Thursday 30 September 2010

The Tea Party: A storm brewing?

Almost two years since President Barack Obama entered the White House, a new grip of political fever is sweeping across the States. The Tea Party are a political force, backed by Sarah Palin, with ambitions to reinvigorate and change the face of modern American politics. They want to see an end to big government and a return to the founding principles of the constitution. With the November mid-terms approaching, what is this movement? Is it a revolution or something purely futile? Will this transform the way Americans think about politicians? Is it a force for good?

The movement became prominent after President Obama’s bail-out bill that threw billions of dollars at troubled financial institutions and created the Troubled Asset Relief Protection scheme (TARP), in essence government intervention into ‘failing’ industries. This for many American conservatives was a step too far; this was the encroachment of big-government and the antinomy of federal autonomy. One surprising feature of this movement has been the proportion of women. Much of this has been put down to the amount of unemployed female population forced to manage the accounts of households. Why they ask do they have to tighten their belts, when the government is adding to the fiscal debt each day?

However, the party appears to be far from a group of fiscal conservatives concerned about the national balance sheet. It is an amorphous group of disillusioned citizens at society, immigration, politics and the essence of America. The recent march on Washington saw a call to return to fundamentals and the upholding of the constitution. Is this romanticism and the amelioration of an earlier era, a desire to return to ideals or does it possess racist undertones? The movement is full of poor, white families who feel ostracised from an America they once knew. The changing face of America and the failure to tackle immigration has only exacerbated the problem. It seems far from coincidental though that the election of a black President could push this into the mainstream.

I don’t think this is all aimed at Obama; this is an objection to all politicians and the way both main parties play ball. The fact that the Tea Party are placing candidates mainly in fringe Republican seats does not necessarily mean it is win-win for the Democrats, many people are disaffected with the change they thought this new era of politics would potentially bring. The biggest mistake would be for the Republicans to cater for this fringe. It is probably true to say that two years ago, these members could have been called extremists, though it was a collapse in the politics of centre that brought Hitler to power right?

I don’t know what everyday Americans think or whether Sarah Palin could possibly be made of substance (probably not). This is a challenge to the norm and certainly come mid-November politicians will sit a little uneasy when the polls are announced.

Monday 20 September 2010

I'm with the brand.

Sport is a funny old game and the traditional industries and loyalties that tie supporters to their local team have become blurred. It is unimaginable that in the 1960s and 1970s boys from Liverpool could ever grow up cheering on Man Utd or Chelsea. What then has changed socially or culturally that makes these conversions acceptable?

We must acknowledge that people have always had second teams, or certainly been fond of another. Many Londoners see Leyton Orient as their second side and people on Merseyside will see how Tranmere Rovers have done on a Saturday evening. In the footballing book, Fever Pitch, Nick Hornby, the Arsenal fanatic, supported Cambridge United at University as well as his beloved Gunners. Many people have affection for bigger teams like Liverpool and Manchester United because of past dynasties like Bill Shankly and Sir Matt Busby. A new generation has been raised up watching Sir Alex Ferguson’s sides in European competitions. Is there a reason though why children wear Chelsea shirts in Northern England?

Social mobility is a cause; people nowadays are far more likely to move away from the place they were born than they were say, 50 years ago. So the roots of both parents and children are far less embedded in the soul of that person. The other reason that seems far more pernicious and irrevocable is the soul of the club. Clubs originally evolved as a leisure activity from Victorian industry e.g. Arsenal was formed by workers from a munitions factory in Woolwich. The increased commercialisation of football clubs has developed them into companies. Some of the current chief executives of Premier League have a background in marketing or managing FTSE 100 corporations. The success of clubs has exponentially become a model of global imperialism. Money spinning tours and selling merchandise is the most effective way to maintain a healthy income stream and increase in global following. You could argue that the omnipotence of the Premier League and the revolution in television coverage means that clubs are no longer entrenched in the heart of certain regions. It is accepted, possibly for the better (?) that watching your local Premier League side you aren’t guaranteed to see any local boys or names on the back of the match programme. According to a statistic 99% of Man United fans have never been to Old Trafford, it’s probable that 98% of them don’t live in Manchester, or England either.

