THE PEOPLES ASBO



The Institute of Economic Affairs is a right wing think tank. One of its sources of funding is the tobacco industry.

 ‘British American Tobacco, the company behind brands such as Lucky Strike and Dunhill, has confirmed that in 2011 it gave the IEA £10,000, plus £1,000 in event sponsorship. Last year it donated a further £20,000 to the institute.’[1] The IEA has lobbied vigorously against the introduction of plain packaging.

 "It's hard to believe that the government would ignore the responses to the public consultation which were two to one against plain packaging. Around 500,000 members of the public, as well as numerous serving police officers, members of parliament, trade associations, intellectual property experts and trade unions have expressed serious concerns about this measure. Surely a Prime Minister who promised us in 2008 that the 'era of big, bossy, state interference, top-down lever pulling is coming to an end' will ultimately reject this idea.’[2]

Its passion for the rights of the tobacco industry to sell its cancerous products without let or hindrance is matched by an equal passion that those without money should not have access to the arts. Indeed the idea that the arts represent something of value to society and should consequently be supported by the state is considered derisory by the institute.

‘The government is very bad at picking commercial winners. To have commercially successful arts we should leave it those who are spending their own money rather than to bureaucracy. He [Philip Booth of the IEA] went on to argue that DCMS, [Department of Culture, Media and Sport], should be closed down. Arts, culture and sport should be embedded in civil society, and as far away from government as possible.’[3]

During my professional life I had a few small time drug dealers as clients. These young men were the kind often misrepresented in the tabloid  press as ‘drug pushers.’ As I say this was a misrepresentation, unlike the tobacco industry they were not interested in pushing their product by increasing demand, they only sought to supply an existing market. Pushing being all together too high risk an activity. The idea that they would ever consider hanging outside school gates to sell their wares, as the Sun Newspaper would have you believe, they would find risible. They sold to a small and trusted circle. If ever a new punter came along they would invariably have been introduced by an existing customer. (Incidentally they also gave the lie to the myth, again peddled by the media, that those who sell drugs never use them themselves).

I found them to be pretty much like most people, flawed and sometimes unpleasant, though I never met one who would seek to prevent someone from visiting a museum, art gallery or library. They were not intrinsically anti social. I do not believe the same can be said of the IEA.

During the current administration the Oscar Wilde quote about ‘knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing,’ has all but been worn to shreds. Think tanks such as the IEA peddle a brand of hostility to the very concept of community, to the idea of an elected sphere that supports the development of the arts and ideas and seeks to consciously enrich the lives of the people. Strip away the verbiage, ‘…commercially successful arts we should leave it those who are spending their own money rather than to bureaucracy,’ and you quickly get to the core of the matter, money rules. The idea that poor people should have access to the arts is dismissed as sentimental and wrong headed. The IEA position can be summarised as ‘the poor and disadvantaged and working classes neither want nor need the arts[4] and even if they did, rich people should not be expected to pay.[5] Providing cultural activities is a waste of money, money that would be better used providing tax cuts to corporations and those in the upper income strata.’

How would you describe an organisation that promotes a literally cancerous product whilst at the same time seeks to destroy the provision of art galleries, libraries and museums other than as anti- social? I am consequently creating The Peoples ASBO, [Anti-Social Behaviour Order], and awarding the first order to the IEA.

Being liberal minded the penalties are not draconian, it merely involves a duty on all citizens to monitor this organisation, exposing, naming, shaming whenever possible.


[2] http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/legislating-on-plain-packaging-of-tobacco-is-the-start-of-a-slippery-sl-0  this quote may be a collectors item since it must be one of the few IEA reports that draws on the opinions of ‘trade unions.’
[4] Just one example I think demolishes this pernicious crap, Over 791, 000 people visited the combined Tate galleries last year. It might be argued that a good portion of these are tourists. From my own experience I would say that the majority were ordinary people from all walks of life, the curious, the informed, the sceptical and the connoisseur, not to mention the crowds of schoolchildren being introduced the idea that there might be more to life than making money. 
[5] This too of course is a lie, the wealthiest portion of our society pay the smallest proportion of their income, when not directly engaged in evasion and avoidance scams, in tax.




Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.

Popular posts from this blog

NESRINE MALIK AND THE UNSUNG VIRTUES OF HYPOCRISY

Image
As I write this a 27 year old woman, Mariam Ibrahim, has just had a baby in a Sudanese prison, ‘the condition of the mother and baby is not known as Ibrahim's lawyer and her husband, a US citizen, had been denied access to her. Omdurman women's prison has a basic clinic, where the child is thought to have been born. Ibrahim has been shackled since being imprisoned.’ [1]   Mariam also has an 18 month old child who is also being held in prison with her. The ‘crime’ for which she is imprisoned is apostasy, for which she has received the death sentence. She has also been sentenced to 100 lashes, for the additional crime of having sex with her Christian husband. Although she has been a lifelong Christian her father was a Muslim, Sudanese sharia law forbids women to marry outside the Muslim faith, men needless to say can do as they please in these matters. Mariam Ibrahim and her husband.  Nineteen countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 12 of those countries...
Read more

INTERVIEW WITH TOM VAGUE

Image
Tom Vague At the top end of All Saints Road there is a refuge, an enclave in which a local Bohemian culture retains a foothold, this is the Book & kitchen , a café/bookshop with adjoining terrace. Here the bustle of the nearby market gives way to conversation, conversation in the presence of images of the recent, and not so recent, past. The past of an area that has contributed so much to the life and culture of the city. I was there to meet local historian Mr Tom Vague a man intimately familiar with so much of this history. What Tom doesn’t know about the recent history of the area probably is not worth knowing. With Tom’s energy and effort Colville Community Forum, supported by City Living Local Life, recently held a gathering at The Book and Kitchen to celebrate this rich history. February 16 6-9 Pm, with Film Screening and Readings Exhibition February 16-26 2016. Featuring 30 Classic Westway Photographs and Posters. This represents one of a number of initiatives of t...
Read more

VOLINE AND TROTSKY

Волин и Троцкого A Footnote in Russian History In April 1917 the Russian anarchist revolutionary Voline* and Leon Trotsky were both stranded in New York as the Russian revolution broke out in Petrograd , inevitably coming into contact with one another. Voline stated that he felt that the Bolsheviks, given their ruthlessness and single minded determination, would ultimately come to power. They would then begin eliminating their opponents, amongst whom of course were the anarchists; this persecution would end with the Bolsheviks shooting the anarchists “like partridges.” Trotsky was dismissive, they might have their differences but they were comrades in arms, they had different interpretations of the revolutionary process but shared the same goals. It was nonsense to speak of Bolsheviks shooting revolutionary comrades, “we are socialists, comrade Voline! So we are not your enemies….” [1] In December of 1919, whilst gravely wounded Voline was captured by the Bolshe...
Read more