Arch purveyor of sewer sentiments, Kelvin MacKenzie has kept, by his standards, a relatively low media profile since the start of the year. There have been sightings of the liar now & again, most jarringly as a guest newspaper reviewer on the BBC News channel recently; the phone calls & emails that flowed the Beeb's way would have left the corporation in little doubt that MacKenzie's presence was a gross abuse of licence payers' money (the reviewers are paid for their time). Most recently, he could be spotted in the company of Jeremy Clarkson at Thatcher's funeral. A veritable Brains Trust, wouldn't you say?
MacKenzie had hoped to pen a weekly column for the Daily Telegraph. Indeed, the paper's editor, Tony Gallagher (@gallaghereditor, if you feel like sending him a tweet or two) had declared on the Telegraph website that the liar would contribute on a weekly basis.
Unfortunately for MacKenzie, reaction to his first column helped ensure that it was the only column he would scrawl for the Telegraph; many online commenters raised the subject of Hillsborough, one referred to him as a "ghastly little man", a quintessentially Telegraph put-down.
MacKenzie's short-lived stint at the Telegraph was yesterday mentioned by Roy Greenslade on his Guardian blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/apr/18/kelvin-mackenzie-dailytelegraph ). Greenslade noted that MacKenzie left the Daily Mail last July, having been employed as a columnist there for less than a year, & that the BBC, newspaper reviews notwithstanding, is noticeably reluctant to have him as a panelist on Any Questions & Question Time. Greenslade observed:
"Why should this be? In a word, Hillsborough. Twenty-four years on from the tragedy he cannot escape the fury of Liverpool for his front page that defamed the city's football fans."
Regarding MacKenzie's sudden departure from the Telegraph, Greenslade reported that Tony Gallagher "was made aware by the sports desk of deep upset about the hiring of MacKenzie by its writers, especially its star columnist Alan Hansen."
Hansen was, of course, in the Liverpool team which took to the field on April 15th, 1989. In the years since he has had to confront & correct the smears about Hillsborough which emanated from MacKenzie's infamous front page. As Greenslade noted, Hansen's possible resignation from the Telegraph in protest at MacKenzie's appointment would have caused the paper acute embarrassment.
Greenslade opened his piece by asking:
"Has Kelvin MacKenzie become unemployable?"
After the faux-aristocratic flummery & pomposity of the taxpayer-funded Thatcher funeral this week, it would be an appropriately Thatcherite fate for MacKenzie to find himself without work (& income) indefinitely. Such a fate would be welcomed by many.
Those of a certain generation may recall Thatcher's comments when she paid a flying visit to the city in March, 1989. News had broken that day that the Bird's Eye factory in Kirkby was to close with the loss of 1,000 jobs. Thatcher was asked by local reporters for her reaction. Her reply was chillingly sociopathic. They couldn't remain competitive, she intoned. If they couldn't compete & keep their costs down, they had to lose their jobs.
Sermon duly delivered, Thatcher left, alongside Hillsborough liar Bernard Ingham, in a speeding car which attracted a flying egg.
The last nine days have served as a stark reminder that the divided realm she bequeathed is still with us. While central London was witnessing her funeral, whole swathes of the UK marked Thatcher's final journey in a way which reflected the impact her policies had on those areas. Liverpool, of course, wasn't to be left out of proceedings; this was the scene outside St George's Hall a little earlier: https://vine.co/v/bUB0OIDZJ15 .
Merseyside was always going to be largely barren ground for the Tories during the 80s. Indeed, they knew that early on during the Thatcher years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-government-liverpool-riots-1981 ). The antipathy was mutual from the very beginning & was made clear to a national TV audience (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY_pgqX8qyo ).
There are Tories who deny that the Thatcher years were marked by a targeting of areas like northern England, South Wales & Scotland, & it would be inaccurate to say that areas in & around London didn't suffer, too. They did, as Glenda Jackson pointed out in a damning critique last week during a Thatcher nostalgia-fest in the Commons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8 ).
