Understanding right-wing mentality
There’s an excellent article here by Julian Sanchez on the subject of right-wing ‘ressentiment’. He says:
The secret shame of the conservative base is that they’ve internalized the enemy’s secular cosmopolitan value set and status hierarchy—hence this obsession with the idea that somewhere, someone who went to Harvard might be snickering at them.
The pretext for converting this status grievance into a political one is the line that the real issue is the myopic policy bred by all this condescension and arrogance—but the policy problems often feel distinctly secondary.
This brings to mind several issues taken up so robustly by right-whingers, in particular climate change, because lefties champion them.
continue reading… »
What drives the global warming deniers?
Faced with the evidence, one would be tempted to say that many of our homegrown deniers are just stupid. After all the scientific facts are so overwhelmingly against them, and the improbability of AGW being either a conspiracy or an illusion so enormous, how could anybody deny that climate change is the single biggest threat facing humanity?
Someone like Lord Monckton appears to avoid the thicko label at first. After all, he publishes long-winded pseudo- explanations of why AGW is bunk (armed with his degree in, erm, classics). Then again, there comes a point when an individual’s staggering arrogance that they are right whilst (virtually) the entire scientific community is wrong shades off into stupidity, albeit of an especially hubristic kind.
But it’s hard to categorise all AGW deniers as idiots. Iain Dale, for example, can be extremely erudite and incisive when he chooses to be. I’ve seen him debate, and the man is sharp and intellectually very capable.
Similar things must be said of Tim Montgomerie: he’s one climate sceptic it’s unrealistic to categorise as stupid. Fraser Nelson – regardless of his attention-seeking flirtations with AIDs denialism – hardly comes across as thick.
continue reading… »
What did Nadine Dorries MP spend £9000 on?
The Guardian’s outsourcing of MP’s expenses to readers uncovered this gem:
When Tory MP Nadine Dorries, submitted a £9,000 claim last year, a House of Commons official wrote on the form: “Due to lack of cooperation by member, assumption that costs relate to (blanked out) address, as stated on ACA nomination”.
Another official added: “ok to proceed”. Dorries declined to explain what the note meant.
£9,000 is a significant amount of money. What was it for, any ideas readers?
It’s also significant the official wrote: ‘due to lack of cooperation by member‘, which suggests a degree of unwillingness by Nadine Dorries to be open about her expenses. Or perhaps we have this wrong and she declared it elsewhere?
Nevertheless, anyone know what this is for?
Also, odd that a sum that big wasn’t picked up by libertarian blogs that have so far tended to jump on big number expenses.
Update: Chris Paul has more details on this.
The BA court order unfairly targets workers
The High Court ruled today to stop the 12 day strike of BA workers from going ahead. The grounds for this decision were the irregularity of including in the ballot cabin crew members of the union who were set to leave BA anyway prior to the strike itself. However I think there are grounds for viewing the decision by Mrs Justice Laura Cox as a political one.
Firstly, the inclusion of the 800 workers who are leaving (the number provided by BA’s legal team) could not have altered the outcome of the ballot. Unite represents 12,500 staff. On an 80% turnout, with 92.5% voting to strike (figures from BBC), 9,250 workers voted to strike. Even if all 800 of those leaving voted and voted yes to the strike, it would still not have been enough to sway the outcome.
Secondly there are some of the remarks made by Justice Cox herself:
“A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year,” (BBC)
Trafigura’s BBC victory fuels libel reform calls
A victory for Carter-Ruck and Trafigura in the High Court as the BBC have offered this statement in open court with regard to Newsnight’s reporting of the dumping of toxic waste by Trafigura off the Ivory Coast.
That Trafigura illegally dumped 500 tons of hazardous waste in Abidjan in 2006, leading to a public health emergency where many thousands of people sought treatment, is not in dispute.
Trafigura has paid $200 million to the government of the Ivory Coast and settled in London for £30 million a joint action made by 31,000 Ivorians.
Trafigura has insisted on the BBC accepting that the toxic waste dumped by the Probo Koala did not cause deaths, serious or long-term injuries, and withdrawing Newsnight’s report alleging that it did so. Trafigura’s victory today is that the BBC has agreed to do so.
