I’m afraid the blog was down over the weekend, so I wasn’t able to pull this all together straight away but I hope it is still of interest.
I went down to the Iraq Inquiry at Westminster on Friday, the day that Tony Blair gave evidence. While I wasn’t able to get inside, I was able to get a sense of the atmosphere from the people gathered outside and hear what they had to say.
First, a bit of atmosphere. Here’s what the outside of the inquiry looked like:
Note the large presence of mostly bored policemen. There wasn’t much for them to do, because the protest wasn’t nearly as large as they thought it was going to be.
Here’s what it sounded like. I particularly like the bit where the girl with the megaphone breaks off from leading the chant of ‘Tony Blair – war criminal’ to ask the crowd for a throat sweet.
I was there at about 11am, and by that time the protest had become a bit lacklustre. It wasn’t just the raw vocal chords of the ringleaders – apparently numbers peaked at 8am when they thought Blair was going to arrive (he was actually rushed in before that), and then people dispersed. By the time I got there, there were only a few die-hards, one of whom readily confessed to being a ’serial protester about anything’, some curious passersby, and a few news crews desperately trying to do pieces to camera with the maximum number of protesters in the background.
There were so many journalists milling around that you had to look hard to find genuine protesters to interview. However, I did speak to Tahir Swift, from the group ‘Women Solidarity for an Independent and Unified Iraq‘. She had this to say:
I like her description of Blair as ‘a master second-hand car salesman’, but she told me that she didn’t expect to hear anything new from Blair and the only reason she was there was because his ‘celebrity status’ might give her campaign some publicity.
Tahir’s opinion seemed to be shared by everyone I spoke to, and this curious mixture of resignation and determination gave the occasion a strange atmosphere. It didn’t feel like a genuinely passionate protest, but more a gathering of a grim minority, still determined to make themselves heard.
There are a few more photos I took below.
A caged Tony Blair with blood on his hands
Judges for Justice
A quick exercise I did in learning how to use a Flip camera. I ambushed a few of my coursemates to find out if there’s anywhere they wouldn’t be prepared to work after we’ve finished our journalism MA.
This editorial in The Observer warns David Cameron against “riding the waves of outrage” over the the Edlington case. It asks whether Cameron’s social policy is up to the task of government, rather than opposition. Sensible, balanced discussion of the “Broken Britain” question, for once.
India Knight in The Sunday Times tells us that it’s good to cry, and points out that people seem to cry more nowadays than they once did. She thinks this “suggests a rise in empathy and compassion levels.” Feel free to make derisory comments, but she’s got a point buried in there, I think.
A N Wilson in The Independent on Sunday makes an impassioned case for changing the law on euthanasia. He says: “In asking for a change in the law, and a sensible approach to mercy killing, we are not asking for an innovation. We are merely asking that we should be allowed to revert to the sensible and merciful practices of earlier generations before doctors and nurses were forced, by draconian laws, to risk prosecution for murder if they merely did what any caring person would naturally desire.”
William Langley in The Sunday Telegraph asks if Apple can deliver “the computer to save us from computers” when they announce their new tablet on Wednesday. Langley wonders if this device will save us from the myriad of platforms and devices that populate our electronic life by combining all necessary functions in one shiny piece of Apple-wonder.
Not strictly a Sunday piece, but still the best thing you’ll read today: Gary Kasparov in The New York Review of Books. He writes of the fundamental differences of chess as played by supercomputers, and of the growing trend of top chess players turning to poker. The sheer clarity of the man’s thinking is incredibly impressive.
And the best cartoon of the week, once again, is from Chan Lowe at the Sun-Sentinel:
As you know, I get excited about new, shiny ways of disseminating comment and opinion. As a new journalist in the often-terrifying new media age, I go to a lot of lectures and talks where people use words I thought I understood in a way I don’t quite grasp. One of these words is ‘mash-up’. To me, it says enthusiastic preparation of a certain potato dish. To cleverer, much more tech-savvy people than me, it clearly means more than this. But I think I may have finally come across something which has enlightened me.
Behold:
Cassetteboy have taken footage of the party leaders’ conference speeches, and skilfully edited it to make their point. For instance compare this article on The Telegraph website by Martin Webb with Cassetteboy’s efforts at 0.12. David Cameron apparently declares: “I want to get straight to the point. I’m a second-rate, substitute Tony Blair.” As an expression of opinion, you can’t get clearer than that. The fact that Cassetteboy have used Cameron’s own words to make their point only adds a zest and humour that the words lack.
The special election in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat will take place tomorrow. Considering that Massachusetts hasn’t sent a Republican to the Senate since Ed Brooke’s reelection in 1972, the race is incredibly tight. It also has broader ramifications than historical upset, because if the Democrats lose their 60th vote in the Senate, they lose the supermajority that would enable the Healthcare Bill to pass in its current form. They would then be forced to court Olympia Snowe’s vote by making further concessions, or use the reconciliation process, which would enable the bill to be passed in the face of united Republican opposition. Either would be a major political concession for the Obama White House.