However, the regional nature of Thatcher's policies was pronounced & entrenched throughout the 80s, as well as beyond. The Tories knew, & still know, that there are no-go areas for them north of the Midlands. They can live with that. Their base is elsewhere. Anyone who still demurs from that harsh political fact need only listen to what Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph & Thatcher's authorised biographer, had to say on BBC 5Live this morning. Moore opined that areas which opposed Thatcher & everything she stood for were "less important" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGzOMTKOTMA ) -- his comments come at 4 minutes 50 seconds in the clip.
"Managed decline". "Less important". With those two dismissive quotes you have the Tories' real view of those who opposed their policy of deindustrialisation. It's a view which Cameron, Osborne (didn't someone have any tissues for him today, by the way?), et al share.
It wouldn't be human to deny a certain grim pleasure from the passing of those whose actions have caused havoc & misery for others. Reaction on Merseyside to Thatcher's death has been pretty much as expected. Robin Brown penned an interesting piece on Seven Streets, too (http://www.sevenstreets.com/talk-and-opinion/why-liverpool-wont-mourn-margaret-thatcher/).
At this time it would be tempting to recount the 80s, that baleful decade of Toxteth, Militant, Trevor Jones, Heseltine, the Garden Festival, Hillsborough et al. Too tempting. Another time, another blog post.
However, I can't let today's reactions go by without highlighting the contradictory gibberish of one. It came from Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson with this tweet (https://www.twitter.com/joeforliverpool/status/321240214834126848 ):
"Tories believe in division and inequality. Thatcher defined that and Thatcherism continues today as bad or worse than her period in office."
It beggars belief that a Labour leader who makes a virtue out of his willingness to implement Cameron's cuts should bewail Thatcher's record & legacy. It seems to have escaped Joe's attention that the Thatcherism he condemns is perpetuated, in no small measure, by Labour councils which arrogantly tell people that they've got no alternative (to coin a phrase) but to make Tory cuts. Like, ooh, Liverpool City Council. Joe may lament the ethos of Thatcherism, but he does nothing to counter it; say what you like about the 47 (& many do), but they did stand up to the Tories. Selling off part of Sefton Park is an act one would expect from a Thatcherite philosophy which recognises the price of everything & the value of nothing. Today's Labour Party subscribes to that Tory tenet.
Thatcher is dead, but Labour lieutenants of capital like Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson do nothing to oppose policies that she could only dream of.
Guido Fawkes (http://www.order-order.com ) might have chosen a better time to declare that arch-liar Kelvin MacKenzie was his "ethics adviser" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/15/guido-fawkes-paul-staines-interview ). Fawkes, or Paul Staines, to give him his real name, was speaking just a few days before the Hillsborough families announced that they were going to sue MacKenzie for "malfeasance" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/16/hillsborough-families-sue-kelvin-mackenzie ).
The reptile who was described by Trevor Hicks as "a low-life" offered crocodile tears when the Hillsborough Independent Report was released last year. MacKenzie's true venality is something the families have always known & highlighted: "Although MacKenzie offered 'profuse apologies' last September after the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel exposed the article's allegations as wholly unfounded, lawyers for the families also accuse him of adopting a different approach privately."
MacKenzie isn't the only one to finally face the reckoning. The families also indicated their intention to bring proceedings against South Yorkshire Police & Sheffield Wednesday Football Club.
Proceedings against the South Yorkshire force are clearly necessary from a moral perspective. However, there is also a financial aspect which the Guardian report relates with damning clarity:
"Families received payouts as low as £3,500 for the deaths of loved ones, sums later dwarfed by settlements to policemen, who were awarded up to £330,000 after suffering post-traumatic stress from witnessing the crush on the stadium terracing."
That the police officers' "suffering" was judged to be almost a hundredfold bigger than that of the families is an often overlooked aspect of the greatest cover-up in British legal history.
MacKenzie et al can be in no doubt that their moment of reckoning looms larger by the week. Staines might wish to reconsider his admiration for a proven liar.
One can only surmise that Big Al Machray & his minions at the Oldham Echo saw the silent movie classic Metropolis some years back & decided that Fritz Lang's 1927 production (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j8Ba9rWhUg ) should act as the blueprint for the city of Liverpool & its port in particular.
