic about the future. I hope that, one day, there will be true democratic control of social and economic institutions. There are some encouraging developments in Venezuela regarding worker control and participatory democracy, but my fear is that they’ll be undermined and won’t last, and won’t spread.

History is not encouraging on this matter.

As for everything else, from how to push for such things elsewhere, and how to replace the corporate media, I don’t know. The corporate media could be replaced by community-owned media, but I’m not sure how that would work. It certainly won’t work in the current economic system, at least not on any significant level.

If anything, this is what we should be discussing when we talk about the ‘future of journalism’ or the ‘future of the news industry’. Current debate is largely focused on sustaining existing institutions, or creating new ones that operate along similar lines (for profit, advertising-funded, etc). This system has not helped — and has often undermined — the public’s interests, so we shouldn’t help it survive.

For those who find it convenient for it to be “unresolved” it shall remain so, but for everyone else there is a perfectly adequate one. It also has the benefit of being endorsed by the world’s most prolific international terrorist, the United States’ government.

The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This can be done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. Terrorism includes a criminal act against persons or property that is intended to influence an audience beyond the immediate victims.

This comes from a US Marine Corps field manual. (Which you can find here. The definition can be found on “Glossary 11″, towards the end.)

Another thing that really stood out was the quote Ms Hanman includes from Sir Menzies Campbell, speaking on the Today programme:

The use of violence for political ends is unacceptable.

This remark is astonishing in its naivety, particularly coming after his mention of British soldiers in Afghanistan. They have very clearly been sent there by the government for a political end, and they’re using extreme violence in their attempts to achieve it.

Not only does it violate Sir Menzies’ own ethics, but under the definition above it is quite clearly terrorism.

Thankfully Ms Hanman picks up on it at the end:

[W]hat of the thousands of Afghans killed by state actors during that time? The 552 killed just last year? Is that political violence, and is it morally justifiable or excusable? And if not, where is the outrage?

Some time ago I wrote to my MP, Edward Garnier, to express my concern over the government’s plans to make Personal, Social, Health, and Economic (PSHE) education part of the National Curriculum. ((The text was written by the British Humanist Association, whose campaign prompted me to contact Mr Garnier. I’ll admit that I did not alter the text provided, though I fully support what I sent.))

This is a good thing, but Sir Alasdair Macdonald’s report for the government recommended that parents should still be allowed to withdraw their children from the sex and relationships (SRE) part of the course, and that schools’ governing bodies can pick what parts to teach (or not).

These are profoundly bad things.

The children whose parents are most likely to pull them out of SRE classes are the ones who most need this kind of education. You can assume that they’re not being taught it at home. Assume the worst if they’re Catholic.

And Sir Alasdair’s recommendation that “[g]overning bodies should retain the right to determine their school’s approach to SRE [so that it is] in line with the context, values and ethos of the school,” leaves the door wide open for abuse by religious schools.

So the reply I received from Mr Garnier was totally inadequate:

Dear Mr Wells

I have now heard from Sarah McCarthy-Fry, the junior minister at the Department for Children, Schools & Families, regarding the enquiries made on your behalf about Personal Social Health and Economic education and Sex and Relationship Education and enclose the self- explanatory letter dated 8 June.

Yours sincerely

Edward Garnier

The “self-explanatory letter” from Mrs McCarthy-Fry ((She has now been reshuffled to a post at the Treasury.)) was a non-answer. In it, she wrote:

[W]e recognise that making PSHE statutory raises concerns amongst some parents and schools, most notably around pressure on the curriculum and the right of parents to withdraw children from aspects of sex and relationships education. These are complex and sensitive issues that need to be worked through thoroughly, in consultation with schools, parents, young people and other stakeholders.

The italicised sentence (my emphasis) is the ‘juiciest’ part of the whole letter. As you can see, it has no real meaning—it’s just fluff.

The letter from the government doesn’t address my concern that—to quote the BHA’s provided email—such measures “may lead to unsuitable provision of poorer quality PSHE, especially in state funded religious schools.” It just repeats the report and says the subject is “sensitive”.

Though this is to be expected from the government.

The worst part is that my local member of Parliament, a member of the opposition and a shadow minister for justice, just deferred to the government. He expressed no opinion on opting out of SRE, on SRE or PSHE themselves, or even on the rights of religious schools to pick what they teach. Mr Garnier just forwarded me a government statement. I could’ve got that myself.