Amateurism died a long time ago, as did the Corinthian spirit. Can we say that clubs have sold out? Possibly, certainly their priorities have changed. Winning the Champions’ League is much more important than the FA Cup. Club emblems have dropped their traditional Latin mottoes for more friendly and modern logos. Owners aren’t local entrepreneurs, they are wealthy foreign businessmen. Football involves nostalgia and talking of golden eras, it is just that we are in an age where romance and glamour-killings happen less frequently.

Fathers will always take their sons to watch the match and people will always support their local sides. But the brand might take them elsewhere, we might even see Premier League games abroad...

Sunday 19 September 2010

A black boy got shot.

I heard an interesting interview this week that included England’s football captain Rio Ferdinand. However, it had nothing to do with football or his role in tackling racism. Last week, Rio MacFarlane, an 18-year old black teenager was murdered on the streets of Peckham. Rio was gunned down after a case of mistaken identity. Rio was not part of a gang, nor had he ever wanted to be. He was a promising young footballer who was studying sports science at college. Ferdinand, who grew up in Peckham and is a family friend, was doing his bit to ask for witnesses to come forward and find the culprit of this horrible act.

We need to remember that gun and knife crime is not defined as a crime linked to black people. We should understand though that carrying such weapons is becoming more common in such neighbourhoods and the assassins are becoming younger and younger. The thing that struck me, when I listened, was the flood of texts from the black community about the notion of being a grass. As you may know, I am not black, nor do I have any contact to these neighbourhoods; but I found some of the responses astonishing. The lack of respect and acceptance for the Police appears hollow. There is no reason to believe that impunity and murders should be accepted as the norm. After the surge of killings in 2008, the media lens highlighted the glamour and pervasive nature of gang culture. The language brazenly adopts a military intonation, but they aren’t fallen soldiers – they are sons, brothers, cousins and friends.

Hopefully Rio’s legacy will be lasting, not just another black boy who was shot.

Wednesday 15 September 2010

Bomber Command: Flying without fear.

Admiration and courage is what defined the men that flew in the Battle of Britain. ‘The Few' who seventy years ago fought off the German Luftwaffe and prevented a land invasion are still held in high esteem as part of the national identity and within popular culture. The depiction of Hurricane and Spitfires planes flying across the skies of southern Britain and the young, charismatic pilots who gave their lives speaks volumes of the magnanimity and congenial spirit of this special group. We correctly lionise the efforts of those young fighter pilots; yet so much recognition is neglected to those of Bomber Command. The toils and struggles of those in Lancaster bombers appear convoluted and depicted in fewer stories. The men of Bomber Command had the unenviable task of hitting German cities and military targets. The pilots, navigators, gunners became known as the ‘Men of Air’, not because of their long and perilous taxis, but because of the likelihood of dying in flight.

‘When we first arrived on 101 Sqn the intelligence officer told us: “You’re now on an operational squadron, your expectation of life is six weeks. Go back to your huts and make out your wills.” It was simply accepted that two out of three of us would be killed.’ Sgt Dennis Goodliffe.

The heroics in the Summer of 1940 lasted simply for several months, but the sorties of bombers hitting enemy targets continued throughout the war. The memorable story is of ‘The Dambusters’, hailed as a triumph by the ingenious Barnes Wallace and the daring Guy Gibson, yet much is neglected to the great loss of life in carrying out the raid. The bombing raids of the Second World War became notoriously horrific. The policy of ‘strategic bombing’ was in effect the targeting of major cities and civilians as well as war industries. The destruction in places like Rotterdam and Coventry by the Luftwaffe, and then Hamburg and Dresden by the Allies epitomise the death and colour of war. Air Chief Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris told Churchill that to destroy Hitler it may cost between 400-500 Lancasters. The consequences of WW1 ultimately meant that this time that Nazi Germany would be brought to its knees.

In total, Bomber Command lost 55,000 men during the war and a further 10,000 were taken prisoner. These men, at an average of 22, brought needed retribution within the borders of Germany, and hope to those incarcerated within it. Their bodies’ were scattered across Europe and yet they have no memorial or lasting tribute. In rural Holland, I remember seeing on the grave of a British Airman:

‘A good life often too short, but a good name endureth forever.’

There was ‘The Few’ but of course there were many more.

Thursday 9 September 2010

Balls to that: The other Ed.

