If all you know of his work is the smears, then Hopes and Prospects will be a revelation. In his dry, understated way, he excavates the reality behind the Babel of 24/7 corporate news, and places long-buried truths on the table to examine. Every one is sourced to the leading academic journals, the best experts, the sharpest medical advice – yet each one is a shock if you rely on news brought to you by corporations and corrupt right-wing billionaires.

(My emphasis.)

I don’t aim to appear overly-critical of Hari, as it’s refreshing to see a positive review of Chomsky in the mainstream press, but the phrase in boldface is quite telling. It’s the only reference Hari makes to the propagandistic qualities of the corporate media, with the effect weakened by the mention of unspecified “corrupt right-wing billionaires”. (Though writing even this in the mainstream is to be applauded.)

In the reader’s mind, cue: “Ah! He’s talking about Murdoch! Yeah, you can’t trust that scumbag.”

Perhaps a better phrase for Hari to use would have been:

… yet each one is a shock if you rely on news brought to you by corporations, such as the Independent.

The Independent is owned by Independent News & Media Plc, which “manages gross assets of 4.7 billion euros” with “revenue of over 1.9 billion euros”.¹ The newspaper is part of a very large corporation.

But Hari doesn’t mention this. He points to the dark spectre of Murdoch and the right-wing press. Those working for and reading the “liberal media” can go back to feeling good about themselves, that what’s printed in the Independent and the Guardian is much fairer and truthful than the lies pumped out by The Times, Daily Telegraph, or Daily Mail.

John Pilger calls these “soft targets”. Writing of David Edwards and David Cromwell‘s concern with the “liberal media”:

They have concentrated on that sector of the media which prides itself on its ‘objectivity’, ‘impartiality’ and ‘balance’ (such as the BBC) and its liberalism and fairness (such as the Guardian).²

The reason why this is such an issue, the reason why the “liberal” press must be subjected to even more scrutiny than the “Tory press” is because they promote themselves as being progressive, that you can count on them to do a much better job on serious issues. They’re not under pressure from proprietors or partisan interests. They do good, honest journalism.

But the reporting in the “liberal media” is often just as deceptive as that produced by outlets controlled by “corrupt right-wing billionaires”.

It’s great the Independent have published a positive review of Chomsky, but we mustn’t for a minute forget the paper’s place in the corporate media.³

I’ve since edited it to remove a lot of the unnecessary academic sections, which were boring to write, boring to read, and of no use to anyone except academics. There are some other tweaks to make it easier to read, and you can find it here: Hating Hamas.

(Be warned: it’s over 6,300 words long, so if you’re interested it’s probably best to save it to Instapaper to make it more manageable.)

If you want to have a look at the original version that I submitted for my dissertation, I’ve now hosted a .pdf file of the study that is freely available to download. You can find that here: Hating Hamas.pdf

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.

The “story”, titled “New MP calls for better support for carers“, is essentially a re-arranged version of a press release sent out by Mark Brooks on behalf of McCartney last night, itself titled “Local MP calls for greater recognition for Lincoln’s carers”.

I’ve hosted the full release here (minus the supplied picture, also used by The Lincolnite), but below are some selections.

The release’s first paragraph reads:

Lincoln MP Karl McCartney teamed up with ITV’s This Morning celebrity GP, Dr Chris Steele MBE (see attached photograph), to support this year’s Carers Week (14 – 20 June) and celebrate the contribution made by people in the city who provide unpaid care for someone who is ill, frail or disabled.

The Lincolnite’s courageous journalism has transformed this into the following:

Fresh Lincoln MP Karl McCartney is calling for greater recognition for Lincoln’s carers, who provide unpaid care for someone who is ill, frail or disabled.

McCartney teamed up with ITV’s This Morning celebrity GP, Dr Chris Steele MBE (pictured left), to support this year’s Carers Week (June 14th – 20th).

Meanwhile, this is a direct lift of the first sentence of the second paragraph:

The theme of Carers Week this year is A Life of My Own, with calls for greater understanding and support for the army of carers who provide vital care for their families, friends and communities.

