"You may say that I am a dreamer/But I am not the only one" John Lennon: "Imagine"

"So come brothers and sisters/For the struggle carries on" Billy Bragg: "The Internationale"


Elizannie has a reading room at 'Clarice's Book Page' http://www.villiersroad.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

A Lesson in Double Standards or an Open Blog to Lord Rothermere



When teaching, especially small children, sometimes the easiest way to teach literary terms, everyday sayings, proverbs etc is to give an example of the point under discussion.

So today's example for the saying under discussion 'Double Standards' was provided nicely for me by a discussion on last night's BBC2 Newsnight programme. If you missed the piece in question you can view it here.

The piece featured an interview with Jon Steafel, the deputy editor of the Daily Mail followed by a discussion between Steafel and Alistair Campbell on the subject of the Mail's article by Geoffrey Levy published last Saturday attacking Ed Miliband's father Ralph. 

Interviewed by Emily Maitlis, Steafel defended his paper's decision to publish the article by suggesting that Ed Milliband must have been influenced by his father's 'dangerous' political views which commenced with a diary entry of a boy of seventeen, quoted out of context* . However when Maitlis asked whether the paper's owner - Lord Rothermere - had been influenced by his g.grandfather's publication in 1934 of the article written by him [and adult!!] Hurrah for the Blackshirts 



Steafel insisted it would not have done! I was surprised that the walls of the studio did not fall in with such a blatant example of Double Standards.

In the interview on Newsnight, Alistair Campbell displays - imo - a righteous anger against the Daily Mail. Today's edition of the Daily Mail shows no repentance. 

Normally I try to inject a bit of humour into my blogs. I cannot find anything funny in this subject.

*In an article in today's Guardian the author of Ralph Miliband and the Politics of the New Left (Merlin Press, 2002), Michael Newman explains how the Mail distorted quotes from his book.


Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Don't buy the Daily Fail, read Ed Miliband's reply here!

'Ultimate tribute': Ed, pictured with Ralph in 1989, is determined to bring about his father's vision of socialism

Ed & Ralph Miliband in 1989 as published alongside Geoffrey Levy's article
Below is Ed Miliband's reply, published in today's Daily Mail, to the scurrilous article by Geoffrey Levy which the Mail published last Saturday [28th September]
Ed Miliband: My Dad Was A Man Who Loved Britain
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, writes in Tuesday’s edition of the Daily Mail:
"It was June 1944 and the Allies were landing in Normandy. A 20-year old man, who had arrived in Britain as a refugee just four years earlier, was part of that fight. He was my father. Fighting the Nazis and fighting for his adopted country.
On Saturday, the Daily Mail chose to publish an article about him under the banner headline “The Man Who Hated Britain.”
It’s part of our job description as politicians to be criticised and attacked by newspapers, including the Daily Mail. It comes with the territory. The British people have great wisdom to sort the fair from the unfair. And I have other ways of answering back.
But my Dad is a different matter. He died in 1994. I loved him and he loved Britain. And there is no credible argument in the article or evidence from his life which can remotely justify the lurid headline and its accompanying claim that it would “disturb everyone who loves this country”.
Saturday’s article referred to a single diary entry by my father, written as a 17 year old, describing the suspicion he found of the Continent and the French when he arrived here. To ignore his service and work in Britain and build an entire case about him hating our country on an adolescent diary entry is, of course, absurd.
In fact, his story will make you understand why he loved Britain. Britain saved him from the Nazis. He arrived here as a 16 year-old boy - a Jew - having walked 100 kilometres with his Dad from Brussels to Ostend to catch one of the last boats out before the German soldiers arrived.
It was a boat to Britain. He arrived, separated from his mother and sister, knowing no English but found a single room to share with my grandfather. He was determined to better himself and survive. He worked as a removal man, passed exams at Acton Technical College and was accepted to university. Then he joined the Royal Navy.
He did so because he was determined to be part of the fight against the Nazis and to help his family hidden in Belgium. He was fighting for Britain.
When I was growing up, he didn’t talk much about the Holocaust years because it was a deep trauma for both sides of my family. But he did talk about his naval service.
The Daily Mail’s article on Saturday used just a few words to brush over the years my father spent fighting for his adopted country in the Second World War. But it played a bigger part in his life than that.
It was hard for him as a newcomer in the Navy. Life could be rough. But when we were growing up, he talked about how he had grown to have deep respect for the people he served with. He loved how the Navy brought together people from all classes and all backgrounds.
My father would often talk about the time he spent on the ships where his job was to pick up and translate German radio messages. He remembered the banter at meal times and recounted moments like his discharge from the Navy when his commanding officer’s parting words were: “Don’t vote Labour, Miliband.”
After the war, he went back to university. Later, he would meet my Mum, become a university teacher and raise a family. My father’s strongly left wing views are well known, as is the fact that I have pursued a different path and I have a different vision.
He was a man with a great sense of humour so the idea of me being part of some “sinister” Marxist plot would have amused him and disappointed him in equal measure and for the same reason - he would have known it was ludicrously untrue. I want to make capitalism work for working people, not destroy it.
But whatever else is said about my Dad’s political views, Britain was a source of hope and comfort for him, not hatred. Having been born in Belgium he didn’t start from a belief in the inferiority of other countries, but he loved Britain for the security it offered his family and the gentle decency of our nation.
When we went on holiday abroad, the part he would look forward to the most was coming home. When he taught in America, he hated being away from our family and from Britain. When he thought of how many Jews had been killed, including members of our family, he felt very lucky that his boat from Belgium had come here.
Like most refugees, the security of our country was really important to him. And like some refugees, he owed his life to it. So my Dad loved Britain, he served Britain, and he taught both David and me to do the same.
Britain has always benefitted from a free press. Those freedoms should be treasured. They are vital for our democracy. Journalists need to hold politicians like me to account - none of us should be given an easy ride - and I look forward to a robust 19 months between now and the General Election.
But what appeared in the Daily Mail on Saturday was of a different order all together. I know they say ‘you can’t libel the dead’ but you can smear them.
Fierce debate about politics does not justify character assassination of my father, questioning the patriotism of a man who risked his life for our country in the Second World War, or publishing a picture of his gravestone with a tasteless pun about him being a ‘grave socialist’.

