The Holocaust Memorial proposed for Westminster’s Victoria Tower Gardens is causing a stir – some critics say that it will be out of scale for the space intended, a view which seems to be shared by the Royal Parks charity. Judging by the pictures of it online, it does look quite large, although most of it appears to be underground. Even so, it is nothing on the scale of the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin which occupies a significant area not far from the Reichstag, although as I recall it is not in sight of that building.
I think there is a more profound critique to be made of the current proposal. If it is to occupy such a significant site, it should not merely be a Holocaust memorial, however much that is justified. Within spitting distance of the centre of the Parliament of the British Empire, it should equally commemorate the genocides for which that empire was responsible. Perhaps the most significant of these were the slave trade, where estimates of deaths vary from four million to over 100 million (the UN says 17 million), and the British role in the near elimination of native Americans, where the eventual toll was probably in excess of 100 million. Much of the latter will have occurred after U.S. independence, but let’s not overlook our continued role in Canada. Then there are other smaller genocides, such as the routine aboriginal massacres in Australia and Tasmania. Shouldn’t a reminder of all these not have equal prominence next to our Parliament, to serve as a reminder of the atrocities for which the British were directly responsible but which, for the most part have not received the same attention as the Holocaust? The Holocaust is still, just, within living memory and that visceral memory should not be allowed to be extinguished. But I think that there is a danger that in singling out that memory, others equally horrific but more distant will be neglected. Or should we just point to the Nazis, and say ‘Look, see how bad they were’ and conveniently forget how bad we were? It doesn't matter that the slave trade and other genocides happened a long time ago. Climate change now threatens genocide on a scale never before witnessed, but I fear the politics of it won't be much more enlightened than it was two hundred years ago.
0 Comments
Isn’t it incredible? Just 46 days to go before the Brexit crunch, and we still seem to have all the time in the world to negotiate, renegotiate and swan around in an evaporating pond of options as if the whole world rotates on our axis. That’s the swirling axis evident in a plughole. If I had my way – to try to instil some urgency into the government’s approach - I would have them all, and particularly ministerial offices, removed to a set of freezing cold portakabins somewhere out on Salisbury Plain and make them sleep in sleeping bags and eat out of unheated past-their-sell-by-date tins until they understand the woeful mess they have got us into. This might instil some urgency into their behaviour. I guess we will be hearing a bit more of the Dunkirk spirit shortly.
I watched The Darkest Hour the other night, starring Gary Oldman as Churchill. Oldman I think has done one of the best Churchills, but the film was bunkum. As has been pointed out, there was no encounter between Churchill and London Underground travellers, an encounter with ‘the people’ that lifted Churchill’s spirits and banished his doubts about carrying on. But from that scene onwards the whole film deteriorated into a rosy-spectacled comic history of the great British turning point in the war. A far better history of what happened can be found in 1940 Myth and Reality by Clive Ponting. The real turning point in the war came with Pearl Harbour. Now imagine Chris Grayling as First Lord of the Admiralty and that just about sums up any parallels between today’s situation and our Shining Hour. Hold the front page! Stop the presses! This is the biggest news since the sinking of the Titanic!8/2/2019 The BBC’s PM programme tonight devoted over one third of its time to the awesome story that two no-confidence motions tabled in Liverpool’s Wavertree Constituency Labour Party (CLP), against their MP Luciana Berger had been withdrawn. 22 minutes out of 60 devoted mostly to anti-Labour speculation, some of it admittedly coming from right-wing Labour MPs. What more does this say about the bias in the BBC? They took great care not to give any airtime to critics of the MP – and before I go any further, all Labour MPs will have their critics in the party. Is there really nothing else happening in the world which is more worthy of our attention? (Climate change springs to mind – there are truly awful stories to be reported on that every day.)
I hasten to add that I don’t want to be fed a diet of information which only accords with my views, far from it. What I do want –especially from the BBC – is balance. From the broadcast media we are clearly not going to get that until the next general election is called. Is it worth complaining yet again? Perhaps I should write in and ask them to produce a bit more coverage of other CLP motions – I suspect there’s plenty of them on homelessness, poverty, social care, austerity, government incompetence and waste, fighting fascism, etc., etc. (Despite faithfully typing in the email address of Heather Stewart at the Guardian - see yesterday’s blog - my email has bounced back, it seems the address cannot be found. I will try again.)