That's the only conclusion to be drawn from the fawning adoration bestowed by Oldham Hall Street on yet another plan to "transform" the Kings Dock (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2013/02/01/futuristic-masterplan-to-transform-liverpool-s-king-dock-revealed-100252-32722917/ ). A fetish for a futuristic dystopia would normally be sufficient reason to consult a psychiatrist. In Big Al's case, however, it qualifies him to edit a paper whose capacity for self-delusion & denial would impress Saddam's former spin doctor, Comical Ali.
The Echo's piece has been penned by Marc Waddington, who enthuses:
"Up to 1,000 jobs could be created by the new masterplan for the waterfront area, which will include apartments, offices, hotels & leisure complexes."
Here we go again with Echo buzz phrases. "Up to" a thousand jobs, you say? So it could be considerably fewer than that. Going by previous instances, it would be sensible to view that phrase as, well, imaginative. Additionally, the use of "could" is a sure indication that Oldham Hall Street is doing its usual trick of whistling in the wind while the icy blast of a triple-dip recession, coupled with the cuts, freezes Merseyside more effectively than any meteorological factors.
Then there's the artist's impression of what the Kings Dock "could" (copyright Oldham Hall Street) look like, &, yes, it is truly hideous, a fact not lost on a few commenters. "BigEnd" (nice moniker) declares:
"This looks like the lovechild of the Malmaison Hotel and the new museum. With a dash of DNA from the ferry terminal. Please -- are there any architects out there with some sense of style? We deserve better than this."
Yes, BigEnd, we certainly do. Alas, we won't get it while the Oldham Echo champions such monstrosities.
Another commenter (Stewart f43) asks:
"Is it just me, or do these designs look like something out of Star Wars? 'Brutalist' isn't the expression for this -- try 'plain ugly'. Was nothing learned from the awful old Pier Head design?"
To which one must sadly reply that nothing will ever be learned by the latter-day Bourbons who hail such grotesque vanity projects as graceful adornments to the city's Botoxed waterfront.
So who is behind this plan that the Echo is keen to promote? Well, it's the work of the Homes & Communities Agency (HCA), whose chief executive Deborah McLaughlin is quoted in Waddington's piece. However, she cautions:
"No specific figure has been put on investment in the overall development plan, but it is likely to run into hundreds of millions of pounds."
That's conveniently ambiguous, wouldn't you say? Moreover, it beggars belief to view the project itself as viable in the near to mid-term future when the economy is, at best becalmed in the ConDems' Doldrums, & any lending from the banks for infrastructure projects is a bit like Liverpool's chances of a Champions League place: nice in theory, but impossible in practice.
The role of messenger is crucial in cases such as this. As messenger, the Oldham Echo yet again shows a dispiriting willingness to publish what is effectively a puff-piece for HCA. The Echo is well-versed in promoting the interests of unaccountable, unelected business interests & their schemes to "regenerate" the region (do I hear the name Peel Holdings faintly in the distance?). That Waddington's article is a puff-piece is apparent from reading HCA's own blurb about the project (http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/news/plan-transform-kings-dock-liverpool ), the use of terms such as "transform" & "masterplan" eerily evident in the HCA piece as well as a suitably supportive quote from Cllr Malcolm Kennedy, the city council's cabinet member for regeneration. Cllr Kennedy has been vocal in his view that the "development" of the Lime Street area has been good for the city. Those with aesthetic taste would beg to differ.
The waterfront has been disfigured by supposedly grand projects which say more about the backers of such schemes than any PR blurbs could hope to obscure. Those schemes have veered between farce & wilful civic vandalism (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/mann-island-has-structural-problems.html & http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/unesco-state-of-conservation-report-1st.html ).
Fritz Lang's classic was supposed to act as a cautionary tale against the dangerous cocktail of hubris & technology; the apparent "progress" being merely a mirage. It's a lesson the civic goons, the Oldham Echo & the business interests they eagerly acclaim are destined to ignore.
There's no greater fear for a tabloid newspaper editor & his (almost all of them are men) proprietor than a reporter who undergoes a Damascene conversion. Imagine, therefore, the palpitations felt by Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express & the Daily Star, at the willingness of Richard Peppiatt, a former hack at the latter rag, to expose their distortions, smears & bigotry. Peppiatt has now started a vlog (video blog), as Roy Greenslade noted the other day (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/feb/01/richard-peppiatt-prince-harry ).
