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.

Aye Right!!

I have just seen the new programme for the 2011 Aye Write! festival that is run every year by Glasgow's Libraries. It has been a welcome development and one that seemed to be going from strength to strength.

It is particularly gratifying to remember that it started as an initiative while Glasgow's Libraries were still run directly by the elected council (in 2006) - thus giving the lie to those who say that this kind of partnership is only possible when our services are hived off from our control.

Is it just me, however, or do this years offerings have a aura of 'haven't we seen this before?' about them? No one has a greater admiration for Polly Toynbee than me, but weren't she and Richard Walker plugging The Verdict at last year's Edinburgh Book Festival? Didn't I see Michael Frayn and Steve Bell there too?

It's also a pity that the series of debates on the future of the economy, public services etc  - a good concept in itself, even if not linked to specific publications - don't include some people directly involved in the services and facilities under threat.

Is this diluted offering a product of the public service cuts beginning to bite? Or is it indicative of more serious problems at senior level in Glasgow Life (as we will never get used to calling it!).

Netrooting around London

On Saturday, hundreds of 'activists' - of a variety of ages, shapes and political creeds - piled into the TUC in Bloomsbury to listen, talk and discuss - as well as tweet, blog and video - the role of 'new media' in building campaigns. Billed as Netroots UK the conference was backed by the TUC as well as a whole range of bloggers and progressive online campaigners - eg Clifford Singer (False Economy and The Other Taxpayers Alliance), Sunny Hundal of Liberal Conspiracy, Anna Nolan of the Robin Hood Tax Campaign and Chris Coltrane of UK Uncut among many others.

By the way - if you aren't yet a fan of UK Uncut, have a look at its website, which gives the lie to the theory that if people are on the web, they aren't campaigning in the streets!

I was there, and my pre-event anticipation was evenly balanced. On the one side hoping that this was going to be the beginning of a major drive to use on-line campaigning in the drive against the ConDemNation, and on the other, fearing that it would descend into either futile hand-wringing, or the sectarian infighting so common when the left get together. It was, of course, none of these. Although there were attempts by some to lead us down the road to the People's Front of Judea - the conference sensibly resisted that, and indeed the other option of turning into a 'lefty wankfest' predicted by one of the more cynical of my TU colleagues here in Scotland.

Helped by the aim being more about identifying how different media can assist in campaigns and what they are good for, the conference spent most time in workshops looking at particular campaigns and use of specific tools - the use of Twitter during student occupations to 'widen the room' and deliver information from within the occupations minute-by-minute impressed me greatly, as did the use of Google maps to spread the information on where the police were 'kettling' demonstrators during the tuition fees demos!

Twittering was going on apace during the sessions, and identified strengths and weaknesses. I had a conversation with a friend I hadn't known was at the event Indeed I never actually found him in the flesh!), but it was also used to comment on sessions as we experienced them and often overplayed the 'cynical hack' persona. Why is it the journos too often think that they should be the only ones whose view of issues is valuable?

It also struck me that there is really nothing new under the sun. The session on getting your message across to the wider media was so like a short media training course I expected Mary Maguire to appear! (we got Kevin Maguire instead). Likewise the need to plan your campaign, set your targets and be aware of your weaknesses. Nigel Stanley's (TUC) analysis of arguments we have so far failed to win, was much more useful than Sunder Katwala's (Fabian Soc) superficial  '30% are for us, 30% are against us'.

Ultimately the day also avoided the error of trying to put all our campaigning eggs in the digital basket. On-line is an increasingly important challenge to the mainstream media and should be used more - especially by those of us who don't think that mainstream reports us fairly. But it is not a substitute for face-to-face contact (any more than print is). We need to use it. So why were there so few delegates there from the (UK) Trade Unions - especially their Comms teams?

CBI economics is busted flush

Interesting to read the thoughts of CBIScotland (or at least its Chair - Iain McMillan) in the Herald today (29 December). No doubt this was taken from a ‘end-of-year message’ press release used by many organisations to get some press coverage at a thin time of the year.

You might think that, as the representative body of private sector organisations, including finance companies who bear the responsibility for the economic crisis and the attacks on public funding by the Tories, the CBI might be expressing some contrition for putting us all through this - but no. Mr McMillan has the effrontery to chastise the Scottish Government (and other political parties apparently) for not following the CBI’s preferred course out of the economic crisis!

Just for the record this includes - cutting public spending and so-called ‘red tape’, increased PFI, using more private firms to deliver public services, selling-off Scottish Water, and building more nuclear power plants. (He grudgingly welcomes the council tax freeze - despite the damage that this has already done to local services and indeed local businesses who depend on public work).

Thus the CBI show that they have learned nothing from their members’ failings in too lightly regulated markets. Cut red tape? We should be demanding that banks and other finance companies are penalised for the damage they have done to our economy. Increase privatisation? Far from exposing more services to private sector risk, we should accept that this risk will always lie with the public sector, and supply these services publicly - not via expensive and poor value private companies. 