Now then. Given my condemnation of the numpties that comprise the DUP, that group of pork-belly politicians who seem to lack all shame, I should perhaps balance my view of them with some thoughts on Sinn Féin. I understand their principle of not being willing to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, but one wonders in the context of Brexit if standing by this principle will harm the chances of their achieving what they actually want. There are seven Sinn Féin MPs and their presence in the Commons could radically alter the parliamentary arithmetic, seriously reducing the value to Theresa May of the DUP’s 10 members. There are many republicans of the British variety who have objections to the oath of allegiance, myself included, but for me the wording allowed sufficient wriggle room to say it. The affirmation version (removing references to God) says “I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.” It’s the last few words which allowed me to utter it - ‘and successors, according to law.’ Logically, successors could include an elected head of state, and combined with the words ‘according to law’ this could point, as far as people in Northern Ireland are concerned, even to a successor who happens to be a Taoiseach. The oath doesn’t specify which country these successors might be head of state of, after all. Yes, it is assumed it refers only to the British state. But it doesn’t say that. As things stand the DUP are making ground, under the cover of Brexit, in their ambition to demolish the Good Friday agreement and all Sinn Féin seem bothered about are a few archaic words. They would serve their cause better if they took the bloody oath and got on with the job they are being paid for. They might also earn some credit by representing the majority of voters in Northern Ireland who voted remain. This may be a drag for my readers who are not terribly interested in Labour Party matters, but my previous blog has led me to do a little digging round on t’internet to see why a relatively small number of Labour Party members become lapsed members. The Guardian can’t quite seem to make its mind up – is it because of Corbyn’s rampant anti-semitism (sic), is it because of his lack of 110% Europhilia, or is it because the Guardian wants to get Chukka (those boots are made for walking) Umunna to set up a new centrist party with his Tory pals?
First I wanted to know – if it is correct that 12,000 members left in the last couple of months, as asserted without verifiable evidence in the Guardian – how many of them, errr, simply died? That question wasn’t asked in the article (did they die because they didn’t agree with Comrade Corbyn?) but I reckon the attrition rate through death could have been between 1,000 and 2,000. It would be the lower end of that spectrum if the average age of party members was the same as that of the UK as a whole, and it would be higher if the average age of members was higher. The UK average age is around 40 years, the Labour Party’s average age is in the 50s. Some of the evidence for this can be found here: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-corbyn-surge-labour-s-members-tend-to-be-older-middle-class-and-gender-balanced-a8173141.html Then there is the question of how many members have departed our shores. Maybe some are E.U. migrants returning home. Obviously, that could only be because they hate Jeremy Corbyn – what other possible explanation could there be? But there’s no way of knowing how many members lapsed because they moved away, so better not ask the question – or even imagine it possible. Of course, we know we shouldn’t believe all that we read in the newspapers, but it would be nice to think you could believe some of it. As it happens, the Independent article linked above suggested that Conservative Party membership is around 70,000. The Guardian article I’m moaning about suggested it was 124,000. Who is right? I sometimes wonder whether some journalists, and of course I am more familiar with those who write for the Guardian, ever wonder whether they could be fact checked. Do they not realise that we can cross-check stuff using this thing called the internet? I have to confess it is difficult sometimes to fact check articles which are based on unattributable sources - in other words, anonymous people with agendas. re: "Labour membership drops 10% amid unrest over Brexit stance" to: Heather.stewart@guardian.com Dear Heather, I know you aren't responsible for the headlines which appear over your pieces (I assume not, anyway) but I want you to know that I take issue with the tenor of your article today which makes such headlines possible. Basically, it seems you have been fed by unattributable sources that Labour is losing members - that leads the story. But then - absurdly - buried in the depths of your report you write 'more members have joined Labour than quit during recent months.' But you can't tell us how many! So what exactly are you saying? The tenor of your report is overwhelmingly negative, so I guess that's the impression you want to leave. As per the Guardian house rule, you complete