Desmond was the reptile who charmingly informed the Leveson Inquiry that he had no time for ethics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/12/richard-desmond-leveson-inquiry-ethics ).
Greenslade refers to Peppiatt's delivery & presentation as "What The Papers Say with attitude." It could also be viewed as Estuary English Jon Stewart.
The reaction of those instrumental in spreading the lies about Hillsborough has ranged from seeming remorse (the late, unlamented Irvine Patnick) through to a claim of victim status (the specimen that is Kelvin MacKenzie). Bernard Ingham's response has been that of the cornered rat, lashing out in characteristically venal fashion, despite the findings of the Hillsborough Panel.
Ingham was at it again last week with an outburst which says so much about the individual whose actions during the 80s warranted the soubriquet, "Thatcher's poodle" (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a451387/bernard-ingham-not-sorry-for-shut-up-about-hillsborough-remark.html ).
Revelling in his ignorance & hubris, Ingham declared that he hadn't read the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report & also claimed that "political games were being played."
Clearly, Ingham is well-qualified to identify "political games" when he sees them. After all, the role he played in helping Murdoch to acquire both The Times & Sunday Times in 1981 can be filed under the category of political machinations (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17366040 ).
Ingham's charmless ejaculation of bile reminds me of what the right-wing hack Donal Blaney wrote a few weeks ago on the Daily Mail's Right Minds blog (http://blaneyblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/12/why-are-so-many-of-my-fellow-liverpool-fans-so-unpleasant.html ). As someone who was at Hillsborough, Blaney is very much in a minority of one when he exonerates Patnick et al. That may well have everything to do with Blaney's hard Right politics & nothing to do with reality; an ideologue always inhabits a bubble. Indeed, Blaney refers to Patnick as "the Tory MP who worked most closely with the police". Well, that's one way of putting it.
Expressing astonishment at the condemnation of those such as Patnick, Blaney goes on to say:
"When I attended the Carling Cup Final at Wembley last season, I was greeted by the sight of a banner that read: 'Expose the lies before Thatcher dies'. What lies is Lady Thatcher responsible for exactly? None. The Bishop of Liverpool made that plain in the Hillsborough Report but why let facts get in the way of years of grievances, real or imagined?"
Blaney's professed incredulity is couched in characteristically Daily Mail terms. As such, it attempts to distract attention from the cover-up at the highest levels of government. It's a cover-up whose origins lay in the visit that Thatcher, accompanied by Ingham, made to Hillsborough just 24 hours after the disaster, as David Conn noted in a Guardian piece last year. The article quoted Ingham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/12/tanked-up-mob-hillsborough-police-thatcher ):
" 'You can't get away from what you were told,' Ingham said. 'We talked to a lot of people; I am not sure if it was the chief constable. That was the impression I gathered: there were a lot of people tanked up outside.' "
Conn later focused specifically on Thatcher's involvement in the cover-up:
"Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, said Ingham's explanation that the 'tanked-up mob' account was given to Thatcher by the police confirmed the families' long-held suspicions.
" 'The prime minister got it from the very top, from the police force which caused the deaths of the 96, then went on to blame the fans. It's an absolute disgrace and it sickens me.' "
For Blaney's information, the Bishop of Liverpool made no specific mention of Thatcher at the launch of the Panel's report. As for his sneering reference to "years of grievances, real or imagined", perhaps Blaney might find it instructive to read a government paper released under the 30-year rule at the end of 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16355281 ).
Maybe we shouldn't be so taken aback by Blaney's words. After all, as someone who is pleased to be described as the nearest thing the UK has to a Fox News commentator (https://twitter.com/Donal_Blaney ), Blaney seems to be an arch-exponent of denial & delusion, as this classic blog post from October of last year attests: http://blaneyblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/10/whisper-it-at-the-bbc-obama-may-well-lose-next-week.html .
However, it's to Ingham that we must, reluctantly, return. His disdain for those he regards as the architects of their own tragedy sits uneasily with an episode from his own ostensibly law-abiding background (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/mar/09/helencarter?INTCMP=SRCH ).
Additionally, Ingham's willingness to believe any old pack of lies he's told explains his presence in Chris Morris' brilliant spoof on the evils of the deadly drug "Cake" back in 1997 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g5kUBwVbCw ).
