Abake and "the man who told the truth"

[imomus]

London, Tuesday: while Hisae gets a 2001-style asymmetrical hair cut on Brick Lane, Suzy and I wander up to Hoxton Square to see the show at White Cube (some Edward Hopperish hyper-realist photographs). Later, walking around the top of the square, we're lamenting how all the good stuff has gone (the Lux cinema, the Lux art gallery) when a red Mercedes speeds up to us, stops, and out jumps a portly man with a notepad. He introduces himself as Andrew Gilligan, a journalist with the Evening Standard newspaper. The name rings a bell.



Gilligan wants to ask us some questions about the defection of Hoxton area Labour MP Brian Sedgemore to the Lib Dems. I don't have much to say about this, but stress that I was against the Iraq War and that Brian Eno has advised people to vote Lib Dem as a protest against it. We agree that the Conservatives are suffering blowback for their super-racist anti-immigrant rhetoric. Suzy, who's heard about the defection on the radio, makes some more intelligent comments and tells Gilligan that Bush is easier to hate than Blair. A photographer takes our picture. We're "the last two people in Hoxton who look like Hoxton people". They assure us the piece will run in today's Late Final edition of the Standard.

I'm still trying to place Gilligan. "Didn't you interview me once?" I ask. "Well, I did use to work for the BBC," he says. When he's gone, Suzy refreshes my memory. Gilligan is the reporter who (correctly) accused Tony Blair of lying about Iraqi weapons. He caused the resignation of all the top brass at the BBC and (indirectly) the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly. He nearly caused the BBC to lose its license. We check the Late Final and the piece isn't in. Maybe it'll run tomorrow. But what a strange thing, to be interviewed by the man who caused such a rumpus in British politics! "The man who told the truth." And a man who seems to leave a trail of death and havoc.

We make our way with care down to the Whitechapel Gallery, where there's an amusing show celebrating Polish 1970s chic, Cummings and Lewandowska (there's also a Robert Crumb show on). The shabby chairs and socialist graphics make the gallery feel exactly like the Boxhagener Platz market in Berlin.

Something of the same spirit animates the Collier's Wood library, a brick oblong filled with books and chairs. I do a rather high concept show with Laurie Anderson-like links. Much more exciting than meeting Andrew Gilligan is having drinks before and after the show with graphic design collective Abake (Patrick Lacey, Benjamin Reichen, Kajsa Stahl and Maki Suzuki), who've come along with James Goggin (maker of the Otto Spooky sleeve, currently doing a redesign of The Wire magazine).



I also do a long interview with noble_savage of this parish (Neil Scott) for his magazine The Mind's Construction. Oh, and rhodri is there, but he opts to eat chips on the street rather than coming to the pub with Abake because "you looked like a set". Come see us Wednesday night at Bush Hall, all you rounders!

Comments

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

"such pictures would be generated by any war, right or wrong..."

And yet, when has the BBC ever reported these horrible things to you, or shown you, in detail such horrible pictures? These are the kinds of things that soldiers I know send me routinely.

The BBC is not slanting the war -- they are sanitizing it and making it palatable for teatime. Meanwhile, *real people are dying*. I cannot emphasize this loudly enough.

I should know -- I've already lost one friend on LJ (http://www.livejournal.com/~insomnia/532642.html) over there, and nearly all of the friends I have over there have lost people close to them. Others have been wounded, while others have gone home, only to be traumatized everytime they hear a car backfire. They try to shrug Iraq off, or drink Iraq away, but they can't seem to escape it.

That's what Blair helped bring upon the world, in a most deceitful, dishonest manner. While most of the public seems to think that the medical statistician's estimate of 100,000+ dead is wildly exaggerated, I think no such thing, because I *KNOW* just how bad it is and how horrible it has been for the Iraqi people. Those deaths fall squarely upon the doorstep of #10, and upon anyone who votes for Blair. It's disgusting for me to read commentators saying that somehow we should ignore that fact, and vote for Labour because they keep the schools functioning and the trains running on time.