I hold no brief for the Scottish Government - indeed there are many areas where I could be even more critical than Mr McMillan - but his analysis of the economic situation would lead us even deeper into the mire of stagnation and even recession. Just watch what ConDem policies - slavishly following a big business line - deliver for us at UK level

But apparently defending public services and public funding is ‘populist’. According to oor Iain “...real leadership is about doing the right things for Scotland at the right time and explaining why they are necessary.” Given the track record of the UK business community in losing trillions of pounds and then screaming for a huge public handout, I think we can see why ‘the right things’ are unlikely to be done by the CBI, and why it has forfeited all credibility as a business leader.

And a memo to Iain Gray. Just because someone is having a go at the SNP - it is not always in your (or our) interests to agree with them. The old Maoist doctrine of ‘The enemy  of my enemy, is my friend.” has led China’s leaders into some very strange alliances over the years. In the run up to an election, to be seen to side with the busted flush of big business will not gain support.

The Number One Social event of 2011

At this time of year, people’s thoughts often turn to the potential of next year’s holidays, and an increasing number now plan Southern Africa trips. 

While we often celebrate the success of the Anti Apartheid Movement (AAM) and the African National Congress (ANC) in ridding South Africa of the scourge of apartheid, anyone who has travelled there will tell you that there is still much that needs to be done.

Scotland’s former campaigners against apartheid know this more than most, and formed a successor organisation to AAM, Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA), to work for peace, democracy, reconstruction and development in Southern Africa, and works to increase knowledge and understanding in Scotland of that region, including the legacies of apartheid and its widespread destructive consequences.

ACTSA in Scotland runs an annual event around this time, marking the anniversary of the founding of the ANC in 1912. This is always a very social event and involves a buffet meal, a pay bar and a ceilidh - featuring the toe-tapping tunes of George Reid and his Ceilidh band! And all this for a Fiver!. 

It all takes place at the STUC, on January 15th, 2011 and is usually a great night.

Those of you who know me will, by now, be waiting for the punch line, and in order not to disappoint I have acquired a number of tickets for the number one social event of 2011! 

If you want to go please email me - chrisbartter@btinternet.com. See you there!

Cable gaffe does not mean Coalition in trouble - just the LibDems

Vince Cable’s ‘gaffe’, and those of other LibDem ministers, has - as many commentators have speculated - shone a light onto some deep fissures in the ConDem coalition.

However, it is not between the LibDems and the Tories that this split has widened, but in fact between the social and the economic Liberals - between the ‘Orange bookers’ (including Mr Cable, himself) and the local populists. Now we see why those of us in Glasgow, have little or no memory of Mr Cable’s period as a Cooncillor. He just wasn’t that good!

His excessive outburst about Murdoch -  does he really want to wage war? - means it is the liberal marketeers - in both the LibDems and the Tories - who are rubbing their hands. And it is why they can still support the old buffer. How else could they allow Mr Murdoch to increase his stranglehold on the UK media?

I can’t think of any politician - of the right or the left - that thinks (in public anyway) that News International gaining unfettered control of another major media organ is good news for us or for politics. But to the free marketeers, anything that stands in the way of millionaire businessmen spending their money the way they want, is bad economics. And, despite all the arguments to the contrary, they are predisposed to let Rupert have his way. That is, those who are not already predisposed to suck-up to him anyway. Vince has now allowed this to happen.

To all those who speculate about Vince’s resignation, or enforced reshuffling and any consequent split of the coalition, I would point out the overwhelming desire amongst key LibDems to cling onto power at all costs. Even at expense of the party itself, which is now far more at risk. Don’t overestimate the loyalty of Clegg, Laws, Alexander et al.

Any split will almost certainly not happen for a while if at all. The illusion of power is probably the hardest one to wake up to - particularly if your party hasn’t experienced it in living memory. But this latest affair has exposed the differences between the Orangeers - Nick Clegg, David Laws and Danny Alexander et al - and those party members who grew up during the period of the Liberal (in particular) campaigns on local democratic issues.

The Orange Bookers have far more in common with Cameron and Osborne than their election pronouncements would lead anyone to believe. The BBC  in 2008 reported Clegg as ‘advocating a huge increase in private sector involvement in schools and the health service. "Marrying our proud traditions of economic and social liberalism, refusing to accept that one comes at the cost of the other - on that point, if not all others, the controversial Orange Book in 2004 was surely right."’

He argued for the creation of schools financed by just about anybody - parents, charities or voluntary and private organisations, suggested radical reform of the NHS, allowing patients to be treated free in the private sector and opposed tax increases.

So, don’t be surprised that if splits come, they are in the LibDems, rather than between the LibDems and the Tories. But this will not, of course, mean a split in the government. Nick & Co will be as at home (maybe more so) in the Tory Party than their current abode. 

And don’t think that even this will happen soon. Vince has fed the story that the LibDems are a ‘radical wing’ in the coalition. It may be an illusion, but don’t bank on any LibDems waking up to it soon.  Power is - after all - what all those shiny-faced newbie party workers came to work for the party for!