Given Ingham's , ahem, chequered track record, it's puzzling why he continues to be viewed by the media as a credible commentator, a point you could make to his agents, United Agents (email: hthompson@unitedagents.co.uk or phone +44(0)2032140884).
Seeing as today is George Orwell Day, here's an apt quote from the man himself:
"Journalism is printing what someone else doesn't want printed: everything else is public relations."
That observation has lost none of its relevance.
In this post-Leveson age for the press it's good to know that the Augean stables have been cleaned out. Isn't it? Actually, there are one or two such stables in existence & they're not always to be found in the Murdoch empire. The People, a sister paper of the Oldham Echo, has been forced into a retraction which indicates that the bad old practices never really went away (http://www.mirror.co.uk/for-the-record/sir-roger-moore--an-apology-1545092 ).
Speaking of the Murdoch empire, you can always rely on The Sun to churn out lies, distortions & smears. The putrid old rag has been caught out in its attempts to do the ConDem's dirty work (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/01/20/the-reality-behind-the-suns-hatchet-job-on-lithuanian-benefits-scrounger/ ).
Leveson said the last thing he wanted was to see his report gathering dust at the top of the bookshelf. Alas, that seems certain to be its fate.
I do hope the warm wine & canapes went down well at the city's waterfront today. Cameron popped by to appear with Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson to help promote the city's International Business Festival next summer. The meeting of minds took place at the Museum of Liverpool. As befitting the venue, the message from Cameron (& one from which the Labour Mayor didn't demur) was ugly & brutal: the cuts will continue (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/2013/01/03/liverpool-mayor-joe-anderson-wrong-to-predict-cuts-could-lead-to-riots-says-david-cameron-100252-32542304/ ).
Unsurprisingly, Cameron arrived via a rear entrance. His loyal, junior lieutenant Esther McVey, MP for Wirral West & champion of local regeneration (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/dereliction-of-duty.html ), however, found herself running the gauntlet of demonstrators, one of whom correctly informed Merseyside's answer to Sarah Palin: "Your cuts are killing people!" (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/2013/01/03/prime-minister-david-cameron-avoids-liverpool-protesters-at-museum-of-liverpool-100252-32542430/ ).
Uncle Joe could have used the event to lambast the cuts' effects & declare that as Labour Mayor he will organise a campaign of civil disobedience against measures which have no electoral mandate. He could have said that, but instead delivered this gem (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2013/01/business-as-usual-as-fireworks.html ):
"As the first directly elected mayor of the city I confidently predict that the best days for the city are ahead of it as we continue to grow and become an economic hub and a major port once again."
Adopting the sort of rhetoric habitually employed by US politicians may not work to Anderson's advantage; predicting that the best is yet to come despite the ConDem cutters is guaranteed to invite a sarcastic Scouse response. Additionally, the notion that the city can return to being "an economic hub and a major port" will make many wonder if Uncle Joe was reading from a text prepared in 1913, not 2013.
(The US allusion is strangely apposite in Anderson's case. It appears that he covets the sort of powers enjoyed by US city mayors, such as Michael Bloomberg in New York, despite the fact that his remit is severely curtailed in comparison; a friend told me when I was in Manhattan that Bloomberg's electoral success with New Yorkers lay in the fact that he's perceived as a "Dad" figure, someone who will admonish excesses which are a consequence of civic leniency & address the city's electorate in a style resembling that of a resigned, weary tutor repeating something for the umpteenth time. Anderson may yearn to be seen as Liverpool's "Dad", dispensing quasi-paternal wisdom to his flock. Some hope. Whereas New York remains the world's most famous metropolis, Liverpool is, sadly, just another post-industrial city engaged in, at best, an existential debate about its purpose & role in the twenty-first century. )
Mayor Anderson made headlines in some of the national media over the festive break (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/31/city-challenge-liverpool ). However, even this seeming warning of what the cuts will mean for local government was rather undermined with this assertion:
"Liverpool is succeeding because we have, like other cities, been given backing, and the results are starting to show in the confident city we have become."
Venture outside the city centre, to, say, Kirkdale, Norris Green, Netherley or Kensington & you'll find precious little of the "confidence" that Joe proclaims.