The Daily Mail sometimes claims it stands for the best of British values of decency. But something has really gone wrong when it attacks the family of a politician - any politician - in this way. It would be true of an attack on the father of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, or mine.
There was a time when politicians stayed silent if this kind of thing happened, in the hope that it wouldn’t happen again. And fear that if they spoke out, it would make things worse. I will not do that. The stakes are too high for our country for politics to be conducted in this way. We owe it to Britain to have a debate which reflects the values of how we want the country run."



I am declaring a personal interest, I suppose, as my late father was a friend of the late Ralph Miliband. However as my Socialist politics are more to the left of my father's socialist politics & Ed Miliband's are to the right of his father's socialist politics there is a sort of ironic cross over! I never met Ralph or his sons.

Monday, 30 September 2013

A Return to Nineteenth Century Values


Hackney workhouse stone yard c.1900 © London Borough of Hackney Archives Dept.
Stone-breaking was also a favourite task to be given to vagrants staying overnight in the workhouse tramp wards. From the 1880s, these often had special cells where the men were detained until they had broken the required weight of stone into pieces small enough to fall through a grid to the outside.*


For a brief moment when listening to the radio yesterday, I thought I was listening to a reading from a 19thC novel. Then reality clicked in and I realised in fact it was the news and  the latest policy announcement from the Tory party conference. As the Independent reports today:
All those who have been unemployed for three years will have to do some work or training in return for their benefits – or attend a jobcentre every day – under tough measures to be laid out in detail by George Osborne today.  
My first reaction - like many of you I am sure - 'do the Tories honestly believe that forcing long term unemployed workers [that oxymoron is deliberate] to attend a jobcentre daily or pick up rubbish etc will inspire them to rush out and find a non-existent job?' is plainly ludicrous. But then I realised that, if we as a society are returning to 19thC values and mores as the Tories plainly seem to want, then perhaps yes, this is what they believe.

I know I have quoted the Protestant Work Ethic of the 19thC before but Just In Case you have missed it, here we go again:
The Protestant work ethic (or the Puritan work ethic) is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes hard work, frugality and diligence as a constant display of a person's salvation in the Christian faith.......  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
In other words, if one was poor and needy in the 19thC it was a sign that God was displeased with you and if you were rich and successful it was a sign that you had gained God's favour by working hard, and the richer you became the more pleased God was. So the poor had to keep working harder and harder because the reward was in God's hands [quite convenient for the employing class not having to pay more in wages, obviously] and the rich had to make more and more profits to prove that God was even more pleased with their 'industry'. That of course is a quick, cynical, marxist interpretation of Weber's theory but I am Elizannie.

