The Politics of Dancing

OFFENSE IN THE AGE OF THE ONLINE PETITION  In the 19 th and 20 th Century’s one of the great fights of the non-communist [1] left was the struggle for free speech. The struggle against censorship in literature, the arts, and political discourse. The enemies off free speech always came from the right whether in a clerical, military, or politically authoritarian guise.  Now the enemies of free speech are more often to be found on the left. Concerned to maintain politically correct standards of discourse they are happy to close down exhibitions, slander writers and commentators, [2] or in the current jargon ‘deny platforms’ to those of whom they disapprove. This war on free speech and artistic expression is sometimes linked with demands from the Muslim community to censor any comment on Islam deemed to be ‘Islamaphobic.’ [3] The link is always the magical word ‘offense.’ Once uttered the heavens must full. The new crime of the 21 st Century is the crime of giving offense.

WILL THE LIB DEMS BRAKE CAMERON’S RUSH TO RIG THE CONSTITUTION The triumph of the No campaign and with it Scotland’s continued commitment to the union, whilst a relief, to those like me who believed that a split would have been disastrous for working people both north and south of the border, feels like a curiously hollow victory. For we awoke not only to victory but to find ourselves enmeshed in a first class gold plated omnishambles. No sooner had the result been announced than David Cameron appeared in front of Downing street with a not particularly well disguised plan to shaft the Labour Party. Cameron now seeking to link the promises made to the Scottish people before the referendum vote to ending Scottish MP’s participation in English matters. As the Labour Party is heavily reliant upon votes from the Celtic fringe some Tories are now salivating at the prospect of England becoming a one party state run by the Tories. [1]   Politics being full of irony, Cameron owes his

Nick Robinson BBC's Political Editor THE ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND MR ROBINSON'S QUESTION The SNP’s attempt to intimidate the BBC in the run up to the referendum vote this Thursday would do credit to Vladimir Putin. The catalyst for the Yes campaign’s attack on the BBC was an exchange between Alex Salmond and the BBC’s Political Editor Nick Robinson. In all the acrimonious exchanges that have followed on from this exchange, which culminated in protests outside BBC Scotland calling for the sacking of Nick Robinson, one aspect of Nick Robinson’s question seem to have gone unremarked. That is its inherent disrespect for elected politicians per se.  “ Why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?” To understand the ideology underlying this question you need only turn it around. “Why should a Scottish voter believe men whose only concern is profit over an elected politician?” As it happen

A pernicious argument is now regularly mounted against democracy; it has appeared time and time again during the campaign for Scottish Independence, it has been used as an argument against an EU referendum and I am surprised that it has not yet, at least in this country, been used as an argument against a general election. The argument is that democracy creates ‘uncertainty.’ This usually refers to business decisions, to the financial markets, but can embrace matters as diverse as defence or pension payments. Some of these arguments are valid, but as anyone who has reached their mid-twenties can testify, life itself is uncertain, all choices involve risk. Elections and plebiscites are governed by the uncertainty principle, the laws of unintended consequences and unforeseen outcomes. This is a given. Now however we see this uncertainty as an argument against democracy itself. This argument is made as much on the centre left as the right. Thus it goes that people should not b

It was if we all woke Sunday morning to find the world had changed, that the state that I grew up in was about to disappear. The feeling of disquiet was overwhelming. The polls were suggesting a narrow lead for Scottish Yes campaign in the upcoming vote on Scottish independence. Suddenly Scotland breaking away became a real possibility, a possibility I found profoundly unsettling and I was not alone. I find myself deeply conflicted about the prospect of Scotland separating. As a decentralist, a democrat and believer in equality and social justice I should be happy about a turn of events that sees power being taken from ‘the Westminster Elite’ [1] and being placed in the hands of the Scottish people. Moreover the process has energised and revitalised electoral politics north of the border breathing life back into a democracy that feels so withered and jaded here in England. There is much to be excited about in the political ferment created in Scotland. A constitutional change to

Blasphemy Laws - Because who needs freedom and human rights when the integrity of imaginary friends is at stake? George Galloway has been feeling, understandably, sorrow for himself. Only one MP, Caroline Lucas, offered him public support following the brutal assault he recently received in the street. Speaking on Radio 4’s The Week In Westminster he characterises this assault correctly as an attack on free speech. As he said on the programme, “what appals one man thrills and inspires another.” Elsewhere he has spoken of “an attack on dissent.”  I must now make a confession in that in the immediate aftermath of the assault I made light of the affair, cursing whoever assaulted him as being only likely to feed his martyr complex. Any violent attack on someone merely seeking to exercise their right to free speech must be deplored. I think though I was also heavily influence by the complete absence of free speech in Iran and increasingly in Russia, regimes for whom Galloway provi

In one of those strange kinks that can suddenly happen in history England suddenly exploded with musical talent at the beginning of the 1960’s; talent that was to conquer the world. The rock and roll band was born. In one short decade music changed forever. Extraordinary Talent Two bands however stood out The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. We know what happened to The Beatles but whatever became of The Stones? When looking at their back catalogue one is overwhelmed by the sheer diversity and quality produced, - Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, Lady Jane, Ruby Tuesday, Jumping Jack Flash, She’s A Rainbow, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, Brown Sugar, Street Fighting Man, Parachute Woman, Gimme Shelter, Wild Horses. The list goes on. Then sometime in 1972 they flew out into a clear blue sky never to be seen again. True a solo hit for Jagger ‘Angie’ appeared in 1974, salvaged from the wreckage as it were, but the Stones were gone. In their place came the infamous money making

Race, Culture and Rotherham  I. Anyone working in the field of social care in the 1980’s and 90’s experienced the phenomenon of ‘race awareness’ training. These workshops varied in style and quality from the feel of the mild rebuke of an after school detention class to a Soviet style re-education camp. The underlying assumption was that if you were white you were wholly ignorant of the impact of racism and needed to have your noses rubbed in it. Whilst if you were black this automatically made you an expert on oppression.  If this is a caricature, it is not much of one. This ‘training’ was at its core fear based, less about enlightenment than detecting and weeding out thought crime. To be accused of being a racist or harbouring racist sentiments was like being accused of being a paedophile, possibly worse. It is the atmosphere created by this ideology that has led directly to the Rotherham abuse scandal. Joyce Thacker and Shaun Wright who presided over a social services depa