As if that wasn't enough, Joe made a point which would have had Cameron, Clegg & Osborne in paroxysms of mirth:
"Neither myself nor other core city leaders are denying the need for austerity or the need for local government to take its fair share of reductions in public spending. Our call is simply for fairness in how that austerity is distributed across the country."
Fairness In Austerity! Compassionate Cuts! Great slogans, wouldn't you say?
Anderson's acceptance of the need for cuts on the basis that we've all been living beyond our means buys into a myth which was exposed by Dan Silver in a Guardian piece the following day. Silver noted that the ongoing legacy of the 2008 financial crash was now presented as a government deficit crisis (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2013/jan/01/benefits-welfare ):
"The financial crisis of 2008, which for many has discredited the dominant model of financial capitalism, has been maintained by those currently in power. It has been reconstituted as a debt crisis caused by government deficits."
It would have been welcome at today's exercise in mutual self-congratulation if Anderson had publicly & vocally shared this analysis of the situation, told Cameron so & declared his intention to stand up to the Tories. But he didn't. And he won't.
Happy New Year.
Ring out the old, ring in the new. It's a phrase that will resonate with many tonight. It also has an extra resonance in the case of Irvine Patnick, whose death was announced yesterday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20872924 ).
Patnick was, of course, the source for the Sun's infamous front page a few days after Hillsborough; he was the willing conduit for South Yorkshire Police's campaign of lies & smears. Patnick happily supplied Murdoch's rag with the allegations that, inter alia, the fans pickpocketed the bodies around them, that the fans drunkenly & aggressively stormed the gates to the Leppings Lane terrace (a myth repeated by Bernard Ingham in his "tanked-up mob" quote to the press less than 24 hours later), that the fans urinated on the bodies of their fellow supporters, & that first aid staff were attacked when they attempted to help.
This blog named Patnick almost exactly six years ago (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/naming-names.html ). I continued to cite him periodically over the next few years, knowing that Patnick couldn't sue for libel because it was, to coin a phrase, The Truth. However, his passing, welcome though it is to many, now means, regrettably, that he won't appear in court on a charge of perverting the course of justice.
That tiresome sentiment about not speaking ill of the dead was wheeled out by some on Twitter last night, notably Harry Cole (https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole ), contributing editor of the Spectator --a magazine which has always had such good things to say about Merseyside-- & Donal Blaney (https://twitter.com/Donal_Blaney ), an occasional scribbler for the Daily Mail's curiously-titled Right Minds blog &, in the words of Iain Dale, "The closest thing we have in Britain to a Fox News commentator". Sometimes you really are damned by your own allies, aren't you?
If it really is indecent to criticise & castigate those no longer able to speak for themselves, it's a convention that Patnick himself patently ignored. Patnick was a liar & a coward of the first order. Let that be his epitaph.
Lenin isn't much quoted these days (well, it was a while back & his utterances pertained to a different country & century), but he did have what would now be viewed as a pithy soundbite for those who complain about poverty & deprivation, yet won't do anything to challenge the system that creates it: labour lieutenants of capital.
It's a phrase that came to mind when Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson wrote to David Cameron last week, complaining about the effect of the ConDem cuts on cities like Liverpool (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-20716881 ):
"Mr Anderson said he feared the council would not be able to help vulnerable and desperate people in 'some of the most deprived communities, not just in Liverpool, but the country'.
"He wrote: 'I believe community cohesion is being seriously threatened by the lack of funding to our city and others.'
"Mr Anderson added: 'I believe that the so-called "summer of discontent" will happen again if we do not address this issue.' "
Strong stuff, eh? So what is Joe prepared to do about the cuts that, as he rightly says, will cause so much damage to the city? Well, he'll call a "cuts summit" (http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Mayor-and-Bishop-to-host-cuts-summit ).
The LC article reports that Anderson & James Jones will invite the leaders of the councils representing Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle & Sheffield to to the meeting at the Arena & Convention Centre on January 18th, at which they'll "demand changes to what they say is the Government's unfair distribution of local authority funding."
Certainly, the need to highlight the issue is unarguable. Liverpool faces a 52% funding cut between now & 2017/18.