Carter-Ruck told the court in the agreed statement that the multi-million pound compensation settlement involved a joint statement between Trafigura and those affected which “recorded that the experts instructed in that case had been unable to identify any link between exposure to the slops and the deaths, miscarriages and chronic and long-term injuries alleged”. The BBC now also accept this and withdraw their report to the contrary.
United Nations Special Rapporteur Prof. Okechukwu Ibeanu had earlier concluded in a report published on 3 September 2009 that:
On the basis of the above considerations and taking into account the immediate impact on public health and the proximity of some of the dumping sites to areas where affected populations reside, the Special Rapporteur considers that there seems to be strong prima facie evidence that the reported deaths and adverse health consequences are related to the dumping of the waste from the Probo Koala.
Does this not raise the question as to whether Trafigura or Carter-Ruck might not also want to attempt legal proceedings against the UN Special Rapporteur directly, rather than only taking action against media organisations attempting to report on the controversy caused by the dumping incident?
Critics have described this as creating an atmosphere of “libel chill” against legitimate public scrutiny.
The BBC’s concession has already fuelled calls for libel reform, as Left Foot Forward report.
English PEN and Index on Censorship have expressed dismay at the outcome.
Their joint statement says
We believe this is a case of such high public interest that it was incumbent upon a public sector broadcaster like the BBC to have held their ground in order to test in a Court of law the truth of the BBC’s report or determine whether a vindication of Trafigura was deserved. The deal is neither open nor transparent.
They believe that costs were a major factor behind the BBC’s decision. They cite the leading media lawyer, Mark Stephens of FSI, the cost of such a case would have been in excess of £3 million.
John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship said today:
Sadly, the BBC has once again buckled in the face of authority or wealthy corporate interests. It has cut a secret deal. This is a black day for British journalism and once more strengthens our resolve to reform our unjust libel laws.
Carter-Ruck will no doubt differ – and may well consider their defence of Trafigura’s public reputation to have been another resounding success.
8000 people have signed the petition for libel reform bill at www.libelreform.org
BBC does u-turn over ‘execute gay’ poll
The media storm has forced the BBC to do an abrupt u-turn over its ‘should homosexuals face execution’ poll.
Yesterday David Stead posted on the BBC Editor’s blog, saying:
We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake.
If Uganda’s democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.
We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.
But today Peter Horrocks, director of BBC World Service, posted another blog on the BBC Editor’s blog, accepting they had gotten it wrong:
The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But it’s important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.
Today the NUJ also issued a statement attacking the BBC for posing the question in such an inflammatory way.
The story was originally broken on Twitter by @thedancingflea
BS about BA
Libbie Escolme Schmidt – speaking as the author of a book documenting the too, too glamorous time she spent as a 1960s trolley dolly, you understand – thinks that striking British Airways cabin crew are ‘a disgrace to their profession’, and gets space in Britain’s biggest-circulation quality newspaper to tell them as much.
One line alone will give you a flavour of the piece: ‘For most of my career I felt guilty taking my wage, as it was such a fabulous experience.’ It presumably does not occur, either to Ms Escolme Schmidt or to the Daily Telegraph, that life probably just ain’t like that for the men and women working long-haul flights to huge numbers of mass market passengers.
Their basic wage is only £18,700 a year, and even if it is bumped up to something like twice as much as a result of allowances, many of them will be finding it difficult to make ends meet. Given that BA chief executive Willie Walsh is on £735,000, few will feel that their wedge is overly generous.
Elsewhere, the Torygraph slips into union-bashing on auto-pilot, seriously trying to maintain that the strike is really down to boosting devious leftie Len McCluskey’s chances of becoming general secretary of Unite next year.
continue reading… »
What can be done about Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
The US House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved new sanctions against Iran aimed at halting its disputed nuclear programme. But will it deal with the problem?
