Question Time cocks it up again

Yet again the beleaguered BBC programme Question Time has shown us the reason why it might be a good idea for it to be produced outside London. The bland and supercilious response of the BBC and its flagship current affairs programme demonstrate exactly why the programme is no longer fit for purpose in the modern Britain.

To claim that the programme retains balance, because the ‘main parties’ had representation, misses the whole point. One was a candidate in an election and none of his opponents were given the opportunity to be there. The voters of that election received the broadcast. That is clearly against the guidelines that the BBC itself purports to operate under.

It is possible to overstate this, however. It isn’t an anti-democratic plot. It certainly isn’t a deliberate ploy to boost Alex Salmond. The other parties could, if they wished, have resolved the matter quickly by telling their invited representatives (and any substitutes) to withdraw from the programme. This was never going to happen - after all if they were prepared to sit on a panel with Nick Griffin, Alex Salmond was hardly going to be more objectionable!

But it is symptomatic of the real problem with this show, as was the reverse problem of Nicola Sturgeon being gagged by David Disdainful, back in October when the show apparently came from Glasgow. There is no understanding (nor is there any wish to understand) that the UK is now a multi-national entity, and to reflect that. As it was once said of then Tory Scottish Secretary, Ian Lang, ‘He is both too ignorant of the problem and too arrogant to care.” Any of us who have worked for the Scottish arm of a UK body knows exactly the issue. 

The SNP too, in gloating over the discomfiture of the ‘unionist’ parties, would do well to not to throw too many stones as their own glass house has been upset by this before, and will be again (General Election Leader’s Debates anyone?).

But the sooner that Question Time’s production is moved away from London (or the ROSEland hinterland) the more likely that this problem will be addressed. If that means also jettisoning the current producer and chair, so much the better.

There is a better May - unions and artists come together to take the next step in the campaign

Yesterday Glasgow Friends of MayDay, a new group of activists and artists set up to increase support for Glasgow’s MayDay celebrations, launched our 2011 programme. It is a series of events covering the three days before Sunday May 1 when the traditional MayDay March and Rally takes place in Glasgow.

Actor and director David Hayman, musicians Dave Anderson and Arthur Johnstone, and poet Tom Leonard will all perform concerts from Thursday 28 to Saturday 30 April at the STUC Centre. There will also be a night featuring film and a lecture on the UCS work-in, 40 years ago this year; stand-up comedy as an antidote to the Royal Wedding; and a Northern Soul night. The full programme is
available on http://may1st.org.uk

There are a number of reasons behind all this cultural activity. Firstly, we want to challenge the ConDem government’s attack on MayDay, by rejuvenating the International Workers’ Day celebration in Glasgow. Working with the Glasgow TUC and the STUC, far from scrapping the holiday, we aim to extend the celebrations and in following years build events in local communities as well, ensuring that they too can enjoy MayDay celebrations.

We also want to challenge the Tories’ economic policies. After the huge success of the 26 March Demo in London this will be another step in the campaign to defend public services from their cuts and say that There is a Better Way.

It is entirely appropriate that this is a broad cultural and artistic celebration. The arts are facing the same attacks as public services. In taking part in this, artists are linking with the main campaign.

We are particularly delighted that Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite, is to be the keynote speaker. Trade unions are facing direct attacks by this government. Far from all of us being ‘in this together’, it is clear that they plan to mount another attack on the rights of working people. The government plans to dismember the only major institution campaigning for working people and their families. Successful celebrations such as May Day send a signal that ordinary people see through their divide and rule tactics.

MayDay celebrations have been part of Glasgow’s calendar since the early 1900’s.  In the past we welcomed such stars as Paul Robeson, and Daniel Ortega. Maybe it is a little early to aim for the 70,000 that joined the 1918 march, but we hope to work with community groups and others to raise the profile once more.

Tickets for the events can be obtained on line at http://www.eventbrite.com/org/863793523?s=3059565

Dancing with Big Eunice

Alistair Findlay

Likely to be the cultural event of the year is one of the Morning Star’s increasingly valuable and important working class cultural events. On April 5 in Bathgate, Alistair Findlay, ex-footballer, social worker, UNISON member and poet is talking about ‘Poetry and the working class movement’. While the title has all the initial appeal of a university lecture, expect a lively presentation and discussion.