However, awareness of the situation is, or should be just the starting point. Anderson, unfortunately, seems not to realise this:
" 'We are demanding the Government listen and take notice of the dire situation faced by local authorities, and we will be highlighting how their policies are jeopardising the services we provide.' "
All very well, But what if Cameron & Co. take time out from their busy schedules, smile pityingly at this civic cri-de-coeur & continue apace with the cuts? What then?
Well, the answer is nothing. Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson, along with the rest of the current Labour Party would never countenance a strategy of disobedience or Militant illegality.
That unwillingness to go down the road of rebellion is the real issue here, not Anderson's doubtful claim that the civil disturbances of August 2011 will be repeated (apart from a handful of scally-orchestrated incidents, mainly around Smithdown Road, Liverpool didn't burn that summer; Toxteth '81 it wasn't).
So I'm afraid it will be a case of cometh the hour, cometh the cuts, administered by a whimpering Joe & Co.
Of course, it doesn't have to be that way, not when the disdain & hostility of the ConDem cutters is evident to all (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/against-george-osbornes-war-on-the-poor-and-the-vile-stupidity-of-his-workers-vs-shirkers-narrative-8397330.html & when, moreover, the class warfare of the cuts is being explained to a US audience (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/12/george-osbornes-journey-from-austerity-to-cruelty.html ).
The BBC report on Anderson's letter to Cameron was accompanied by a comment from the BBC's North West political editor Arif Ansari, who observed:
"David Cameron did want strong, outspoken city mayors. He has found one in Joe Anderson."
A "strong, outspoken" city mayor wouldn't complain about the cuts, yet meekly implement them. However, that is precisely what Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson will do.
The cavalier disregard for one of Liverpool's most distinctive & elegant buildings, India Buildings by its owners Green Property group has sadly continued since I commented on the matter a few months ago (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/answers-needed-over-india-buildings.html ).
The owners stupidly (& illegally) removed six bronze plaques from the building's exterior last month (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/green-property-group-vandalise.html & http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/11/22/future-of-india-buildings-in-doubt-after-liverpool-council-cautions-owners-over-illegal-removing-of-entrance-plaques-99623-32280635/ ). According to the Post's report, the building's tenants were informed that "in the interim the public will soon be denied access from the Brunswick [Street] entrance."
Green Property's intention to deny access to the public in this way has become something of an embarrassing farce for them; contradiction has become the watch-word for their approach. You have to wonder about the expertise & judgment of their PR advisers Paver Smith (http://www.paversmith.co.uk ), an outfit which proudly declares "managing reputations" to be its forte on its home page.
There is controversy concerning Green Property's wish to deny public access through the arcade. Its thoroughfare was built on what used to be Chorley Street & legal opinion seems to suggest that permission from Liverpool City Council would be sought for such a move.
Perhaps realising that their position is very much open to question, Green Property performed a volte-face on the plaques, restoring them to the building's exterior (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2112/11/23/u-turn-on-blunder-at-liverpool-s-india-buildings-100252-32290010/ ). However, the damage caused by the plaques' removal in the first place was significant (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/india-building-mutiny-by-green-property.html ).
Green Property are seemingly unconcerned about the fact that people's livelihoods are at stake on this issue. Instead, mixed messages have been issued from the owners, perhaps reflecting a level of pathetic incompetence or internal dissent within the group (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/12/04/liverpool-india-buildings-arcade-stall-holders-set-for-public-sit-in-99623-32358392/ :
"Green Property manager Gill Thom wrote to shop tenants saying two retail experts reviewed the arcade and there was no positive feed back on the arcade's future.
"She wrote : 'We were advised the space would be better used as management offices to support the building as staff would be more accessible. We will contact tenants in due course.'
"But Green Property director Mike Tapp said: 'There are no plans to close the Brunswick Street entrance or public access to the arcade.
" 'We are committed to spending capital money for modernisation and changes. It is a struggle to get retailers into Holt's Arcade because it is not a destination, so we want to put building management offices there as a stop-gap.' "
Judging by their hitherto lamentable actions, one has to take their claim that such a move is "stop-gap" with a pinch of salt. Additionally, it could be argued that the reduced footfall in the arcade is attributable to, among other factors, an unwillingness or inability of Green Property to properly project to a local audience the asset they own; Liverpool One's emphasis on tacky consumer culture is absurdly cited by some as a factor. It isn't. What the arcade has to offer is qualitatively superior to Grosvenorpool's tawdry fare (http://www.baytvliverpool.co.uk/vod/?vid=JBV50b38ff3c9d65 ).