There are, as far as I can see, three ways the West can deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The first is to negotiate a peaceful settlement wherein Iran is only able to ‘go nuclear’ for the purpose of heating the stoves in Tehran. This has been the policy since President Obama was inaugurated; it has seen its share of successes & setbacks and it may well end with Iran having a nuclear weapon.
The second possibility is to impose sanctions with the hope of either materially crippling Iran’s weapon-making capability or hoping that internal dissent would eventually topple the government.
The problem with this is that you’ve got to get China and Russia to play along, and whilst the Kremlin’s stance on sanctions has softened, I wouldn’t expect them to agree to any sanctions regime which would satisfy the ‘get tough’ brigade. There’s also no guarantee that it’ll stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon anyway.
And so the third possibility is military action.
continue reading… »
Compass: support EDM for High Pay Commission!
The centre-left pressure group Compass has re-launched its campaign for a High Pay Commission with an Early Day Motion tabled in Parliament.
It is now asking supporters to write to their MP encouraging them to support EDM 191.
It sent out an email yesterday stating:
Because at the same time whilst a Bankers’ Windfall Tax is a symbolic first step we know the fight for a more equal and fairer society will need more than just emergency measures. We need a fundamental examination into the effects of excessive pay on our economy and society.
That’s why whilst we’ll do all we can to support the government on imposing its one-off levy on bonuses we now want to see them establish a High Pay Commission. So today we’re asking you to urgently call on your MP to sign up to EDM 191 in support of a High Pay Commission.
…
We’ve quickly gathered the support of over 50 signatories to get you started but we now need you to take action and help us get the 100 MPs we need to make a decisive impact.
It has launched an online tool to contact MPs with a model letter in support of their campaign. That can be accessed from here.
Why it makes sense for Labour to fight the ‘class war’
Oh dear, John Rentoul feels slightly stung by Don Paskini’s criticisms that his ‘please don’t hurt the rich‘ narrative doesn’t seem to be supported by polls.
He’s not alone.
The last few weeks have seen a succession of newspapers from the Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, The Times and even The Economist play the ‘class war’ card. Surprisingly, a bunch of highly paid editors declared that increasing taxes on highly paid people was a bad idea.
But there are good strategic reasons for Labour embracing this phony ‘class war’.
1. Helps them re-frame the debate. The ‘class war’ is narrowly defined as being about bankers’ bonuses and higher taxes. Labour needs to expand this to include: Tories increasing IHT, deploring fairer taxes on the super-rich, their privileged backgrounds, the £250,000 “chicken-feed”, MPs “forced to live on rations”, Cameron not knowing how many houses he owned. In fact top Tory gaffes reek of how out of touch they are.
Re-framing the debate would allow them to talk about wider issues than just bankers’ bonuses.
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Even by economic standards Hester’s £1m bonus is unworthy
» Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote
» Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest?
» To win London, Ken Livingstone has to step outside his comfort zone
» This trade agreement with India will destroy thousands of lives
» UK debt hasn’t hit £1 trillion – mostly because of QE
» The benefits of being a “burden” on society
» Today’s economic figures will simply confirm UK’s “lost decade”
» Have Labour realised the election is more than three years away?
» Violence in the office
» Want a more responsible capitalism? Reform how pensions work
|
35 Comments 34 Comments 63 Comments 18 Comments 15 Comments 25 Comments 38 Comments 7 Comments 64 Comments 11 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Trooper Thompson posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » steveb posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Cylux posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Leon Wolfeson posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Leon Wolfeson posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Pagar posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Benjamin M. A'Lee posted on Boris wasted a month of campaigning on a fantasy » Jim posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Cylux posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Leon Wolfeson posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Alex Braithwaite posted on Boris wasted a month of campaigning on a fantasy » leftlinks posted on Boris wasted a month of campaigning on a fantasy » Benefits bust-ups, pre-budget posturing and toxic health reforms: political blog round up 21 -27 January | British Politics and Policy at LSE posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » pagar posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Benefits bust-ups, pre-budget posturing and toxic health reforms: political blog round up 21 -27 January | British Politics and Policy at LSE posted on To win London, Ken Livingstone has to step outside his comfort zone |