It appears now that the leader of the Labour party will be a Miliband, David or Ed that is. It does also appear that since the general election and the departure of Gordon Brown, this story has been ongoing for an age. Do we ultimately know where they will want to take the Labour party? Will they move the party in a particular direction? Will they challenge the Coalition Government? It is lamentable from a news perspective that we have learnt nothing new about the two. We know that Ed wrote the recent Labour manifesto, David was the head of policy under Tony Blair and that their father was a Russo-Belgian Communist Jew who moved to Britain to escape persecution. That appears to be all. The candidate receiving the worst coverage is Ed Balls, not because his name is the same as Wayne Rooney’s profession; but because of his so-called insidious alliance with Gordon Brown throughout his time in the New Labour government.

Balls too is on the campaign trail and with his time and experience in the Treasury, he has made some important reflections on the Coalition’s attempts on the recovery. Balls is correct to question the severity in cuts and the possibility of a double-dip recession, as seen in Japan in the mid-nineties. He has also attacked the Education Secretary Michael Gove on his mishandling of the schools rebuilding scheme and his push to increase the number of academies and start-up schools (there is a bit of history between these two). The problem for Balls, that doesn’t seem to affect the Milibands, is that he is seen by voters as part of the old wallpaper within New Labour. He was Brown’s special advisor within the Treasury and implicated as part of the epoch of financial meltdown. Despite his obvious intelligence and perspective on economics, he doesn’t have the same amicability of Vince Cable or Ken Clarke that the public warm too. Despite making some salient points politically, he is tarred in the media as part of the New Labour coterie of using spin-based politics. On camera he seems quite friendly, yet spiteful from all accounts in the Westminster Village.

Inevitably, if the election goes to plan then he may become the next Shadow Chancellor and play an important part in recovering Labour’s record on the economy. However for Balls despite his penance, it seems distant for him to win anyone’s trust or support anytime soon.

Hackgate: Give me a story now!

The political story dominating the media this week is the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World (NOTW). The story first came out several months ago but has re-emerged after the republication in The New York Times. The main protagonist in this story is the former editor Andy Coulson, who now happens to be David Cameron's communication chief. However, also part of the unfolding drama includes the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, owner of the NOTW.

The basic story is that several journalists at the newspaper hacked into the voicemails of allegedly hundreds of politicians, celebrities and public figures to find out stories about them. Mr Coulson, who left to eventually become Mr Cameron's press chief, denies any knowledge of such subordination at the time of his tenure. However, an investigation by The New York Times claims that many of the journalists, who worked at the paper, claim he was aware of the hacking and that he lied to officers investigating the claims. MPs are currently voting to see whether an inquiry should be held and figures put in front of a Commons Select Committee.

If you ignore the obvious breaches of privacy then what does this reflect? What if Coulson was lying? It probably does not affect Mr Cameron in anyway but it would probably cause some embarrassment for the PM into Coulson's original appointment. He was in charge when the Royal editor of the paper was jailed for breaching security procedures to get a staff member a job at Buckingham Palace, something he saw as rogue rather than inherent. People will also ask that if Coulson knew, then it was likely that others knew too: Rebekah Brooks (Head of BSkyB), James Murdoch (Chief Exec of News Corp) and then ultimately Rupert. This questions the whole validity of journalism and ethics of News Corporation as a whole and the potential damaging cover-up it undertook.

There is certainly a hidden interest from the New York Times because of Murdoch's acquistion of the Wall Street Journal and the combative tactics used against its rivals, but what about the wider public? I honestly don't think too many people are interested in the essence of the story. It is reported seriously by the BBC, Guardian, Channel 4, but not many more. The nature of celebrity culture and gossip driven scandal sells newspapers and magazines; not to mention gives everyone something to talk about at the water cooler. It may be that the NOTW are being implicated but if the story evolves it may become likely that other newspapers were doing the same thing. Expect this story to evolve.

Monday 6 September 2010

The Mosque in Manhattan

There are two events within my generation that everyone is aware of where they were at the time. The death of Diana Princess of Wales and the devastation in New York on September 11th 2001. The 9/11 attacks created  fear, loathing and also questions of why? America perceived itself as the global good guy, why would someone want to attack the heart of something so benevolent and fruitful?