The Independent goes on to say:
But the Chancellor will tell the conference: “For the first time, all long-term unemployed people who are capable of work will be required to do something in return for their benefits to help them find work. 

Maybe I am naive, but if there is 'something' for long term unemployed 'to do', couldn't these 'somethings' be construed as jobs? And thus wouldn't the unemployed be employed and then they wouldn't be unemployed any more and would pay tax and national insurance. I seem to have missed something somewhere along the way.  I do know several people who whilst unemployed wanted to work in various charitable, unpaid areas such as schools, care homes etc to raise their skills but this was not allowed/was impractical by the rules of the jobcentres they attended. 



*The photograph above is taken from the site maintained by the great Peter Higginbottam http://www.workhouses.org.uk Please visit the site not just because it is so interesting for a vision of what a return to 19thC values could mean. 


Thursday, 26 September 2013

ASDA, you have seriously offended a lot of people - what are you going to do about it?



BBC News

Supermarket chain Asda [and Tesco] has apologised and withdrawn a Halloween outfit it was selling online as a "mental patient fancy dress costume", after criticism.

My last blog asked the question 'What Offends You?'. I have had a few emails in reply although I had hoped for more and am still hoping....

However I hadn't even got out of bed this morning when an item on the radio news had me so offended that I almost jumped out  and down the stairs [which with 'my back' could have been a mistake] in my rush to get to the keyboard and ask Asda via social media and this blog for an explanation.

Fortunately by the time my trusty machine had fired up I had calmed down a little and the radio was also letting me know that other people were also seriously offended. Surfing news sites and twitter showed that plenty of others are upset. And sadly, that Tesco had been selling a similar outfit which they too have also withdrawn.

I replied to a friend on facebook who had beaten me to it with his complaint:
I found this absolutely disgusting and don't think an apology is enough - a substantial contribution to a mental health charity would be a start. However to think that a big company would think this is acceptable behavior is seriously worrying and indicitive of areas of our uncaring society.
For a statement on this from MIND, the mental health charity, please click on this link.

Breaking news: Asda have just announced that they will be making a donation to Mind. However, although I am very pleased about this, the damage has already been done and like many others I am sure, I will be complaining to both Asda & Tesco head offices. Please join me if you agree.

BTW I love Halloween and fancy dress. My worst outfit was a bra tied round my head with images of ghosts stuck to it - 'GHOSTBUSTERS'. I have promised not to do that again - but it wasn't as bad taste as the Asda and Tesco outfits, surely?


Saturday, 21 September 2013

What Offends You?

Lemn Sissay with golliwogs
Photograph courtesy of The Guardian


There was a very interesting article in yesterday's Guardian's [20th September] 'Comment is Free' by Lemn Sissay about the sale of Golliwogs in a shop in the Shetland Isles. Like Lemn, I am always very offended if I see these 'dolls' on sale in a shop - but instead of complaining to the shop owner, Lemn blogged about the experience and then wrote about the effects of this blog and how he felt in the Guardian yesterday.

After his original blog, there was quite a furore in Shetland and the shop owner was rather upset. The article in the Guardian yesterday is - I think - Lemn justifying his blog. It is very interesting as it details the history of Golliwogs [I do hate that word] but in a way displays a lack of understanding about the way a previous generation [he talks about an grey lady, and elderly lady. Probably my age for goodness sake!] played with these dolls without any awareness of their duplicitous meaning. Now I am older and wiser [well perhaps] and would never have bought these dolls for my children and grandchildren.

Whilst I completely agree your feelings, Lemn, when you saw the dolls on sale [I don't even want to use the 'descriptive' name of them because I feel it is that offensive] and I think your blog is fair because it describes your feelings, I think it would have been even fairer if you had explained to the little old lady that you objected to the sale of the dolls, and why.I remember having one of these dolls as a child, reading about them in Enid Blyton's books and collecting the replicas on jars of jam to get an enamel brooch [I am so ashamed of these I won't even sell them on ebay!!] But that was then, I was tiny and it was the 1950s. Now I know better and when I was staying at a resort a couple of years ago where the shop was selling plastic 4 inch such  dolls I complained to the owners and they have been taken from sale. However in the Lake District last year, where all sizes of Peter Rabbits, Jemima PuddleDuck et al were being sold [at rather inflated prices] in many shops in many towns it became impractical to complain in everyone, packed as they were with tourists eager to part with their money. Was I a coward? Probably.
The photograph of you and the dolls is probably the most powerful statement of the whole piece, btw.Michael Rosen's advice was excellent. Because what children learn, the adult teaches. So Lemn, what do I conclude? Keep on blogging and complaining about the racist connotations of these iniquitous dolls.  But if it is any use to you, I always warn 'subjects' if I am going to 'use' them in a rant and credit the photos. So take this as notice that I will do both! Haven't written the blog yet but it will be on http://rephidimstreet.blogspot.co.uk/ Don't worry, I have nowhere near as many readers as you!
Sometimes we get so absorbed in our justified passions that we find it difficult to step outside ourselves to see another's point of view. I can be as guilty of this as the next person. I have also been in the position where someone has unwittingly insulted me - when - as too often happens - someone shouts at me 'Are you deaf?' I don't actually feel offended because I am deaf, usually I find it funny because I realise I have covered it up rather well. On the odd day when I am in a bad mood this can upset me!! But we do need to always allow the other person to express their point of view. Even if we think, ultimately, that it is rubbish.