"I also think that the fact you can say most want us to leave is progress, they dare to say what they think to a stranger without expecting to be shot for saying the wrong thing."

Actually, it's not a lot of progress. When I say that most Iraqis want us to leave, I say so based on the largest Iraqi public opinion poll, which was taken -- rather anonymously -- about eight months ago. About 56% wanted us to leave before the elections, even though about 53% feared civil war should the troops leave. A much higher percentage wanted us to leave shortly after the elections.

No public opinion polls have been taken since then, to my knowledge. Why? Partially because their results go against what is being said by those supporting this conflict. The primary reason no polls are being taken anymore, however, is because it's too dangerous.

That said, little has changed in Iraqi public opinion. New timelines keep getting met at which point Iraqis hope for the removal of our troops, but those timelines keep lapsing or getting pushed indefinitely into the future. That said, there are plenty of Iraqis online who still make it clear they don't want to be occupied anymore. Surprisingly, the last few I've heard request that we leave have been Kurds, of all people.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

If the BBC are sanitising the war it is because of general rules about what sort of images can be broadcast, not for political reasons. My point stands regardless, 'the war is bad because people die' is a valid point about any war. It's a convincing argument if you're a pacifist in all circumstances. Otherwise it's a judgement call about what would have happened under a continued UN sanctions regime, continued rule by Saddam, and succession post-Saddam. In the UK context it's also about whether the US would have gone it alone and, if so, how our involvement changes the situation.

I'll certainly be voting Labour (though as it happens my Labour candidate voted against the war). After the election one of two people will be prime minister. Someone who supported the war though his party was split, and is sorting out a lot of other things, or someone whose party complained that we hadn't gone to war fast enough, voted for it almost unanimously, and is intent on dismantling state services. It's not complicated.

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

Firstly, I am not a pacifist. I believe in defending yourself and defending your nation. This, however, was never an issue of defense. Had an enemy brought this war to us, it would be appropriate to respond in kind. That said, there was never any pressing reason to attack Iraq. Saddam Hussein was contained prior to our invasion of Iraq -- as was supported by the statements of both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice back in early 2001, and as generally supported by the statements of the UN weapons inspectors.

You seem to think that the questionable political improvements in Iraq today are justified by an illegal invasion, over 100,000 deaths (and growing), probably 6-7 times that number wounded, and a total economic cost to society of over a trillion dollars (http://www.peaceactionnewyorkstate.org/SI/Wareconfull.htm). I do not. That doesn't make me a pacifist, however. That just means that I have more important priorities than bringing a scale of death to the people of Iraq that is roughly equal per capita that countries suffered during WWII.

You decry the loss of life under UN sanctions, but what did you ever do to stop it? Is a ground war and prolonged occupation the only alternative to murderous sanctions? Surely not. There were plenty of alternatives, and plenty of ways to weaken the tyranny of Saddam without a ground war and occupation, and without bringing about such a massive loss of life. This is clearly witnessed by the relative autonomy that was present in Kurdish territory prior to the war.

You seem to think this is a race for Labour to win or the Conservatives to lose. Clearly, if you look at the math, it is not. Labour will find themselves with a majority in parliament in this election, even if they only get 29% of the vote. Under those circumstances, voting LibDem isn't going to hurt the policies of government. Indeed, there are many social issues on which Labour and LibDems largely agree. Rather, a vote in favor of a principled third party is more likely to increase the voices of common sense and moderation within the government, and encourage genuine non-partisan decision-making, rather than the excesses of Labour's current one-party government with decisions as important as war and peace being made informally in backrooms over tea.

By all indications, Britain is not shifting towards a failed conservatism, but rather, it wants a liberal, representative, and participitory democracy. Under such circumstances, it makes no sense to support the status quo.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

there are many social issues on which Labour and LibDems largely agree

It's unfortunate that the Lib Dems are so retrograde on the ones I value really, like minimum wages and unemployment reduction programmes.