A sit-in by the building's tenants is planned at 1.30 tomorrow afternoon. If you're in the vicinity, showing your support for them would be greatly appreciated.
The squawks of indignation from the tabloids (& the Telegraph) over Leveson's recommendations were entirely predictable; never mind that his report paid worryingly scant attention to online publishing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-web-print-undermine-regulation ).
Rushing to rubbish Leveson were the usual suspects, those who think that hacking the mobile phone of a dead schoolgirl is no more than an unfortunate mistake, & that "privacy is for paedos" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/29/paul-mcmullan-leveson-inquiry-phone-hacking ).
Scuttling out of the sewer to augment the cause of mendacity & smears is a rodent who has had ample cause to lie low in his subterranean habitat over the last few months, Kelvin MacKenzie. Not so fresh from his doorstepping by Channel 4 News' Alex Thomson (http://www.channel4.com/news/kelvin-mackenzie-doorstepped-by-channel-4-news ), the well-known liar appeared on LBC Radio in London to talk about Leveson &, yes, Hillsborough (http://www.lbc.co.uk/kelvin-mackenzie-defends-hillsborough-headline---exclusive-63699 ).
Being MacKenzie, he doesn't do remorse or contrition. He'll do embarrassment, for sure, as was so memorably evident when Thomson accosted him. However, the word "apology" is absent from the liar's lexicon. Moreover, MacKenzie feels that, in his own warped way, he is "a victim of this", adding that he fell for the smear story from South Yorkshire Police "hook, line and sinker". Many may well feel that the nautical phrase is apposite in that a watery fate would be the right one for a creature described by Trevor Hicks as "a low-life".
Be that as it may, MacKenzie's words of bluster & self-pity (to coin a phrase) only serve to entrench the image of him as someone who would knock women & children out of the way in the rush for the lifeboats as the ship went down:
"[MacKenzie] insisted he took 23 years to apologise as he didn't have the 'vaguest idea' that 'the whole thing was a parcel of rubbish' until the Hillsborough Independent inquiry report found there was no evidence to support the allegations."
Should we believe him? I do. I also believe that the moon is made of cheese & that Rupert Murdoch is a kindly old soul who sincerely believes in The Truth.
Recommended reading: Cath Bore's account of the "Speaking Truth To Power" event at St George's Hall just over a week ago: http://www.writingonthewall.org.uk/wow-news/125-hillsborough.html ).
With exquisite timing, the Leveson Report was issued just a couple of hours after the latest court appearances by Rebekah Brooks & Andy Coulson. Intriguing as it is to pore over the minutiae of the report as well as its main findings, Emily Bell displays clever counterintuition in a Guardian piece (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/leveson-irrelevant-21st-century-journalism ).
Formerly of the Guardian & Observer, Bell, who is now based in the US, observes:
"The free press of the 21st century consists of the distributed social platforms, the WordPress blogging software and the 'dark social' matter of the hidden web, as much as it is the venerable institutions that have local accountability to whatever regulator the UK government should seek to appoint.
"In her evidence to Leveson, Claire Enders -- a well-respected media analyst -- repeated what is probably a common perception, that important journalism needs to be done by existing institutions, as the web has produced nothing which would match the scale and projection of legacy organisations. From a distant perch in the US, where Pulitzer prizes now go to recent web entities such as Huffington Post and ProPublica, this assertion already seems out of date."
For all of today's (justified) broadcast coverage of Leveson, the trend identified by Bell is the one to track for the future.
Carol Gustafson may convince herself that her continued vow of odious omerta regarding her support for Bettison's appointment as Merseyside Police Chief Constable in 1998 will ensure that the issue goes away. It won't. Her arrogant refusal to account for her actions has already cast a stain on Bootle Labour Party.
Bettison's tainted character has been rightly scrutinised & exposed over the Hillsborough cover-up. However, the Yorkshire Evening Post today runs a story which raises further questions about the man's history (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/former-west-yorkshire-chief-constable-bettison-at-centre-of-stolen-platinum-claims-1-5177890 ).