The unexpected closeness of the race has sparked all kinds of discussion and speculation. Factors that wouldn’t usually be considered so prominently have turned up, as columnists and bloggers desperately try and find some way to call the election before people go to the polls. Some of the best and most unusual writing is collected below:
John Farmer, writing for NJ.com, thinks that Coakley, the Democratic candidate, can still take the seat, but that the salient fact to take away from this race is the swing among independents towards the GOP. In November, House and Senate seats are up for reelection, and this swing could be an indication of more close races to come this year.
Tracey D. Samuelson makes the point that while the Democrats have won most of the elections in this state, some of the races were a lot closer than many people recall. For instance, Massachusetts had a Republican Governor from 1990 to 2006, and long-serving senators Kennedy and Kerry fought some close-run battles in their time.
Brad Friedman, long-time watchdog of voting technology, argues that the Diebold electronic voting systems in use in Massachusetts are easily hacked. The memory cards they contain have previously been shown to be easily susceptible to a vote-switching virus which only a manual recount can show up. Since 90% of the state’s devices contain these memory cards, such a recount is out of the question. Scary stuff, with the race as tight as it is.
Ted Kennedy foresaw this problem for the party, and tried to prevent it by asking the State Legislature to change the laws governing special elections, allowing for a temporary appointment by the governor that would ensure the Democrat majority for this crucial vote. However, as The Wall Street Journal reported, this wasn’t the first time Kennedy had spoken up on this. The system of special elections was orchestrated by him in the first place, to prevent Republican governor Mitt Romney making an appointment in the event of John Kerry’s presidential victory.
Finally, desperate for some certainty in this race, the Boston Globe has turned to the weather forecast. Apparently, it’s going to be mild and dry. But this still doesn’t really shed any light, because when it rains, both lower-income (traditionally Democrat) voters and independents are less likely to turn out. However, since the independents are leaning more towards the GOP, the Democratic effect of the mild weather could well be neutralised, leaving the whole thing as uncertain as ever.
Being an electoral pundit is hard, it turns out.
UPDATE: Apparently sports are important, too.
The Sunday Selection is back, scouring the Sunday papers for the best comment writing so you don’t have to.
Great column today by Nick Cohen in The Observer on the naivety of the media in expecting a different outcome from the Chilcott inquiry, the fifth inquiry so far into the Iraq War. He complains “I am growing old and grey waiting for John Humphrys or Jon Snow to show a spark of journalistic life and ask Nick Clegg, Philippe Sands and all the rest of them the simple question: “What do you mean by an ‘illegal war’?”
Putative Independent editor Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times defends the right of campaign groups like Islam4UK to make themselves obnoxious. Incidentally, it’s worth keeping an eye on this story about Mr Liddle himself making himself obnoxious.
John Rentoul in The Independent on Sunday looks at the difference between a one-term and two-term Cameron premiership, and what it would mean for a Labour party in opposition. He says “The Blairites will blame the Brownites for crashing their car; the Brownites will blame the Blairites for cutting the brake cables. But then they need to unite and move on to different policies for different times.”
Mike Smithson for politicalbetting.com examines the recent polling data in the context of the numbers running up to the 1992 election. Technical, but fascinating.
Christopher Booker in The Sunday Telegraph feels that the EU’s disaster response record compares unfavourably with that of the US. He suggests that this proves the EU is no longer a superpower, if it ever was.
And the best cartoon of the week, from the Sun-Sentinel’s editorial cartoonist Chan Lowe:
Today is the Fabian Society New Year Conference, entitled “Causes to Fight For”. The line-up is impressive: Peter Mandelson, Ben Bradshaw, Vince Cable and Polly Toynbee were all on the bill, and Gordon Brown appeared as the mystery keynote speaker first thing this morning.
As Sunder Katwala has pointed out, the conference represents an opportunity for Labour to seize back the initiative and set up some positive campaign ideas. I can’t put it better:
The focus of Labour’s campaign has been on ensuring that the Conservatives face the scrutiny of a would-be government-in-waiting. That the Conservatives are ahead in framing the election year can be seen in how often ministers seem forced to contest Tory narratives — a debt crisis, the broken society, or the (ludicrous) idea that Labour has declared “class war”.
Among discussions of “What not to spend”, the possibility of bipartisan campaigning, and the political brain, a couple of sessions leap off the page: “Will the real David Cameron please stand up?” and “Challenging Extremism: what’s fuelling the rise of the far right?” Sounds to me like raising the level of debate above political rebuttal won’t be occupying the whole day.
Before the conference even got going, there was a bit of a cyber-slagging match between Sunder Katwala and Paul Staines about the role and legacy of the Fabian Society. Guido (Staines) calls today’s gathering “A rally of freedom hating statists who will throw soundbites to a tweeting mob” and says that “for over a hundred years the Fabians have tried to increase the power of the state at the expense of society.” Katwala came back with a look back at the Fabians’ record, and contends that “If you want to paint the pluralist Fabian history as one of top-down statism, where does the Fabian commitment of Oscar Wilde and Rupert Brooke, GDH Cole and Tony Crosland, fit into that?”