As a long term social worker and poet, Alistair has published a number of volumes dealing with the working lives of social workers and the people they work with.  Dancing with Big Eunice, is his latest volume dealing with the world of poverty that many still inhabit. Anger, passion and satire fill the poems, and will no doubt be part of the presentation in the Acredale Centre in Bathgate.

The event starts at 7.00pm. Entry is free, but a collection will be taken to cover costs. Chaired by Jim Swan of the West Lothian TUC, this is one of the increasingly well-attended Morning Star Education Series - ‘Let our past inspire our future’.

Action on pensions would be part of the anti-cuts campaign

It was only to be expected that the report of the Hutton review into pensions should mean the opportunity for big business supporters to have another go at the fair pensions provision in the public sector, but it is a pity that an otherwise balanced and well-informed columnist, Iain MacWhirter joins such unusual attackers (Sunday Herald - 13 March 2011). This is the latest in a series of his irregular attacks on the pensions of our nurses, police, classroom assistants, social carers et al, and seems to be on the point of becoming obsessive. He isn’t alone in these attacks, but they usually come from well-known free marketeers and private sector defenders, not independent (in the true meaning of the word) commentators.  

He also seems to think that Trade Unions work ‘top down’ and that all any General Secretary has to do is snap their fingers and the membership walks out. Quite the reverse is usually true. Union members - particularly those in the public sector - put up with a lot before becoming angry enough to strike. But attacks on their the pension they agreed to, contribute to and depend on, is something that does irate them sufficiently. Any TU leader would be well advised to think carefully before suggesting a line similar to Iain’s.

Unfortunately, in the past, Iain’s attacks have not exactly been accompanied by any clear arguments or indeed factual justification - he has in the past been known to quote approvingly from that bastion of anti-public sector misinformation - the Tax Dodgers’ Alliance in support of his campaign. This time he uses more reputable sources, including  the Institute of Fiscal Studies, although the figures he comes up with do seem similarly questionable. In particular the government figure of £7,800 for an average public sector pension seems very high, when we know that the average in one of the biggest schemes (Local Government) is only £4,000+. How is this average almost doubled? Certainly other public sector schemes are unlikely to vastly inflate the average, given that they are all based on salary, and that no public sector pay is that large. And the small number of very well-paid public sector staff (yes, there are a few, mainly in the Civil Service and NHS schemes) are unlikely to raise the overall average.

However, one way this figure might have been increased is if the pensions awarded to senior private sector bankers who have been bailed out by public sector investment are taken into account. I don’t know if this has occurred, but I have seen other figures from think tanks and others that now include these people as part of the ‘public sector’. This is significant in two ways. One, it distorts the real cost of public service provision by adding in the inflated bonuses and other private sector waste, thus assisting the arguments of the ConDems and others who point to these inflated figures as justification for ‘cutting the public sector’, although almost never the ‘new’ part of it. On the other hand it does provide a useful highlight for those who wish to see it, illuminating just what sort of salaries and pensions senior managers in the private sector receive. Whatever the reason, that figure needs further explanation.

Of course most people working in the private sector get far less than either figure, and Iain’s view appears to be ‘because we private sector staff have had our pensions robbed, then the public sector should as well’. Bitterness - however well justified - has never been a particularly good basis for public policy decisions, and is not so here. It is true that many decent, affordable, private sector pension schemes have been shut to new entrants/ removed completely/replaced by far cheaper (to the employer) schemes (delete where applicable), but that does not mean we should accept the demands of the same robbers who perpetrated these scandals to do the same to our public service workers. 

The real ‘pensions apartheid’ is the difference between the level of pensions enjoyed by many private sector directors and senior managers and the levels that they are now forcing their workers to accept. One of the reasons for the private sector average being so low, is the closures and cutbacks that private sector directors and managers have forced their workers to accept. Decent pensions for our workforces in both the public and private sector should be a right, and employers should be forced to face up to their responsibility. Where they don’t we should support workers in the fight to achieve and maintain a decent pension - whether they are in the private or public sector. Indeed one of the strongest private sector dispute in recent years - at INEOS in Grangemouth - was on exactly this issue.

