Normal Service will resume shortly…

…real life getting in the way. I’ll be back at some point.

RIP Chris Harman

Some saddening news out of Cairo, Chris Harman has died after suffering a cardiac arrest.

Despite personally having no affiliation with his SWP, this is a great loss to Socialists everywhere.

I finished Zombie Capitalism only last week and it taught me more about Marxism than my undergraduate degree ever did. His People’s History of the World is a heavly thumbed reference volume on my shelf.

Sadly I never heard him speak in person but I have an mp3 somewhere of a talk given a year or two ago, I will see if I can get it up here.

There is little firther to add - I only knew his work and not the man – however, I would like to say his contribution to public life and his writings will be sorely missed.

More at Luna17, A Very Public Sociologist, The Third Estate and Lenin’s Tomb.

Neather, in brief

About the whole Andrew Neather thing…

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”. As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons. Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001. He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report. He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The “deliberate policy”, from late 2000 until “at least February last year”, when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP. In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy. He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that “nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

“Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom. “But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: “We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true. “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”

The UK would have been a multicultural place with or without the policies of New Labour over the last 12 years. Despite the rebuttals and the counter claims and the stinging accusations, Britain was always going to be a multicultural place, and the better for it. Demographics are destiny.

That is all.*

*Well not all, I’m working on a post, no blogger got anywhere with “that is all,” but you know what I mean.

Selected Reading 03/11/09

• Just as I never tire of the numerous blogs which have created to monitor the tabloids, I never tire of people pointing out why Ann Widdicombe is wrong. Unity follows a great post on Proffessor Nutt with one eviscerating Miss Widdecombe. Sample:

You might guess by now that I’m not happy. Actually, fucking incandescent is closer to the truth.

• More Nutt from Liberal Conspiracy, and a quite extensive discussion in the comments.
• Jon Snow and his ties ask us to reconsider how we deal with drugs.
• Some dreadful news from Uganda.
• A fun graph from Mr Eugenides. I’m not sure he has a point other than we’re all fucked. I can see very little correlation from a policy perspective, but it sure is scary. Maybe the message is “keep your financial services sector small and stunted.”
• Tim Worstall manages to fuck up twice in one post which is mostly quote. He claims India is a neoliberal success story (more liberal doesn’t equal neoliberal) and he calls me Jack Straw’s son. Oh dear Tim.
• Giles Wilkes’ new paper Slash and Grow is here. I recommend it, its easy to digest but thorough enough that it should give Dave and George pause for serious thought. But if you don’t want to read the whole thing here’s a summary on his blog.
• Of course, I can only really end with this From Phil BC – a South Korean has defected to the North. Guess he dismissed this awful rightist propaganda from the BBC… (H/T Charles Crawford)

Another great graph, better than Mr Eugenides’, courtesy of Mr Krugman.

World industrial production in the Great Depression and now:

Left Wing blogger in rage at Daily Mail shock: Updated

Its hardly news is it? The Daily Mail’s readers are reactionary bigots.

However, just how shockingly hateful they are is hard to comprehend until you’ve seen their reaction to the death of an immigrant. You worry as soon as you see the title: Migrant found dead in the back of a lorry as it prepares to enter Channel Tunnel (H/T Five Chinese Crackers and Tabloid Watch). But what follows is one of those articles that reveals the Mail does have writers who can write; its not vitriolic, its not angry, its even vaguely concerned. Its the comments that really shock. By now I know they shouldn’t, but they do.

Saved us a house car and free money then.
- martyn robinson, northampton uk, 31/10/2009 09:12

one down, millions to go
- crackers, yorkshire, 31/10/2009 2:42

Good news. One less to worry about!
- keith jones, porthcawl, south wales, 30/10/2009 22:13

Shame but I would be a hypocrit if I said I was sorry!
- Nanny B, West Sussex, 30/10/2009 17:42

At least 115 people have clicked on the green “up” arrow for that top one. 115 people think that this immigrant is better off dead because he was after a “house car [sic] and free money then.”

Mark Twain said that a “lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes” and it seems Carol Malone’s lie that immigrants are given cars is one of them.

The Mail creates an atmosphere where displaying joy at someone’s death seems appropriate. Often its said that The Mail merely reflects it readers views, and to an extent its true, however The Mail will always run up against a problem. Immigrants aren’t that bad.