What offends you?

Monday, 16 September 2013

You Really Couldn't Make This Up, Sadly

dannyalexanderfoodbank

Something I love about facebook is the way that it can spark a train of thoughts which ends up as a blog on this site! But a post from one of my friend's today had me almost speechless [odd I know!] and wondering if I have somehow 'shifted' into some kind of parallel, satiric world.

The link which this friend posted was to Wings Over Scotland
which is a 'Scottish political website, which focuses particularly on the media – whether mainstream print and broadcast organisations or the online and social-network community – as well as offering its own commentary and analysis' [to quote from their 'about us'] and the post upon which I am concentrating is from July 31st and entitled The Pride of Britain. Do please read it.

The premise of the article - which shows photos of various MPs [across parties] - opening food banks up and down Britain - is how can representatives of the people look so happy to be opening what is surely symbolic of something which shows the shame of Britain. The idea that food banks are necessary in the 21st century because welfare benefits and wages are insufficient for many to be able to feed themselves and their families surely must fill any caring citizen with concern? The idea - boasted about in parliament last week - the job centres refer claimants to food banks - is, to me, toxic. Patrick Butler wrote an excellent blog about the the DWP shenigans via the job centres  in the Guardian earlier this month. Please read this too.

I have 'lifted' the photograph above from the Wings over Scotland article. In their words it shows

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander MP, opening a foodbank with a cretinous smile on his face as if being a member of the government of a modern industrial nation in need of foodbanks was something to be happy about
In the 60s satirical TV programmes arrived on our TV screen and were welcomed by my generation and shocked the older generations. We laughed at the scenarios posed by That Was The Week That Was, The Frost Report, Rowan and Martyn's Laugh-In, At Last The 1948 Show and more. Nothing approached this true life stupidity.

I have posited before that we are returning to the 19thC ideals of the 'Deserving Poor'. [BTW that link refers to the Disraeli novel Sybil, subtitled Two Nation another prase often heard. Read it and weep]

Well, I seem to have given you all a lot of reading homework. I must have temporarily forgotten that I am retired and no longer lecturing. But if we don't learn the lessons of the past and additionally remain aware of what is going on in our present, we will have severe problems in the future. 




Thursday, 12 September 2013

?Royal? Mail

Elizannie was extremely rude last night when the news broke that the Royal Mail stock market flotation is set to go ahead and commented with rather a naughty word on facebook. By the time she got to twitter she had managed to be a bit more measured and polite but still very annoyed.

So that her readers would not be offended, Elizannie decided to have a night's sleep before tackling the issue on the blog'o'sphere and will now resume the first person narration before said readers get really annoyed......

Postman


I have to declare an interest in this subject because all through my life there has been some family member working for the Royal Mail. At times there have been more than one postmen amongst my family members. So I know all about the unsocial hours and working through bad weather conditions and snappy dogs and snappy letter boxes. But lots of other jobs have disadvantages so we will leave those 'problems' there and concentrate on whether we still need a state owned mail delivery service.

When I was a small child in the 1950s, obviously the importance of the speed of mail delivery differed to the needs of the second decade of the 21st century. But a little recap of what it was like in the 1950s for those who are not as ancient as I!