Approaching the ninth anniversary of the attacks and the occasion seems to have generated another portrait of America within itself and not particularly flattering. Terry Jones, (not of Monty Python fame) an evangelical preacher from Florida, has decided that on September 11th he will burn a copy of the Koran in his front garden. Mr Jones, who leads a congregation of around 50, will create a bonfire burning t-shirts with the slogan ‘Islam is the Devil’. Rightly, it has been condemned by senior figures including General David Petraeus; but ultimately it highlights America’s insularity and fringes. America has its own history of burning crosses, most notably the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan’s motives were through the literal interpretation of Genesis and that black people were born with the mark of Cain. It is not black and white; but it seems so easy to compare these literal interpretations to that of say, Islamic fundamentalism.

If the burnings go ahead, then there will be a backlash and we will see comparisons to the cartoon drawings of the prophet Mohammed. It could also create casualties in current American war zones or add further tinder to an already huge fire. America has a tough relationship with the Muslim world and the Islamic religion, look at the hype around a proposed Islamic centre near Ground Zero. The difference with this building is that it is not looking for publicity and its purpose seems to be creating greater harmony. America’s image was tarnished in the aftermath of 9/11 and its belligerent wars did little to win it further friends abroad. The one thing that I hope people remember was that in the following weeks after 9/11 was the surge on Amazon in American’s buying copies of the Koran to try and understand what type of people could have caused the attacks. Unfortunately, it appears the unextinguished fires of hate appear prevalent of both sides of the argument and these hot heads will grab the headlines.

Thursday 2 September 2010

Family Annihilation

Listening to the news this afternoon, I was confronted by a word that I have never heard before and provokes an eerie sense of curiosity: ‘Family Annihilation’. There is no dichotomy from case to case, but the vast majority seem to be split down the middle. Let me provide you with the first kind, there are occasions when angry or jealous husbands feel that the best way to punish a cheating or estranged wife/partner is to murder the children. As I quote a psychologist:

“No thought for the children as humans is given whatsoever — they are mere instrumentalities in a bigger scheme to extract revenge.”

These horrendous actions, with many examples, appear to have the marks of a psychopath. The husband’s hate and victimhood causes him to go beyond what any loving father would think of doing and murder his own, all to punish their partner. A horrendous tragedy to any community.

The other side is perhaps more complex. The scenario when a husband kills his whole family to protect themselves. There are several stories in recent years to highlight such cases. Firstly, Chris Foster, a wealthy self-made millionaire who shot his wife and daughter, before killing himself and setting fire to his house. Also today, a coroner published the results for the death of 48 year-old Hugh Mc Fall, who killed his wife and daughter before taking his own life. Both these high-profile cases involved men, who were in financial trouble yet loving husbands and fathers. Their crimes were not through anger or revenge; but to prevent their families from being stigmatised by their shame, to protect them from their own suffering. Something they weren’t willing to accept.

These deaths aren’t romantic and ultimately there are many innocent victims. We just have to think, particularly in the second cases, can we call these men mad or evil? If they had robbed banks instead would we have accepted it? Or was their crime that they loved too much? Trauma and desperation are things right-thinking people cannot fathom, we can only conclude that desperate men can do desperate things.

Wednesday 1 September 2010

Tony Blair: Loathed but listened to

The circus that follows Tony Blair graces us yet again with the release of his memoirs. Blair is no longer a central figure in public life but whenever he makes an appearance, the media gaze immediately pours its coverage and on to his latest outing. As the former Labour spin doctor Lance Price said this morning, Blair will have Iraq etched on his grave. Yet the country, despite its condemnation over the Iraq War, seems to have a healthy respect for Blair’s opinion on a range of topics like British politics and Middle Eastern diplomacy. It seems like a pure antinomy to want to hear from a man who once told us obscene lies.

It is hard to imagine for some people but Blair is still held in high esteem in America and seen as global leader in the pursuit for World Peace. Both Kosovo and Sierra Leone still revere the man who led the world for calls on 'liberal intervention' to avoid genocide. Apparently after the NATO intervention in Kosovo, the name Tony became extremely popular within a mainly Muslim country.

We should always remember that Blair won the biggest landslide in British General Electoral history and although he divided opinion with his policies, he changed the political landscape across the Union, continent and world. History can often have a benign view on yesterday's leaders, we seem to become more open to listening to fallen rogues: think Richard Nixon, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Aitken even Peter Mandelson. Blair will never be forgiven for his previous decisions but we will always acknowledge his talent to talk, to woo and create opinion.
Share

Widgets