Sure some are illiberal nut jobs, but I don’t see anyone arguing for Melanie Philips to be deported (well I do… but that’s besides the point) and some do “scrounge” but the vast majority do not.

In fact, economically they bring benefits, that’s pretty hard to argue with, I’d say impossible. The culture, music and food – especially food – that they bring enriches this country, you’re entitled to disagree but remember this. You’re wrong.

So to get round these simple truths the Mail regularly lies, distorts and misleads, ask Nick Davies if you want to know more. This is the end result. This is the real “Broken Britain,” but I don’t imagine I’ll see much about it in anyones manifesto. Apparently hate sells and more hate gets you elected.

Updates from Five Chinese Crackers.

**UPDATE** It’s lunchtime on Monday, and I’ve been checking in now and again, watching as the comments get red-arrowed by the more sane.  One seems to have been deleted, but it’s not possible to tell which one since the option to view all comments has been disabled.

**UPDATE UPDATE** A few minutes later, and the comments are down to 5.  I can’t imagine they’ll all be there by the end of the day, since ‘One down and quite a few to go’ is still there.

**UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE** Quarter to four and they’re all gone.  Phew!

**UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE** Now two are back.  Including my favourite one about trucks not being searched at border controls.  Genius.

It appears the Mail may have realised not all those visiting the site are frothing racist mouth breathers and have removed some of the content. Wouldn’t want the advertisers taking fright.

Just in case any advertisers were interested in what the Mail chooses juxtapose with their material, there is a picture here of the comments in question (H/T Y Dysgwr Araf and Nic Dafis. Cymru am byth!). Delightful I’m sure you’ll agree, really puts me in the mood to buy stuff.

Courtesy of Y Dysgwr Araf

A Memorandum to Libertarians and Socialists: Part Three

In response to my Open Letter, Thomas Byrne asked if Libertarians and Socialists could not unite behind the slogan “People of the world, unite against the corporations”?

In truth there are huge overlaps between Libertarians and Socialists. For example this from Socialist Unity, could very easily appear on Devils Kitchen.

No-one reading Socialist Unity will be surprised by the view that the Government, and the EU, are hypocrites. Another good example of that is revealed in a new report out today on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Despite all the rhetoric from politicians and eurocrats alike about helping the poor and the elderly, alleviating fuel poverty and reducing extortionate energy bills, the reality is that through the ETS they are increasing costs for UK consumers alone by £3 billion a year. Across the whole EU, between the scheme starting on 1 January 2005 up to the end of 2008, this monster cost over £67 billion.

This is the reality of the current tranche of flawed emissions policy: in the name of green policymaking, ordinary people who already struggle to heat the homes and make ends meet are being stung for billions of pounds a year. Where does the money end up? Well, a decent chunk is effectively handed straight to wealthy energy companies in windfall profits, kindly provided by Mr and Mrs Joe Public.

Don’t think that the powers that be in Westminster and Brussels aren’t aware of this, either. Indeed, a paper revealed this week in leaked EU Commission documents that there are plans afoot in Brussels to use the Emissions Trading Scheme as the basis of a pan-European, harmonised tax in order to fund the EU directly.

In short, they know perfectly well how profitable this enterprise can be for them – and they care not a jot that it is those scraping a living in the real world who suffer as a result.

Likewise, in Zombie Capitalism Chris Harman pulls no punches and makes it clear that the state – and beauracrats operating as “political capitalists” – rarely acts in the interests of the working class.

He describes a state that is more than just a passive creature of the capitalist class. Those in the state’s employment seek to promote the development of nationally based capitals to improve their own position.

This can be beneficial when trying to “catch up” – as I would argue it was in Korea, Germany or Taiwan – but more often the interests of “political capitalists” are  in direct opposition to those of the working classes.

As capitalism has developed it has encouraged a division of labour, but it has also generated a division of the capitalist class. Owners of capital rarely directly manage it, and although managers do not own capital, through their action, they become part of the capitalist class.

So the “political capitalist” acts at times as a steward for existing capitalists. They can aid domestic capitals by helping repress workers as during the 1980s or they can help by setting up inefficient emission trading schemes which act as a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

That is not to say that the state cannot be a tremendous source of good in the world, and as Giles Wilkes argues in Slash and Grow (pdf) the state is currently propping up an economy which could grow even more anaemic without it.