Labour will find themselves with a majority in parliament in this election, even if they only get 29% of the vote

Even supposing a really good day for the Liberal Democrats, imagining that their share of the vote goes up to 27%, with Labour on 29% and the Tories therefore on 36% (around 8% going to others), the Tories would be the largest party in Parliament, and the Lib Dems would gain only an extra 18 seats, if the swing were uniform around the country.

That's the maths, one of two people will be Prime Minister next week. I'm afraid I know a lot of people who are out knocking on doors, and the message is very clear. If Labour lose a significant number of votes at this election it won't be because people are upset about Iraq, it will be because they are hostile to immigrants, and those votes are going to the Tories.

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

"on 36% . . . the Tories would be the largest party in Parliament"

Not so (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15108755%255E2703,00.html). They would require 41% of the vote to get a majority.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Feel free to play with the figures yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/seatcalculator/html/default.stm

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

I just did, and Labour had a majority at 29%, as stated. I gave the Conservatives 34% and LibDems and the other parties the balance of the vote. Even so, the BBC simulation ignores factors, such as the concentration of Conservative voters. Large majorities in highly conservative regions of the country does not translate into a parliamentary majority, and the Conservative voters are, unsurprisingly, the most segregated. The average voter, however, knows what Thatcherism did to Britain and doesn't want to go down that road again. They won't be so easily fooled.

The truth is, the Conservatives are not winning over traditional Labour voters as a result of their policies or principles... what policies? What principles? Despite Blair's fearmongering, the Conservatives cannot reliably win with what, societally speaking, is a steadily declining minority. (Too few bigots?)

In the 29% scenario, btw, it is quite possible for the LibDems to actually get *more* votes than Labour and for Labour still to still have a majority of the seats in parliament. All the more reason to support a party that supports proportional representation, I think.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

I just did, and Labour had a majority at 29%, as stated. I gave the Conservatives 34% and LibDems and the other parties the balance of the vote.

You'll have to tell me your exact figures, because 29/34/29/8 gives me Labour 50 seats short of a majority.

The truth is, the Conservatives are not winning over traditional Labour voters as a result of their policies or principles... what policies? What principles?

You have not been knocking on doors in Council estates, is all I can suggest. We may just about contain it but the revival of Powellism has struck a chord with a lot of people who have voted Labour at least since 1997, and many for longer.

My Nazi taxi driver from tonight is no longer voting for Blair because he's failed to sort out immigration (probably won't vote for Howard given that he then said "they say it can't be done but Hitler sorted out the Jews").

All the more reason to support a party that supports proportional representation, I think.

Yes, let's take the decision over who forms a government away from the people in perpetuity and hand it over to politicians doing deals behind closed doors, remove the link between local voters and local representatives, and centralise candidate selection in the hands of party head offices, brilliant plan.

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

I should clarify... at 29% to the Conservatives 35%, Labour still has more seats than the Conservatives. That said, it would result in a hung parliament. Which, incidentally, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It would still be a world away from the Conservatives controlling government.

That said, there's no way that the Conservatives in their wildest dreams will do that well. If anything, this may be a horribly damaging election for the Conservatives, because many LibDem/Labour swing voters are voting tactically to keep the Conservatives out of power. That's another factor that the BBC's site doesn't take into account, but it will be an important one, especially considering how close some races are.

After Howard's statement tonight saying that he would've supported war against Iraq too, then I can't see how or why any "Blair backlash" voter would side with his position.

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

I think it's safe to say we have a difference in opinions on this issue, so I declare a truce. I don't want to risk clogging up Momus' mailbox any further.

Appologies, Nick. Hope you didn't mind all the political banter. You'd have to go to Japan (and not have a weblog) to have a fair chance of escaping it, I fear.