The only difference is that “The Lincolnite” styles it A Life of My Own while the release uses boldface and single quotes: ‘A Life of My Own’. This reflects the whole approach to the article: stylistic changes, not substantive ones.

Meanwhile, sections about Carers Week in general have been omitted, leaving the focus squarely on Karl McCartney and how wonderful he is.

Poor form.

Update 11.47am, June 11th, 2010: I’ve just noticed this on “The Lincolnite”‘s about page:

The Lincolnite is an independent online information source.

Sure.

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.

And my reply on Twitter:

Appreciate the compliment. We’re pretty dedicated to pointing out that they can’t change things — I’m writing it up in detail.

I’m still writing up my explanation of the position that I and The Linc have taken towards the University of Lincoln Students’ Union, which will go into some depth. (I’ve actually taken a break from writing it in order to get this out of the way.)

But I want to deal with Josh’s reference to apathy here (which is also something I’ll explore in my post on the SU).

It’s nice of him to call us “one of the student-run mags in the UK” (though we’re a newspaper, if you’re nitpicking), but I think connecting it to “still apathy reins” is a bit of a non sequitur.

Firstly, we’re not associated with the SU in any way. Our print runs are funded by the Lincoln School of Journalism, and our website is independently funded.

While it’s common for student newspapers and magazines to be funded by the Students’ Union, this is thankfully not the case for us. (You have to go across the tracks to Bullet Magazine for that. Literally.)

But even if we were, I’m unsure what bearing that would have on student “apathy” towards the SU. As I alluded to in my reply, The Linc has basically tried to justify students not getting involved.

“Apathy” is perhaps the wrong word to use here. It’s commonly used to refer to people just “giving up” on politics out of lack of interest, and that is accurate — but it carries with it an inferred motivation, that people are, in a sense, lazy.

I can hear people shouting “Straw man! Straw man!” Those who talk about political apathy won’t say they think people being uninterested and/or uninvolved is because they’re outright lazy. But the concern comes from them thinking that people should get involved, because that involvement can have meaningful consequences.

But with student politics especially there aren’t any meaningful consequences possible. That’s especially true at Lincoln — which I’ll explain in my upcoming post — but it’s also true elsewhere. Students’ Unions don’t have much sway.

If things really were at stake students would get involved. There’s a reason why voter turnout in SU elections is almost always below 15%. It’s because students feel they can safely ignore the process, and nothing bad will happen because they didn’t express their preferences.

If Students’ Unions had meaningful power, and had the ability to significantly affect people’s university lives, then students would get involved.

Right now they can’t, so students don’t.

Every Thursday night The Economist sends out email summaries of articles in the print issue, political news, and business news. Even though I cancelled my subscription some time ago, I still get the emails.

I noticed that in this week’s they referred to the ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, as a “leftist”. Which he wasn’t, really. (He’d introduced some very mild worker-friendly measures, along with resisting the privatisation of the country’s telecommunications.)

You’d expect that an organisation as “serious” as The Economist would have done enough research to realise this. This made me wonder about the quality of their reporting on Honduras more widely.

Let’s take a quick look at “Honduras’s new president: Lobo alone“, where they mention the November elections:

As a candidate Mr Lobo was evasive, speaking little about the coup and its aftermath. As president his first task will be to gain recognition of his legitimacy, both abroad and at home. His election in November was widely seen as free and fair. But the coup’s leaders have done nothing to ease reconciliation. They have spent their final days in office congratulating themselves: the legislature voted to make the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, a congressman for life, and granted permanent security details to some 50 top officials at taxpayers’ expense. [My emphasis.]

It’s quite clear that was not the case. (Definitely. Not. The. Case. At all.)

It’s a poor showing, to say the least. But then again, when the following introduces the editor’s highlights email newsletter, can anyone be surprised?

Germany has succeeded in ruthlessly holding down labour costs [wages] over the past decade, which has helped it maintain its unparalleled success as an exporter. Germany is rightly proud of this; but for the neighbours, it is not necessarily good news.