Should the attack on public sector pensions advocated by Lord Hutton lead to an industrial dispute (and the leader of the largest public service union has already called for the government to negotiate), public service workers should be supported in their campaigns, in exactly the same way as private sector workers fighting for a decent pension. Hopefully this co-ordinated attack (and let no-one doubt it is co-ordinated) will be met by a co-ordinated response across the public and private sector workforce, starting with a massive demonstration on March 26. The stories of ConDem scab preparations to undermine and defeat the workforce in the event of public service strikes remind all of us of a certain age of Thatcher and the miners. No-one is pretending that public service workers and their unions are miners, and any major dispute will have to be handled with great subtlety. But it WILL BE part of the overall struggle against the false economy being adopted by the governments in the UK. To suggest that low-paid public sector workers should simply sit back and accept these attacks will be damaging to the overall campaign and, far from threatening future joint action with the community over cuts, could help to make the links stronger.

FOI retreat could cause problems for anti-cuts campaigners

The publication of the penultimate Annual Report by the Scottish Information Commissioner recently, has drawn attention (again) to the step backward taken by the Scottish Government in refusing to extend coverage of the Act to private contractors, arms-length Trusts, the GHA and other bodies which increasingly deliver our public services. As Kevin Dunion says, “The right to know is being eroded as public services are delivered by arms length bodies and, instead of leading the way on FOI, we are in danger of falling behind.

Despite the Government’s much vaunted claims of transparency and their initial enthusiasm for extension they appear to have retreated at the ‘first whiff of grapeshot’ from the private sector. It seems that, as it has already done on PFI, this government has proved itself to be long on rhetoric, but short on substance.

It is also an example of the Scottish Government’s deferrals to big business. Despite being an avowedly ‘centre-left’ party, making positive claims over a period of some years about their desire to increase the coverage of the Scottish FOI Act and responding positively to the clear advice from the Scottish Information Commissioner that this is needed, they have withdrawn their proposals (limited as they were) at the first indication that the private contractors would oppose them! Did they ever think they wouldn’t?

In addition they have dropped the proposals - also advocated by Mr Dunion - to extend the  Act to cover the murky half-world of trusts and LLPs. As local councils in particular, look enviously at the trail-blazing by Glasgow City in hiving off its public services to arms-length bodies of different formats. Kevin has highlighted the increasing erosion of the right for us all to find out how our money is being spent by such bodies. But apparently this too, would be too much trouble.

And it is especially concerning as public bodies are increasingly squeezed financially. the upcoming period of cuts and increased outsourcing will inevitably lead to increased demands for information about such decisions. It is therefore simply wrong to allow increasing numbers of services to slip out of the FOI net, and it is also worrying (if understandable) that 41% of FOI officers surveyed identified increasing demands and decreasing resources as “the biggest FOI challenge they faced." In the face of the most severe attack on public services in living memory, it would be invidious if campaigners found problems in obtaining the information they needed.

Unfortunately, for the Scottish Government, at UK level the ConDem coalition is ploughing on strongly to increase coverage to a number of public and semi-public bodies - albeit they seem to stop short of private contractors or even Network Rail! It is deeply ironic that it is an SNP government that is presiding over a reduction in the standard of FOI coverage in Scotland below that of the rest of the country, after over five years of its pre-eminence on the UK stage!

A final warning is also appropriate. This will be Kevin Dunion’s final year as the Scottish Information Commissioner. I think that all involved in the FOI scene in Scotland recognise that the standing of the Act and the success of the legislation has significantly been down to the principles and activity of him and his office. It will be necessary to have someone with an equivalent commitment to the principles of FOI to follow him.

While I am about it, an attempt to assist in the use of FOI legislation is planned by the Campaign for Freedom of Information here in Scotland. They are running a one day course for requesters in Glasgow on the 4 June. More information and forms will shortly be available from the website http://www.cfoi.org.uk/scotland.html.