your article with more of the Labour anti-semitism stuff. I complained about an article in yesterday's paper about the same thing - why did it have to be repeated again? (I posted my complaint on my blog - I can't say I'm too hopeful of getting a response from the paper.) You repeat the suggestion that a motion on anti-semitism was 'passed' by the PLP - yet it seems no vote was taken. How then was it 'passed?' I have been a Labour member for as long as I've been a Guardian reader - over 35 years - and I was a member of the PLP for nine years. I am beginning to get somewhat weary of the editorial line that you are clearly required to follow - a line which increasingly doesn't seem to be based on transparent evidence but emerges from unattributable briefings or as in the case of Margaret Hodge, openly coated with venom for Jeremy Corbyn. Please speak to your editors and see if you can get something done about it. I'll post this letter on my blog, and I will do the same with your reply, if you do reply. Best regards Colin Challen (Labour MP for Morley and Rothwell 2001-2010) Blog correction: the gain in membership should refer to weeks, as in the article quoted, not months. The Guardian reports today on last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party - why? Oh yes, it's anti-semitism again! I thought the subject had been ignored for a while so Hodge and Co. have got together to keep things going. A full report can be found on The Skwawkbox, which I think is probably more accurate than the Guardian's little Hodge-puff. I have sent the following to the Guardian - we'll see if they reply:
1. Question of accuracy: was a vote taken on the motion on anti-semitism at the PLP? If no vote was taken, how can it be said that it was 'unanimously passed?' A detailed report in The Skwawkbox (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/FMfcgxwBVWMvxklQGPTtXhSrLrGSHXvh?compose=CllgCKCDCjdCRGSvQjKccDlDDwthBfrcnFJDCSfPCQPhlkqhRkSmpKgqSrLspsVPZRqQqwMqNqB) suggests that your report is inaccurate. 2. Question of bias: The same website posting reveals the entire text of Jenny Formby's letter on anti-semitism to members of the PLP. Was your reporter aware of this letter when writing the report that appeared in today's paper? The letter goes to great lengths to explain what the Party is doing about alleged anti-semitism in the Labour Party, and surely would have merited comment. If your reporter, or others at the Guardian had sight of this letter, then clearly its absence in the report demonstrates bias - fed presumably by those who wish to keep this story alive. I would like to see corrections as appropriate. As a former member of the PLP I know how some members like to rush out into the committee room corridor and feed journalists with their take on things. Sometimes, the journalists are even primed! (Would you believe it?) There can’t be too much doubt that the current Venezuelan government is incompetent, corrupt and in need of profound reform. But those three words, incompetent, corrupt and reform could apply equally to many other regimes around the world. I’m thinking particularly of Saudi Arabia, where they don’t even pretend to have free and fair elections. I know I’m joining a chorus of those who have expressed their disgust at the hypocritical stance of ‘our’ government in recognising a Venezuelan opposition leader as ‘interim president’ but then could we expect anything less from May’s crackpot, banana regime which only exists because it has bribed the DUP fruitcakes? And if El Trumpo engages in a military escapade in what our junior Foreign Office minister, the diminutive Alan Duncan described as ‘America’s backyard’ should we applaud such action on ‘humanitarian’ grounds? Because that is how it will be sold, as opposed to the sanctions currently imposed. It would be more civilised to engage with the government and civil society of Venezuela to seek a way out of its current problems than to go along with yet another U.S. imperial intervention. ‘Backyard’ indeed. At least in Alan Duncan we have somebody who knows his stuff. According to Wikipedia: “After graduating from Oxford, Duncan worked as a trader of oil and refined products, first with Royal Dutch Shell (1979–81) and then for Marc Rich from 1982 to 1988 (Rich became a fugitive from justice in 1983). He worked for Rich in London and Singapore. Duncan used the connections he had built up to be self-employed from 1988 to 1992, acting as a consultant and adviser to foreign governments on oil supplies, shipping and refining.”
So we can safely say Venezuela’s oil will be in safe hands. I have set up a small exhibition of works based on the Transporter Bridge – and a vision of climate change represented by a five million tonne sphere of solid lead. This is roughly equivalent to a year’s output of carbon dioxide emitted from Middlesbrough, although the figures I have used to compute this will have dropped a bit due to the recent closure of industry in the area. A visit to see the Transporter Bridge is worth it in its own right, but now there is no excuse (he said). |
Archives
March 2024
|