However, it is clear to me that the state is not inherently something Socialists should embrace, as Chris Dillow has argued “shrinking the state [is] a leftist aim.” Dave Semple is right that the left cannot let the right take posession of things like letting workers keep more of their own money.

So in response to Thomas I would like to say that yes, this is an alliance I’d be more than willing to enter into. Corporations and the state cannot exist without one another and both are suitable targets for Libertarians and Socialists. “Organisation, organisation, organisation!”

To be clear, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Liscence DK employs, I would like to make it clear that the above extract is from his blog. As requested anyone seeking to reproduce this post in part or whole, must follow the terms of this liscence.

Stat Porn October 2009

I received 6,070 page views in October. Below is the weekly break down going back to May.

The most successful posts are below.

1. Jan Moir first draft: The truth about my 1,397
2. No Bernie, Hitler didn’t get things done 618
3. An Open Letter to Libertarians and Socia 529
4. Lawsuits from the ’20s/Jackboots from th 237
5. Still a cunt: Peter Hitchens caught abus 156
6. The Logic and Lunacy of Kim Jong-il 142
7. About Left Outside 129
8. Ben’s Blog: Prisoner Reform and the Inte 84
9. Tueday’s Topical Dictator 72
10. Give ‘em enough rope 70

Writing the first (that I know of) parody on Jan Moirs “mea culpa” helped boost visitors and I’d like to think some people hung around long enough to read something sensible too. It made it to 79th in that days top WordPress posts, which is an accolade I never expected but which I welcome as I’m quite vain.

I was getting an annoying amount of people looking for pictures of Mussolini so I have no removed his picture from my piece criticising Bernie Ecclestone, hopefully this will lead to my mediocre No Bernie, Hitler didn’t get things doneno longer appearing in future Stat Porn round ups.

The top referers here were The Guardian’s Comment is Free homepage (who do I have to thank for that by the way?), Twitter, The Daily Quail, Stumbling and Mumbling, Tim Worstall and Liberal Conspiracy. Thank you all.

Shorter BBC: Chief Drug Adviser sacked for truth telling

Long BBC:

Drug adviser sacked for comments

Proff Nutt criticised the reclassification of cannabis

The UK’s chief drugs adviser has been sacked by home secretary Alan Johnson after criticising government policies.

Professor David Nutt had been critical of the decision to reclassify cannabis to Class B from Class C.

He accused ministers of devaluing and distorting evidence and said the drugs classification system was being used in a “political way”.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which he headed, is the UK’s official drugs advisory body.

Shorter BBC: Chief Drug Adviser sacked for telling the truth. And we don’t want the truth anywhere near our drugs policy, now do we?

Even shorter BBC: Chief Drug Adviser sacked for being better at his job than the home secretary was at hers.

If this is true then it is a slap in the face for anyone who thinks that policy should be based on evidence.

It seems experts are now expected to give the evidence they are asked for and to say “Thank you, sir. Can I have another?” when their evidence is ignored and they are rudely slapped down.

Help Please: I’m thinking of doing a masters

Hello out there. How are you all? Well? Excellent, glad to hear it! Now onto me.

I’m stupendously bored working in customer service, it really is dull. So I am developing an exit strategy: studying for a Masters in 2010! I’d do it part time and in 2012 I’ll probably become an Olympic Sprinter. I have it all planned out.

In all seriousness, for the moment, it looks like the course I would most like to study is this one in Global History from LSE.