Comrade's classical connection

Went to a classical concert tonight. as is our wont occasionally. Not one of the big events - no huge orchestra, no celebrated piece of music - but we were hugely affected by one of the pieces played. While the Prokofiev was enjoyable, the piece that made the night was a little-known Shostakovich work (well it was little-known by me!). 

The SCO, conducted (inspired?) by Andrew Manze, played Shostakovich’s Eighth String Quartet in its Chamber Symphony no 1 form. (it was transcribed by one of his former pupils with Shostakovich’s approval). Written originally in 1960 after a visit to Dresden - still being reconstructed after the Allied firebombing it is a hugely affecting work. 

From the opening emotional phrases, to the sombre double slow movements that close the work it is a piece that has a massive resonance. For a composer who lived through the horrors of the Leningrad siege, and reacted to it with the strength of the 7^th Symphony, this is, if anything, more affecting.

Quite clearly, the impact of the destruction of Dresden chimed deeply with Shostakovich, and this music - written in three days - brings together three major stands that epitomise his genius. Firstly, and most importantly, his humanity and capability to empathise with human suffering, whether being experienced by comrades or by ‘enemies’. Secondly, his ability to transcend the supposed restriction of the socialist commonweal of the Soviet Union (something that has been always clear to those prepared to listen). But thirdly, and mostly his ability to use music to move your emotions so that you understand both his reaction, and why that is important for you (and others). Surely, the definition of genius.

The use of the short Antonio Lotte piece (also composed in Dresden 200 years earlier) to introduce the Shostakovich was also inspired. Congratulations to both the SCO and to Andrew Manze, but most of all to Dmitri Shostakovich, for an exceptional night.

...and populist shall speak peace unto lobby group?

Good to see a incisive article by Ian Bell in Saturday’s Herald on Dave Cameron’s pal, Jeremy Clarkson and his colleagues, and in particular the spat over insults to Mexicans and Mexico that provoked a particularly half-hearted apology from the BBC - not one from Top Gear, you'll notice.

As Ian says, the dinosaurs from Top Gear ain’t clever and they ain’t funny, but they are popular, and therein lies one of the main reason for the appallingly hypocritical and/or racist statement from the BBC that national stereotypes are legitimate targets for humour. This is one of the most worrying developments in the saga, and shows exactly what many have suspected - that the current BBC management are quite prepared to abandon the corporation’s long-held reputation for fairness and impartiality when the subjects of the accusation are powerful, or popular enough.

Leaving aside the debate about how ‘national stereotypes’ become stereotypes, the BBC’s mealy-mouthed reaction on behalf of Hammond, Clarkson et al is another nail in the coffin of Auntie’s reputation.

Following on the rejection of the Palestine Emergency Appeal broadcast by the Disasters Emergency Committee - at the behest, or in fear of, the powerful Zionist lobby; the craven sneak into 10 Downing Street by Mark Thompson to debate/agree/warn Dave of the way the BBC will report the ConDem cuts agenda, and the poorly judged and appallingly handled Question Time publicity stunt for the BNP (incidentally why is the shift to Glasgow the issue concerning the QT team? Given recent poor panels and inability to read the local issues, I would have thought that cancellation would be far more of a fear) it is now a matter of real concern that Thompson’s weak-kneed bending to every powerful lobby is compromising fair and proportionate decision-taking in one of the major news and information providers of the West.

In case you might think this is over-egging this particular pudding, consider this. Given the above history, do you think similar ‘national stereotyping’ of Israelis and of Israel would have been a similar ‘legitimate target for humour’? Would anything like that even have got into the broadcast programme? Whatever the outcome of a confrontation between the populist (Top Gear) and the political (Israel) lobbies over such an event, the suspicion will always now be of a broadcaster who takes decisions on the basis of such pressures, not one with the aim of impartiality, accuracy and responsibility.

The BBC does have a responsibility for its decisions, and no-one is suggesting that it is in the same category as Fox News and their exhortations to violent attacks on people Rupert doesn’t like, but at least Sky acted decisively when a programme presenter suggested that women linespeople didn’t know the rules! 

Mark Thompson has presided over this denigration of the BBC, and should go now, while there is still a (slim) opportunity to rescue our public service broadcaster.