A brief canter through the history of the postal service since WW2. In the early 1950s, very few homes had a telephone. 'Trippers' to the seaside on a day out could send a postcard home when they arrived and this postcard would usually be delivered by the afternoon mail, before the writer arrived home. 'Local' mail posted in the morning in a town would be delivered in that town  by the afternoon mail [the 'second post'*] There was even a letter and a parcel delivery on Christmas Day. Really urgent messages [good and bad] were sent via telegram. With the growth of the telephone service telegram usage dropped and this service was discontinued by BT in 2003, but in the 1950s and 1960s the telegram boy was not an unusual sight on our streets.
*The second post was finally discontinued in 2001






Until 1968, a greetings card - on condition that it was simply signed 'from whoever' and not sealed, i.e. the flap of the envelope was 'tucked in' - could be posted at a lesser rate than the ordinary sealed letter. In July 1968 'First' and 'Second' class was introduced, which seriously disturbed the sensibilities of a budding Marxist such as me. It was explained as 'first' class mail, costing slightly more, would take priority over the less important 'second' class mail.

Of course in the 60 years since I was a child things have changed. Then very few houses had their own telephone and who would have dreamt that by the end of the century mobile 'phones would be in the majority of the population's pockets and handbags?! The world wide web and email has changed the mode of communications for both personal and business users.

But - and here's the thing - parcels and packets cannot be squeezed through cyber space. E-Birthday & Christmas cards cannot be displayed on the mantelpiece [unless printed out when they tend to fall over..] Surprisingly, people do still write letters - business and personal. Not everyone has access to the internet. So there will always be a need for a delivery service that will cover all parts of the country.

[Break here for 'phone call from Other Half and listen to his diatribe against Royal Mail Privatisation. Repeatedly interrupt with 'I know' a la Sybil Fawlty]

About thirty years ago, monopoly of the delivery of parcels was taken from the Royal Mail and now there are many delivery services of differing efficacy. Due to Other Half's employment, we often have up to three or four of these so called services calling at our door per day. Without being biased [honestly] the best of these is undoubtedly provided by the Royal Mail/Parcel Force and they cover all areas. They may not always be the cheapest but they are the most reliable. The others are so profit-led that they will not deliver to out of the way places or take awkward/unusual cargo. They do not offer a full, country wide service.

A postman pushes a hand cart with a large GPO basket on it along a promenade, 1938. The basket contains mail unloaded from the Canadian Pacific Railways liner Duchess of Bedford at Greenock. Beginning its journey in places such as New Zealand and China, once unloaded, the mail was then sorted in the open air ‘sorting office’ of the Princes Pier before being despatched for delivery across the United Kingdom. (POST 118/851)


A postman pushes a hand cart with a large GPO basket on it along a promenade, 1938. The basket contains mail unloaded from the Canadian Pacific Railways liner Duchess of Bedford at Greenock. Beginning its journey in places such as New Zealand and China, once unloaded, the mail was then sorted in the open air ‘sorting office’ of the Princes Pier before being despatched for delivery across the United Kingdom. (POST 118/851)

Photo courtesy 
http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/category/postal-history/ 

So why am I so anti Privatisation of the Royal Mail? Where do I start? Well let's look at the other 'public services' that have been privatised, for a start.

[Break off to answer the door to the Parcel Force man bearing a parcel. Have a nice chat with him including him having a look around our caravan which is parked in the front garden. I kid you not...]

The energy & water companies were ticking along quite nicely as public services when the then Conservative government decided to privatise them. The Government made it sound as if they were offering the electorate a 'get rich scheme'. And who owns most of the shares now? Foreign businesses. And what has happened to the prices now that we have 'competitive' businesses which 'compete' to give us lower prices? Answers on a postcard, posted in a Royal Mail box please.

[I couldn't make this up - I broke off here to check an email which has just arrived. To my absolute fury it is offering me the chance to register an interest in buying shares in Royal Mail. This is really rubbing salt into the wound, especially as I am ideologically opposed to share dealing]

Another 'bad' privatisation example, the bus service. I live in a smallish village and after privatisation we have several companies competing on some of the old routes whilst others - presumably less profitable and/or at 'awkward' times are not covered at all. So we no longer have bus services, we have bus companies intent on making profits.

My opposition to the privatisation of the Royal Mail - if I haven't made it quite clear - is basically that one cannot expect services to always be profitable. My fears are that once the control of the Royal Mail passes into the hands of those who care less about service provision and the welfare of their employees and more about the profit & loss accounts and balance sheets we will see a deterioration in service, a rise in prices and a worsening in employment terms.

The Communion Workers Union has been fighting these plans for quite a while and have issued a statement today which can be read here.

[There is a question still not fully answered about the Royal Mail Pension Plan which has been in deficit which I will leave for another day]

Interesting Links:
The British Postal Museum & Archive

Postal system of the United Kingdom  [wikipedia]