Paper	Course number and title
1a	EH481 Economic Change in Global History: Approaches and Analysis (Half Unit, Michaelmas term)
1b	EH479 Dissertation in Global History (10,000 words)  (Half Unit)
2	Either:EH482 Pre-modern Paths of Growth: East and West compared, c.1000-1800Or: EH483 The Development and Integration of the World Economy in the 19th and 20th centuries
3	One of the following (if not taken under paper 2):EH482 Pre-modern Paths of Growth: East and West compared, c.1000-1800 EH483 The Development and Integration of the World Economy in the 19th and 20th centuriesHY423 Empire, Colonisation and Globalization HY437 ‘Global Oceans’: Empires, Ideas and Migrations 1750-1914
4	Either, one full unit from (i) (if not already taken under paper 2 or 3 (above) OR, two half-units – one from (ii) and one from (iii) below: (i) Full unit course: EH446 Economic Development of East and Southeast Asia EH462 Latin American Development in the Twentieth Century: From Liberalism to Neo-Liberalism EH482 Pre-modern Paths of Growth: East and West compared, c.1000-1800 EH483 The Development and Integration of the World Economy in the 19th and 20th centuries(ii) Half-units to be taken in Michaelmas Term: EH412 Research Topics in Economic History: Economic Globalization: Long-term Trends and Consequences EH413 African Economic Development in Historical Perspective EH417 Political Economy of Late Industrialisation (n/a 09/10) EH447 Great Depressions in Economic History  EH467 Epidemics: Epidemic Disease in History, 1348-2000 EU461 Economic History of Southeastern Europe and the Middle East, 1820-1945  (iii) Half-units to be taken in Lent Term: EH404 India and the World Economy EH408 International Migration, 1500-2000: From Slavery to Asylum (n/a 09/10) EH412 Research Topics in Economic History: The Development of International Financial Institutions and Markets EH418 Research Issues in African Economic Development* (n/a 09/10) EH423 Japan and Korea as Developing Countries EH466 Labour and Work in Preindustrial Europe EH485 Scientific, Technical and Useful Knowledge from Song China to the Industrial Revolution (n/a 09/10) EH486 Shipping and Sea Power in Asian Waters, c.1600-1860 (n/a 09/10) EH487 International Economic Institutions since World War I  EU438 Turkey: Political Economy and European Integration

Freaking awesome syllabus (my favourites in bold). And the location is perfect for me to develop one of those really London centric biases all the best blogs have…

But, what’s it like? Anyone out there done that course at LSE? Or a similar course elsewhere? Or any course at LSE? Any courses in London to recommend?

Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

UPDATE: Psst, Giles. Was this the course you did? If so, whats it like (via comments)?

Why I love and loathe The Economist

Sometimes I read The Economist and I start smiling from ear to ear. Although they’re the enemy, there isn’t really another newspaper of that quality and depth out there.

For example, they’ve been giving away copies to attract readers and the leading article supplied is this one on How to Stop the Drugs War. Distributed in The Times, The Observer and elsewhere, for free, the economist argues to legalise drugs, tax them, regulate them but to ultimately let people control their own lives. Sadly, a somewhat out there proposition these days, and one I whole heartedly agree with.

In this weeks edition I was no less pleased to see this exchange in the letters section.

SIR – Philip Bowring’s account of the Far Eastern Economic Review’s encounter with the Singapore government is inaccurate (Letters, October 17th). In 1987 the government restricted the circulation of the Review after it had engaged in Singapore’s domestic politics. But an advertisement-free version was distributed widely at bookshops and supermarkets, and sold more than 1,000 copies. In March 1988 the Review applied to produce a similar version. The government agreed, subject to a ceiling of 2,000 copies, but the Review refused its offer. Would this have happened in Maoist China and North Korea?

Michael Eng Cheng Teo
High commissioner for Singapore
London

SIR – You will be tempted to give the Singapore government the last word on its censorship strategy—as its “right of reply” policy demands—but this will neutralise the criticism of Mr Bowring and others. Readers will simply assume you agree with the government. Assuming you don’t, please print this alongside its next rebuttal, to expose this subtle yet powerful manipulation of the press.

Duncan M. Butlin
Chichester, West Sussex

However, sometimes The Economist gets it badly wrong. It sometimes carriers some very measured and well thought out journalism and reporting, but it sometimes merely carries right-wing propaganda. I don’t know what I was expecting from an article reviewing two books on Ayn Rand, but I definitely wasn’t expecting outright falsehood and lies.

Her insight in “Atlas Shrugged”—that society cannot thrive unless it is willing to give freedom to its entrepreneurs and innovators—has proved to be prescient. Even if John Galt is under threat once again in the West, he is back in business in China and India.

Take a look at the below figures taken from the World Bank’s Business Planning website. I’m not so sure Mr Galt would enjoy the orient all that much after all. The Economist seems to think he would, funny old world.