It seems that today might be about more than Labour crafting a positive message for the campaign. The Fabian Society has the chance to reassert its place at the centre of the intellectual left. Most likely, the Labour party will end up in opposition, and it is going to need the resources behind the scenes if it is going to galvanize its base and mount a serious electoral challenge next time.
Gordon’s speech was somewhat disappointing, and can be summed up by this fairly incisive tweet from Jessica Asato:
Actually, the “tweeting mob” at the conference have been very interesting, mostly using social media and blogs to comment on the content, rather than meaninglessly rehashing platitudes. Here’s how to stay up to date with the best commentary from the event:
Look out for the #fab10 hashtag. @thefabians are retweeting a few things, but you’re much better off following Michael Haddon’s twitter list for the latest from those at the conference. Sunder Katwala is keeping busy on Next Left, blogging about the issues raised by the panels with a good measure of his own opinions thrown in. There’s also a good post by Alex Massie at the Spectator today about a possible strategy for Labour based on Domino’s pizza.
We’ve been told that this will be our first “internet election.” So far, apart from Labour spectacularly failing to interest anyone in their efforts at online engagement, this has mainly taken the form of photoshopped pictures (remember the Jedward one?)
Clifford Singer, who Guido describes as “an eccentric figure with a history of quixotic attacks from the left,” has set up mydavidcameron.com, which showcases some of the best tampered-with versions of the Tories ubiquitous campaign poster, and provides you with the tools to make your own. I love this collaborative, open source way of making your comment on the poster, whether serious or silly. Singer also runs The Other Taxpayers’ Alliance, in case you’re interested.
The spoof posters have been so effectively disseminated that Labour have even got their own on their official website. Which seems silly to me, since it means if you search ‘Labour’ you get a giant picture of David Cameron’s face. I’m not sure that’s effective campaigning:
The poster campaign apparently cost the Tories £400,000. But thanks to all the spoofs out there, they’ve had thousands of pounds worth of free distribution. Maybe it will be an “internet election” after all.
A new website called Britainthinks launched last week. You might have seen its advertising on billboards and buses:
Another of its deliberately provocative slogans (”Career women make bad mothers”) got it in trouble with Mumsnet, but that’s another story.
The site sells itself as “an independent space where the opinions of the British public can be publicly expressed.” You can vote in a series of polls and upload video of you expressing your opinions on a range of topics.
When I first came across it, I clicked through it fairly eagerly, keen on the idea of what I thought was going to be a visual, multimedia version of Comment is Free. But the content is incredibly sparse, and although they probably aren’t, the few videos you can view feel like they might have been staged, they’re so stilted.
My next interest was in who was running it. I assumed it would be some swanky new think tank, or maybe a group affiliated with a political party. Superficially, it’s a mystery. But the domain is registered to a Stephen Devlin of Rainbows End, Cornwall and apparently the idea was initiated by the Outdoor Advertising Association as “a case study to demonstrate the effectiveness of outdoor advertising.” So it isn’t really a forum for the free exchange of ideas at all, but a marketing experiment. The whole point of the website is to prove the effectiveness of the billboards.
Given the plethora and popularity of social media, blogging platforms and so on, I really don’t agree with them that Britain lacks an online space for opinionated discussion. Even if the site were to take off in its own right, its whole ethos is wrong. Its frontpage slogan reads: “If you’ve got an opinion, here’s where to stick it.” I thought the web was moving into curating and selecting information rather than just dumping vast quantities out there. If this kind of opinion-site is going to succeed, you’ve got to be able to browse and filter these comments, rather than just stick them in one big digital heap and forget about them.
You might also enjoy this post on Matthew Taylor’s blog. There’s some interesting debate in the comments to which one of the developers of the site has contributed.
The Sunday Selection #6
No need to go out into the greyness and buy all the Sunday papers. The best bits are right here:
Christopher Booker in The Sunday Telegraph has a very interesting piece about the mysteries of financing climate projects. Great bit of investigative journalism, but I’m slightly worried by the phrase “the Government’s… religious belief in “climate change.” I hope he’s joking with those inverted commas, I really do.
John Rentoul in The Independent on Sunday looks at the way Cameron has gone from hero to zero this week, and argues that nothing has really changed as regards his electoral propects apart from the media narrative.
Rupert Cornwell, also in The Independent on Sunday, tells the fascinating story of Henrietta Lacks, a black woman who died of cervical cancer in 1951, but whose cells are still used in a myriad of research projects today. They helped develop the polio vaccine, have advanced cancer research and have been sent into space, among other things. But was the use of her body ethical?
Henry Porter in The Observer gives an author’s perspective on the upheaval taking place in publishing. He feels that ebook readers and Amazon in particular seem “bent on reducing publishers to an archipelago of editorial sweatshops and the writer to the little guy stitching trainers in an airless room.” Not sure I agree entirely, but he does turn a beautiful phrase.
Erica Wagner in The Sunday Times takes a look at the Lost Man Booker Prize, and the issue of posthumous literary reputation in general. She writes that “some writers survive their own deaths better than others.” On this subject, you may also like to read Robert McCrum in The Observer putting forward the case for Moby-Dick.
And the week’s best cartoon, from Adams in The Sunday Telegraph: