text:
wall of controversy
Tag Archives: European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
this is the EU – so take it or leave it… #1. a leftist case for Brexit
The question of Brexit contains many interrelated issues that are both complex and far-reaching. I have therefore decided to present a sequence of shorter articles tackling specific topics. This one is a general plea to wavering leftists…
Four weeks today on June 23rd, Britain goes to the polls to decide on whether our collective future lies inside or outside the European Union. Whatever the outcome, our decision will very likely reshape the political landscape, not only inside Britain but also beyond our borders, for decades to come.
I have been trying to construct a short article outlining my own position favouring Brexit for many weeks now. But shortly after I begin, the doubts set in. Not doubts about leaving the EU, but doubts about how best to broach a frank and honest leftist argument in its favour?
At the heart of this difficulty is the nature of the debate itself. A debate – and I use the term loosely – that is necessarily being held at breakneck pace due to Cameron's call for such a snap referendum and one wholly dominated by the most loudmouthed opinions of his Conservative Party…
In the blue corner "call me Dave" Cameron and in the other blue corner "The Boris" Johnson. Two of Bullingdon's finest slugging it out for king, country and globalisation. It's a spat that is about as phoney as any WWE wrestling bout and (for me at least) an even bigger turn-off.
So let's be clear, neither Cameron, well-remembered for reneging on his "cast iron" Lisbon Treaty referendum pledge back in 2006 1, nor Johnson, who always hedges his bets on Europe, are fighting for what they believe in. They are not men of actual conviction, but political opportunists, and I am very far from alone in believing that Johnson's lead role in the 'Leave' campaign was always part of a "choreographed game" stage-managed by Downing Street 2 (so desperate to maintain a modicum of cohesion within the warring Tory party ranks but also determined to win the vote).
Yet rather than forcing our politicians to face up to a fuller debate, the media mostly lends its considerable powers to keeping it shut down. Deflecting public attention away from the important issues and persuading us instead to fixate on the latest posturing of each side's leading personalities as well as the nonsense they are endlessly spouting. And since there are deeply divisive and unpleasant characters talking rubbish on both sides, I strongly advise the undecided to ignore all the grimacing and the cacophony of half-truths, outright lies and utterly risible innuendo – al-Baghdadi cares not one jot about your vote and neither does Vladimir Putin!
Which brings me to the next difficulty faced by all left-leaning proponents of Brexit, and this involves recognising and surmounting a peculiar, since unfamiliar, sense of shame. The shame one feels at letting the side down. That we are apparently cheering on the nationalist cause when we ought instead, by rights, to adhere to a more internationalist stance. We even hear the ugly accusation raised against advocates of Brexit that, presumably by virtue of sharing this single opinion with holders of entirely obnoxious political outlooks, we may likewise be adopting an inherently a racist position. Which is another desperate slur intended to suck the air out of any serious debate over the essential and quite legitimate questions about independence and sovereignty.
That said, there is also a genuine concern that needs addressing, although in order to grapple with it sincerely we must first issue a full admission of guilt. So here it is: the left has been duped. It became hooked on a pipedream after mistaking the European project for an antidote to Thatcherism. Having been, for many years, a staunch advocate of "Europe" (the project not the geographical region), regrettably I was one of the many who were duped.
For whereas true internationalism – the internationalism of the old left – is predicated on an political ideal of extending democratic freedom throughout all nations of the world, the EU was deliberately constructed to function as a constraint against those democracies. And it is baloney to claim (as many do) that the EU "pools" our sovereignties, when in truth it erodes them down to nothing. This is the raison d'être of globalism as opposed to internationalism.
"The leftwing case for Brexit is strategic and clear," writes Paul Mason in a Guardian opinion piece published Monday 16th, adding:
The EU is not – and cannot become – a democracy. Instead, it provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organised crime.
Mason, the former Economics Editor for BBC's Newsnight and Channel 4 news, who more recently resigned to become an independent voice, continues:
Its central bank is committed, by treaty, to favour deflation and stagnation over growth. State aid to stricken industries is prohibited. The austerity we deride in Britain as a political choice is, in fact, written into the EU treaty as a non-negotiable obligation. So are the economic principles of the Thatcher era. A Corbyn-led Labour government would have to implement its manifesto in defiance of EU law. 3
I have strongly criticised Paul Mason for fence-sitting on related issues in an earlier article, but here, in three tightly constructed paragraphs, he makes the most succinct and, as he says, "principled leftwing case for Brexit" I have yet to read. And yet, and yet… Mason then swivels on a sixpence to reverse his position, saying:
Now here's the practical reason to ignore it. In two words: Boris Johnson.
Overall Mason's article is an impressive one and I very much encourage everyone to read it in full. Like Mason, I too am deeply concerned that a person as slippery as Boris Johnson might soon hold the reins of power in Westminster, but then Johnson has been lined up for succession long before Cameron felt so electorally cornered by UKIP that he bought victory in the General Election at the cost of this unwanted (from his position) EU referendum.
As a self-confessed pro-Brexit leftist, Mason's broader concern is that leaving the EU now may inadvertently supply ammunition to our enemies. This is a valid point and one that Mason rightly raises, however, I find little reason to dwell on it. Do we cut off our nose to spite our face? Or, more specifically, to dent the prospects of a clownish would-be Tory leader, who seems in any case to be Teflon-coated – and frankly is Johnson actually any more dangerous than Cameron and their other Bullingdon buddy Osborne – a leadership rival – who together head 'Remain'?.
Interestingly, when Mason concludes his piece saying "the political conditions for a left Brexit are absent today", he has already somewhat undermined that position in the preceding paragraph:
The EU's economic failure is fuelling racism and the ultra right. Boris Johnson's comparison of the EU with the Third Reich was facile. The more accurate comparison is with the Weimar Republic: a flawed democracy whose failures fuelled the rise of fascism. And this swing to the far right prompts the more basic dilemma: do I even want to be part of the same electorate as millions of closet Nazis in mainland Europe?
It is as if he cannot keep a lid on his own frustration – anti-EU passions that he had even greater difficulty holding in check during last week's [Thurs 21st] appearance on BBC Question Time:
Click here to read Paul Mason's full article
The trouble is that the left have been caught on the hop. As the EU dropped its liberal veil, a great many of its supporters hesitated and keep a respectful silence. This failure to react opened the way for right-wing forces to gain much of the ground the liberal left once occupied. Two years ago, back in May 2014, I posted an article entitled "the rise of UKIP calls for new strategies from the left". Unfortunately, such new strategies are still to be properly delineated by the mainstream left, which makes the need more urgent than ever before
It is unlikely that we will have another opportunity to vote on our EU membership in the foreseeable future (and given that the EU appears bent upon its own destruction perhaps we may never get one) and so rather than leaving it to the paleoconservatives and ultra-right to campaign for Brexit, isn't the better strategy to refrain from playing politics, and stand firm for what we actually believe? If we find ourselves disenfranchised and alienated by the Eurocrats in Brussels then we should speak up and boost the left campaign for Brexit (as Corbyn almost certainly would too, if he hadn't been muzzled by the PLP 4). If enough of us do, we will steal the thunder of our enemy.
Traditionally, the left in Britain – the democratic socialists and not the social democrat usurpers of "The Third Way" – have consistently and solidly opposed the EU's monolithic and anti-democratic institutions and their bureaucratic takeover of our society. So what has changed?
Additional: a background on Brexit
When the UK first joined 'Europe' in January 1973, the decision had been a purely executive one; the agreement signed behind our backs by the Conservative government of Edward Heath. But then the European Economic Community or EEC (as the organisation was originally known) was merely a burgeoning association of trading nations, and usually known more simply as the "Common Market". So this was not a change affecting our rights or our constitution, certainly not to begin with, but apparently little more than an expanded free trade zone – and after all, the UK were already founder members of the European Free Trade Association or EFTA, along with Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. The United Kingdom along with Denmark only ceased to be EFTA members when both then joined the EEC in 1973.
In these early days of EEC membership, the British public was just as divided on the issue as they are today, and, for the most part, this division in opinion fell along the traditional political fault-line of left against right. Back in the 1970s, however, it was socialists and trades unionists who, concerned by the top-down rule of bureaucrats in Brussels, were the most outspoken opponents. It was then much harder to find opposition within the rank and file of either Conservatives or Liberals (the Liberals being the only party to remain consistently "pro-European").
A few years on, and with the 1975 referendum, the British electorate were at last given the chance to formally express their support or otherwise for the European project. Not to vote on whether or not to join, of course, since by then it was already a done deal, but on whether or not the UK should leave. So a loaded question obviously, and one further biased due to emphasis on the purportedly grave economic risks of an exit. Thus, with the deck fully stacked in favour of EEC membership, the nation went out to vote, and hardly surprisingly chose to stay put. 67% voting in favour, out of a 65% turnout.
But then something strange happened. Gradually, and throughout the following decade, the political poles were shifted around. The left becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of forming greater ties with our European partners, whilst the conservative right have grown ever more concerned and disaffected. The reason for these shifts actually aren't hard to understand at all.
Thatcher loathed Europe, although what she really despised was the worker rights and other guarantees of social justice being snuck in through Europe's backdoor. As a consequence, her almost rabid hostility towards European federalism (federalism being the big new F-word of the 1980s) being almost sufficient in itself to bring many on the left on board when it came to recognising the virtues of the fledgling union. Surely if this was the only route to achieving social justice then it was better to have more of it. Yet even so, a few on the left held on to their previous mistrust of Brussels. Tony Benn offers perhaps the best example, having remained unflinching in his objection to Europe's inherent lack of democratic process. And here it is worth remembering that the "No" campaign of the '75 referendum had been backed not only by Benn by other significant members on the left wing of the Labour Party, including cabinet ministers Michael Foot, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle.
More recently, the EU (which was formally established to replace the EEC after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and again without any national referendum in Britain) has revealed how the organisation's fundamentally neo-liberal credentials never went away. Barely disguising its own shameful part in the agonies of "austerity" now being foisted on Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, with these measures insisted upon by "the Troika" of which two of its three parts are the EU itself. These actions serve to highlight what many progressives have failed to understand (and for many years, myself included), which is that the EU was never intended as a socialist project at all, or even an inherently 'liberal' one. Rather, and primarily, it has been a vehicle for concentrating power to the advantage of an already powerful financial and corporate elite. Which is why some on the left have remained just as strongly opposed to the EU as many on the right.
The following is NOT taken from UKIP's manifesto:
Membership of the European Community/Union has contributed substantially to the unprecedented decline of industries in Britain, mass long-term unemployment and inability to trade on the world market. Besides huge contributions to the EU budget we have to purchase high priced food, thanks to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Because of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) we no longer have control over the fishing grounds around Britain with consequent loss of most of the fishing industry and fish stocks and pollution of the sea. Membership of the EU has entailed a switch away from taxing income and profit to consumption through the imposition of VAT. The burden of these costs and taxation is mainly carried by ordinary people especially those with low incomes or the unemployed.
The Treaty on European Union, Euro-federalism and EU Constitution will guarantee further decline as a result of which Britain will become an offshore area of a supranational state. The aim of European Union to be consolidated through the EU Constitution is to have its own military forces and be ruled in secret by unelected governors of an unaccountable European Central Bank, an appointed Commission and committees such as the European Council. These bodies consist of a majority of representatives of member states not answerable to our Government, Parliament or electorate and would be taking decisions which may not be in the interests of Britain.
Rather, it is taken from the "Statement of Aims" of a lesser know left-wing organisation called the Campaign Against Euro-federalism or CAEF. A statement that continues as follows:
Corporatism and fascism are also menaces which emanate from the drive to a European Union. Racism has been encouraged by the Schengen agreement which is now part of EU law with parallel legislation on immigration and asylum in Britain.
Yes, not everyone who opposes the EU is automatically against international cooperation. Nor is everyone who opposes the open border Schengen Agreement a rabid nationalist.
In any case, internationalism, as CAEF correctly point out, is quite different to European federalism. Internationalism involves the strengthening ties between sovereign nations, rather than the more aggressive dissolving away of borders between them. And European federalism further undermines the independence of the people of those nations (its member states) by passing executive powers that were held by democratically elected governments into the technocratic hands of an appointed commission. The EU – as it exists, rather than how we might like it to be – is better understood, not as a grand project for furthering international cooperation, but as one of the vital organs of a fully globalised world.
CAEF write:
Internationalism means the right to self determination and national democracy for all nations and nation states of the world which includes close relations with our friends in EU states and co-operating with peoples in all countries of the world.
And hear, hear to that!
The passage above is reprinted from an article posted in May 2014 entitled "the rise of UKIP calls for new strategies from the left"
In an article for the Sun on 26 September 2007, Cameron wrote: "Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum." […]
Barry Legg, co-chair of the Eurosceptic Bruges Group, said: "David Cameron needs to come clean with the British people: why is he breaking his pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?"Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, told Sky News: "It looks as if that cast-iron guarantee has become very rusty indeed. I don't think he's being entirely honest with the British people."
From an article entitled "David Cameron to shed 'cast iron' pledge on Lisbon Treaty" written by Nicholas Watt and Patrick Wintour, published in the Guardian on November 3, 2009. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/03/david-cameron-lisbon-treaty-referendum
Many of Mr Johnson's closest allies are shocked that he made the decision to campaign for out.
One close political ally as recently as Wednesday said he believed speculation over Mr Johnson backing "Leave" was a "choreographed game" managed by Downing Street.
Although a committed Eurosceptic since working as Brussels correspondent for this newspaper in his twenties, Mr Johnson has always been known among friends as a Europhile and internationalist.
From an article entitled "How Boris Johnson came down on the side of a Brexit" written by Peter Dominiczak, published in The Telegraph on February 21, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12167603/How-Boris-Johnson-came-down-on-the-side-of-a-Brexit.html
3 From an article entitled "The leftwing case for Brexit (one day)" written by Paul Mason, published in the Guardian on May 16, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/16/brexit-eu-referendum-boris-johnson-greece-tory
During the Labour leadership campaign, Corbn said he was ready to join an 'Out' campaign if David Cameron trades away workers' rights, environmental protection and fails to crack down on Brussels-backed tax havens.
Late on Sunday evening Corbyn began assembling his shadow cabinet. The key position of shadow chancellor has been handed to his close ally John McDonnell. Benn was reappointed to the shadow foreign secretary job.
Several senior figures who served under Ed Miliband have either refused to join the team or have not been offered positions. In his resignation letter, Umunna said he would find it "difficult to abide by the collective responsibility that comes with serving in the shadow cabinet".
He said: "That is why Jeremy and I have agreed I can more effectively support his leadership from the backbenches. In particular, it is my view that we should support the UK remaining a member of the EU, notwithstanding the outcome of any renegotiation by the Prime Minister, and I cannot envisage any circumstances where I would be campaigning alongside those who would argue for us to leave – Jeremy has made it clear to me that he does not wholeheartedly share this view."
Emma Reynolds, who served Miliband as shadow Europe minister and shadow housing minister, also quit the frontbench citing concern about Corbyn's position on the EU.
From an article entitled "Jeremy Corbyn Will Campaign To Stay In The EU, Insists Hilary Benn", written by Ned Simons, published in The Huffington Post UK on September 14, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/14/jeremy-corbyn-will-campaign-to-stay-in-the-eu-insists-hilary-benn_n_8132078.html
Filed under analysis & opinion, Britain
Tagged as Boris Johnson, Brexit, Campaign Against Euro-federalism (CAEF), David Cameron, EU referendum, European Free Trade Association (EFTA), European Union, Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Mason
the rise of UKIP calls for new strategies from the left
Behold the rise of Ukip: an Alan Partridge thought experiment that has broken out of the lab and infected millions. Yes, millions. I've just read that Ukip have utterly triumphed in the local elections, and are now in full control of the government, the police, the NHS and the armed forces. Nigel Farage is scheduled to be coronated at Westminster Abbey tomorrow afternoon live on BBC1, complete with Dimbleby commentary and Red Arrow fly-past.
So begins Charlie Brooker's razor-sharp lancing of the hype surrounding UKIP's unexpected gains in last year's local elections, published May 5th 2013 in the Guardian's "Comment is Free". And for all those dismayed to see the spectre of small-minded xenophobic conservatism making its stealthy return, I thoroughly recommend reading the whole piece, not only because it will very likely put a smile back on your face (if only briefly), but also because beneath the comic veneer Brooker brilliantly exposes a deeper malaise. That, as Brooker puts it (and it would be a shame to try to paraphrase and loose the vim of his original):
There's something fundamentally unconvincing, not to mention nauseating, about the wet-eyed brand of pleading and apologetic earnestness repeatedly adopted by Miliband and Clegg. It's as though, having accurately detected a general level of public revulsion with politics, they have decided the best tactic to worm their way back into our affections is to repeatedly say sorry for existing while tugging at our sleeves. Brr. Horrible. In the words of Ferris Bueller: "You can't respect somebody who kisses your ass. It just doesn't work."
Already seen by most people as incompetent and ineffectual, our would-be leaders have presumably been advised (since, after all, they can't tie their own shoelaces without advisers to guide them) to present themselves as pathetic and joyless to boot, and so, as Brooker further notes, nothing like as attractive as those more loveable chumps Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, who are in the habit of bumbling around like a couple of jaunty Mr Toads:
By contrast, Farage, like Johnson, appears to be genuinely enjoying himself most of the time, like a delighted Aquaphibian guffawing in a bumper car. And this enjoyment instantly endears him to a huge section of the population on a level that transcends – or at least sidesteps – politics. Many people who hate Nigel Farage the reactionary throwback find themselves liking Nigel Farage the chortling oaf. Being a chortling oaf not only makes you critically bulletproof – oafish chortling being a perpetual escape pod – it functions as a kind of cloaking device, somehow obscuring the notion that you're a politician at all.
All of which is totally bang on the nail in our postmodern, and, superficially, post-ideological age. A time in history when ideology, by which I mean "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy"1 has not literally been abolished – since this is impossible – but monopolised. Captured to such an extent that holding any semblance of an alternative that is antithetical to the neo-liberal hegemony is assiduously avoided by all career politicians. "There is no alternative" being pretty much all that any of them have to say to us, and the only differences being tone. Would you prefer to have the pain soothed away, or would you like us to hit the pain hard where it hurts and get on with your lives! It's all a matter of PR, and in these days when politicians are justly reviled – as loathed and distrusted as double-glazing salesmen once were – then as Brooker goes on to say, "the best way to succeed as a politician is to pretend that you aren't one."2
On the one hand then, UKIP's success might be judged as just the latest indication of a growing popular disaffection with the established Con-Dem-Lab triumvirate. A protest vote that was additionally amplified thanks to an exceptionally low turnout, which BBC news reported as being down 10% from the previous local elections in 2009, but equally because a great deal of the polling took place in Conservative heartlands. In other words, here was a protest vote against all the parties although most especially the government. A shot across the bows from the traditional Conservative base.
So why did the results in May appear to be such a big surprise? After all, as George Galloway memorably remarked following his own more stunning victory in the previous year's Bradford West by-election, our mainstream parties represent little more than "three cheeks of the same arse". The local election results were merely illustrating, therefore, how Galloway's analysis chimes not only with voters sold-out by New Labour, but across the entire political spectrum – Middle England beginning to feel almost as disaffected and disenfranchised as the Old Labour north has felt for decades.
And sharing in this common resentment, neither group is mistaken, for we have all been abandoned to a small crony capitalist elite: the corporations and the less than one-percent who own them. Both working classes and middle classes alike being wrung out and hung up to dry. Of course, the squeeze is tightest at the bottom, and unquestionably so, but this is usual. The poor and the destitute always hit earliest and hardest whenever depression comes to the door; those at the bottom unlucky enough to be our canaries in the pit. And we have three parties prepared to let those at the bottom perish – the Tories doing what comes naturally, and the others sheepishly still towing the neo-liberal line. Our race to the bottom is, however, a trickle up process.
The surprise, if any, is how UKIP have convinced enough of the public that they represent any kind of alternative at all, let alone one worth voting for. And it is interesting perhaps that UKIP are more and more frequently compared to the "Tea Party" in America. A comparison that is, in many ways, a good one. The "Tea Party" having been promptly and effectively co-opted by the Koch Brothers, and thereby steered back into line behind the rest of the reactionaries in the Republican Party. Its supporters slowly ditching their more serious and justifiable grievances and fighting on only to protect the constitutional right to bear arms, whilst simultaneously leading the call for extreme measures as advocated by the discredited Austrian School economists and mad proto-fascist patron saint, Ayn Rand. The "Tea Party" suddenly leading the call for "austerity" like a bunch of turkeys demanding to have Christmas every day.
At the beginning, however, (and you need to rewind many years) the "Tea Party" were offering a more serious alternative: the emphasis of the movement initially placed not on ultra-extreme free market economics, but on the reestablishment of constitutional rights undone by the Bush administration, of bringing the troops home from the wars, and of fundamentally challenging the Federal Reserve system. To my memory, UKIP has never argued for anything half so significant or genuinely progressive. In fact, it has never remotely challenged the status quo other than in its stated demands for a fast-track out of Europe.
Indeed, scratch the surface, and leaving aside for a moment their stance on Europe and European (specifically Eastern European) immigration, there is barely a pimple's worth of difference between the Tories and their lesser rump UKIP. Just take a peek at UKIP's hastily cobbled together manifesto (something I imagine few bothered to do, including the millions who eventually voted for them) and judge for yourself.
What you'll find is that UKIP are certainly extreme, but this extreme is mostly a matter of degree rather than programmatic difference. More eager to slash state spending than the Conservatives – aside, that is, from military expenditure which UKIP somehow proposes to increase by 40% in order to buy three new aircraft carriers and to arm four new submarines with US nuclear missiles. And keener on "austerity", with welfare cuts and more privatisation, especially of the NHS, ensuring an altogether speedier strangulation of the public sector. Finally, and presumably for good measure, UKIP say they intend to be tougher on the sentencing of offenders with boot camps and more prison places. Of course, there is no specific targetting of the white collar criminals still loose inside the City of London (as if there might be!) and no indication whatsoever of any effective measures for resolving the deepening financial crisis. They are, to extend Galloway's metaphor, the fourth and most grotesque cheek of that same arse.
Understandably, there are many who now fear a knee-jerk reaction and a consequent lurch to the right, with both the Tories and New Labour expected to fall into line when it comes to tightening restrictions on immigration more generally and to "reviewing arrangements" for already residing immigrant populations. The justification routinely trotted out, that such actions are needed to keep in check the potential rise of the far right, and so this mainstream shuffle to the right just the necessary compensation.
One person who spent many years studying the European extreme right is Daniel Trilling, journalist and author of "Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right". In an interview with Greek Independent Press he explained how his own research and analysis brought him to a subtly though substantially different conclusion:
But [Ukip's] real effect lies in pushing the whole of mainstream political discourse to the right. We saw this with the BNP, where government ministers would make increasingly reactionary statements about immigration the more success the BNP had. And it's happening now with Ukip – all three main party leaders (Cameron, Miliband, Clegg) have recently made speeches where they promise even tougher restrictions on the rights of migrants than Britain already has. But it's a vicious circle: far from neutralising public concerns over immigration, this merely antagonises them.
[Interviewer:] Do you have fears that the far-right ideology will become even more well-established in Europe?
I do, but the point is this ideology does not come from the far right itself. What far right parties do is parasitical on mainstream ideology. They exploit the resentments, and the racism, and the political disillusion that circulates among the rest of society. And they do not need to be in power to have an effect: what far-right parties can do is provoke our liberal elites into taking ever-more authoritarian positions. That's the situation we find in many countries, from Britain, which detains more refugees than any other country but Australia, to Greece, where the Samaras government is pursuing a crackdown on leftists and on independent media and telling people "you have to trust in us otherwise extremists will come to power". We should oppose fascists, but we should also fight against the pressure to let technocrats take control of our lives.
In the same interview, Trilling also outlined why he believes UKIP should not be muddled together with other far-right groups:
Ukip employ a similar discourse to the BNP, but their underlying ideas are different. They're not fascists, but a break-away section of the centre-right Conservative Party who think Britain should leave the EU and are exploiting anti-immigration sentiment to achieve this goal.
Ukip's appeal comes from posing as an alternative to the current, "corrupt" political elite. Many people vote for them to send a message to the mainstream – that they're not happy – but would never realistically expect Ukip to be a party of government.3
Click here to read the full interview.
In any case, UKIP has always and only ever really been a one-trick pony – the rest of their manifesto stuffed together simply to plug up the holes. And so I feel that Charlie Brooker is particularly astute in drawing his comparison directly between Farage and Johnson, since above and beyond their similarly oafish exteriors, the similarities extend, as with the parties they represent, and hugely outweigh any differences – differences being more to do with timescales, if anything, than actual agendas – UKIP ready to lead us into a more authoritarian and socially unjust future, and in half the time of the Tories.
All that said, in a twisted kind of way I must confess that a part of me was rather pleased to see the mainstream parties all take a hit in the council elections, and obviously the Conservatives especially so. It reminded me of the election of Rosie Barnes in the famous Greenwich by-election of February 1987, except in a better way. That Greenwich by-election being a signal moment when the short-lived breakaway SDP made their first genuinely impressive gain, and thereby inflicted such a terrible injury to the Labour Party they'd grown out of. A gaping wound and sustained internal bleeding from which it has never properly recovered. Maybe these latest election results will be similarly remembered: as the moment the Tories suffered an equivalent blow. The opening up of a similarly festering wound, and one that has been ripe for a very long time.
After all, the Conservative party and its base support have been deeply riven for more than twenty years, with the almost but never quite fractured halves mostly bickering over questions relating to Europe. Irreconcilable divorce between the europhiles and the eurosceptics having been on the cards ever since Thatcher was ousted, and the biggest surprise being how such a clearly disjointed party have managed to sustain apparent cohesion for so long. A more acrimonious schism perpetually waiting in the wings, but never the sufficient push to cause the ultimate break up. But now, and all of a sudden, it seems as if just such a blow might finally have been landed, and especially so since Old Tory stalwart (emphasis on whichever syllable you prefer) Lord Lawson added his own considerable weight to further exacerbating the internal discord:
His intervention is sure to further embolden eurosceptic MPs demanding a tougher line to halt the rise of Nigel Farage's rampant anti-EU Ukip in the wake of last week's local elections.
Farage has said Lord Lawson's comments "legitimises the Ukip position and exposes serious divisions in the Tory Party".4
Click here to read the full article published by the Huffington Post.
So hopefully then, the Conservative Party is about to rupture once and for all. Meanwhile, and if it turns out that UKIP's minor success also more broadly helps to reinvigorate the old debate over our membership of the European Union, then this too, I very much believe, is greatly to the good. The pity being that it has taken a party as odious as UKIP to raise the profile of what is indeed an important issue, and, most unfortunately, by flying the divisive banner of anti-immigration above their own brand of euroscepticism, UKIP's position very much detracting from and altogether hampering what needs to be a more serious and rounded debate.
In saying this, I appreciate that some readers will recoil almost as a reflex from my own euroscepticism, but then I am happy to jump out of my allotted box as a liberal leftie (or should I say democratic socialist? – both labels having been equally sullied). In any case, I recognise that it is nowadays a fashionably held opinion that those who are "anti-European" (which incidentally I am not) must all be alike, think alike and even look alike. That any objection to the grand designs of the European Union should be left to little Englanders and modern-day Colonel Blimps. But actually such stereotyping is wrong and not only for the usual reasons that stereotyping goes wrong. Such pigeonholing on this occasion happening to rather conveniently shut out much of the opposition that would otherwise come from the disgruntled left.
Since when it comes to deeper consideration of the EU and of our membership within it, the debate should more properly focus on the capture of the political system itself. A transfer of power away from independence and democratic governance and into the hands of unelected technocrats. This is actually the nub of the European issue, rising high above and far beyond any smokescreen about immigrant numbers coming from Bulgaria. Indeed, the loss of democratic national sovereignty is obviously affecting residents all across the EU member states, including those only recently liberated from the former Eastern Bloc. So if we are ever to seriously challenge the rot at the heart of the EU there needs to be greater solidarity between its peoples rather than renewed infighting.
I think that it is helpful at this juncture to retrace the history of Britain's entry and EU membership so far. Not only to reveal how perceptions of 'Europe' have been significantly altered over the decades, but also to illustrate more clearly, and to back up what I merely claimed above, that many aspects of permissible political alignment come down to little more than slavishly riding on the popular bandwagon of whatever happens to be the trend of the day. Those on both sides of the political spectrum being guilty of this, since, after all, most people are highly susceptible to manipulation of this kind. But losing our way to such political peer pressure is surely one of the biggest reasons we happen to find ourselves in an increasingly terrible mess.
Thatcher loathed Europe, although what she really despised was the worker rights and other guarantees of social justice being snuck in through Europe's backdoor. As a consequence, her almost rabid hostility towards European federalism (federalism being the big new F-word of the 1980s) being almost sufficient in itself to bring many on the left on board when it came to recognising the virtues of the fledgling union. Surely if this was the only route to achieving social justice then it was better to have more of it. Yet even so, a few on the left held on to their previous mistrust of Brussels. Tony Benn, offers perhaps the best example, having remained unflinching in his objection to Europe's inherent lack of democratic process. And here it is worth remembering that the "No" campaign of the '75 referendum had been backed not only by Benn by other significant members on the left wing of the Labour Party, including cabinet ministers Michael Foot, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle.
More recently, the EU (which was formally established to replace the EEC after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and again without any national referendum in Britain) has revealed how the organisation's fundamentally neo-liberal credentials never went away. Barely disguising its own shameful part in the agonies of "austerity" now being foisted on Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, with these measures insisted upon by "the Troika" of which two of its three parts are the EU itself. These actions serving to highlight what many progressives had failed to understand (and for many years, myself included), which is that the EU was never intended as a socialist project at all, or even an inherently 'liberal' one. Rather, and primarily, it has been a vehicle for concentrating power to the advantage of an already powerful financial and corporate elite. Which is why some on the left have remained just as strongly opposed to the EU as many on the right.
Yes, not everyone who opposes the EU is automatically against international cooperation. Nor is everyone who opposes the open border Schengen Agreement a rabid nationalist.5
In any case, internationalism, as CAEF correctly point out, is quite different to European federalism. Internationalism involves the strengthening ties between sovereign nations, rather than the more aggressive dissolving away of borders between them. And European federalism further undermines the independence of the people of those nations (its member states) by passing executive powers that were held by democratically elected governments into the technocratic hands of an appointed commission.6 The EU – as it exists, rather than how we might like it to be – better understood, not as a grand project for furthering international cooperation, but as one of the vital organs of a fully globalised world.
Final thoughts on Clegg v. Farage:
I actually wrote the above article just over a year ago, but then decided to hold it back. However, with the forthcoming Euro Elections and in the aftermath of the well hyped Clegg v. Farage tallest dwarf competition, now seemed an opportune time to post it.
When Nick Clegg originally challenged Nigel Farage to debate on our membership of the European Union, he was basically on a hiding to nothing. Whereas Farage clearly relished the invitation to steal a little of the media limelight again, as Clegg crossed the stage to his podium, the diminishment of his own political standing was instant. But worse was to follow. In this latest and seemingly most desperate attempt to reverse his party's fortunes, Clegg's performance has instead accelerated their transformation back into political minnows.
In truth, the downfall of Nick Clegg began long ago with his failings as a politician and party leader becoming quickly apparent once he conceded to the (unduly) prompt signing of the Coalition pact. After all, prior to the election, the Lib-Dems had been gaining considerable ground on both of the major parties, and largely by virtue of winning over disaffected voters who had been traditional Labour supporters (such as myself). However, by immediately committing his party to its role as silent partners in a de facto Tory government, we all felt betrayed.
During the lead up to that last General Election, support for the Lib-Dems was also bolstered thanks in part to the lasting legacy of their former leader Charles Kennedy who had maintained a principled stance on the Iraq War. On top of which, the Lib Dems were gaining popularity with many voters because of their perceived honesty when it came to "tackling the financial crisis" – or perhaps more accurately, Vince Cable was then trusted as someone more economically literate than any of our other foremost politicians. Back then, Cable was a rare exception – a politician the public actually warmed to.
But Clegg, with the assistance of weak and disingenuous Vince Cable himself, has since managed to lose all of that hard-won goodwill by completely selling out. On health "reforms", on welfare "reforms", on privatisation schemes, and on their support for drastic cuts to our few remaining public services, all made worse again after the party's complete acquiescence when it came to voting in support of air strikes against Syria… and sorry, but did I mention university tuition fees? For any who may have forgotten, here is Nick Clegg's most heart-rending and sincere apology to us (in the form of a musical remix obviously!):
Prior to taking office, the Lib-Dems had also been synonymous with one electoral issue above all others – their call for significant changes to the democratic process as such, with future elections made fairer under a Proportional Representation (PR) system; a proposed change that was obviously very much in their own self-interest of course. Had Nick Clegg, by more carefully brokering the Coalition deal, succeeded in negotiating and then winning a referendum on PR, rather than losing the chance forever after a quickly forgotten poll on some unheard of compromise called AV (Alternative Vote), his own party might still be sitting closer to the political high table. So here he sold out even those most loyal to his party.
The reputation of the Lib-Dems is now damaged almost beyond repair. They have become the scrawny bully's mate who hangs around and simpers to their overbearing and obnoxious mate. They are not merely unpopular, but deeply distrusted, and most especially by those whose support they captured over the years, switching allegiance out of frustration, and then finally getting a nasty taste of what they inadvertently voted in.
So in response to their continuing decline in recent polls, the party's bigwigs evidently felt that they needed a serious makeover – a new focus of some kind and a distinguishing policy that could mark them out as being different from their big Tory buddies. Advocacy of the European Union was that the singular issue, if only because it was one policy area where political differences between the Coalition partners remained intact. Clutching at straws, the party has therefore decided to concentrate on EU membership and move to promote this as their electoral issue of greatest importance, which given the general level of apathy surrounding British attitudes to the EU was a strange decision under the best of circumstances. And how deeply Clegg and his beleaguered party must be regretting their strategy move right now.
In any case, Nigel Farage won the recent debates comfortably, but this had less to do with Farage himself arguing the anti-EU corner effectively, and was mostly down to Clegg's failure to show up. Rather than pointing to the wonderful benefits of EU membership (and no doubt there are some benefits, although the positives are, in my opinion, far outweighed by the negatives), he instead warned us repeatedly in the debates that "we can't turn the clock back", that "an exit would cost jobs", and moreover, that Britain (or whatever remains of it after the Scottish referendum) might lose much of its political clout. Tired, old rhetoric that plays solely to people's anxieties.
But then, of course, if the EU was half as good for us as Nick Clegg believes, after more than forty years of membership shouldn't the debate be settled by now. So Clegg's own position is most untenable because of his determined preference not to allow a long overdue national referendum and thus his refusal to allow any real contest over Britain's membership of the European Union. If he actually believed he could win in such a genuine debate – one that puts more on the line than his already dismal ratings in the opinion polls – surely he would jump at the opportunity… as would Ed Miliband.
1 Definition taken from online Oxford Dictionary. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ideology
2 From an article entitled "Nigel Farage – or how to succeed in politics without really trying: Many people who hate Nigel Farage the reactionary throwback find themselves liking Nigel Farage the chortling oaf – they can almost forget he is a politician at all" written by Charlie Brooker and published by the Guardian on May 5, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/05/nigel-farage-succeed-politics-charlie-brooker
3 From an article entitled "Bloody nasty people: British journalist Daniel Trilling explains the Golden Dawn conundrum in the context of the European far right" published by Eleftherotypia's Epsilon magazine on May 7, 2013. http://www.enetenglish.gr/?i=news.en.politics&id=831
4 From an article entitled "Lord Lawson Slams Nick Clegg's European Union 'Poppycock'" published by the Huffington Post UK on May 7, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/07/lord-lawson-european-union-nick-clegg_n_3229023.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
5 Not that Britain is as yet signed up to the Schengen Agreement. And it is worth noting that France and Germany, countries that did join the Schengen Area, unlike the UK, did not then give full access to migrants from the ten countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) after they entered the EU in May 2004. Indeed, only the UK, Ireland and Sweden immediately opened their doors to Eastern European workers.
6 The European Commission, which is the EU's executive body, is comprised of an appointed cabinet of 28 "commissioners" with administration provided by a further 23,000 civil servants.
Tagged as Boris Johnson, Campaign Against Euro-federalism (CAEF), Charles Kennedy, Charlie Brooker, Daniel Trilling, European Free Trade Association (EFTA), European Union, George Galloway, Maastricht Treaty, Margaret Thatcher, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Nigel Lawson, Rosie Barnes, Schengen agreement, SDP, Tony Benn, UKIP
in light of new evidence provided to the UN Security Council by OPCW whistleblowers, Vanessa Beeley speaks to the 'brazen disinformation' and media blackout over the Douma chemical weapons hoax
the united colours of Bilderberg — a late review of Montreux 2019: #2 (un)stable strategic order
ahead of the Berlin Libya Conference, Moussa Ibrahim of the Green Resistance explains the rules to the West's centuries-long neo-colonial game
no war with Iran: protests taking place across the country
was the Douma gas attack staged…? little by little the truth is coming out — UPDATED
Craig Murray on why the assassination of Soleimani was "act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple"
Avaaz: manufacturing consent for wars since 2011
the internet purge has begun in earnest — the last days of American Everyman
America's favourite terrorist dies peacefully in Miami — more on the life and crimes of Luis Posada Carriles
Russian hacking is a silly smokescreen, so what's behind it...?
of course we're evil — how Google is killing the internet by stealth
Seymour Hersh conclusively debunks "Trump's Red Line" – the gas attack was no such thing
John Pilger on the mythologising of Obama's presidency (before and after)
astroturfing for regime change: frontline in the (newest) war on the antiwar movement
apartheid Israel — Abby Martin on the ground inside the West Bank
archives Select Month January 2020 December 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 September 2014 August 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011
al-Qaeda & DAESH / ISIS / ISIL
austerity measures
debt cancellation
financial derivatives
fracking (shale & coal seam gas)
Charlie Skelton
Seymour Hersh
Korea (North and South)
« finishing the rat race »
"the Troika" 38 Degrees Alexis Tsipras Amnesty International anti-Semitism anti-Zionism Barack Obama Bashar al-Assad BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Bilderberg Boris Johnson Brexit chemical weapons Chris Hedges Chris Williamson CIA Council on Foreign Relations Cuadrilla David Cameron Donald Trump European Union Eva Bartlett Facebook fake news Fascism FBI Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Fukushima Gaddafi Gaza Strip Gen. David Petraeus George Bush George Galloway George Monbiot George Soros Ghouta Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs Guantánamo Guardian Henry Kissinger Hillary Clinton IMF and World Bank Islamic State (aka DAESH; IS; ISIS & ISIL) Jabhat al-Nusra Jeremy Corbyn Jonathan Cook Labour Party Liam Fox los indignados Margaret Thatcher MI6 Mike Pompeo National Security Agency (NSA) NATO Nazism NDAA 2012 NHS Nick Clegg Norman Finkelstein Occupy movement Patrick Cockburn Stop the War Coalition Syriza The White Helmets Tony Blair trade unions United Nations Vanessa Beeley Wikileaks William Binney Yanis Varoufakis Zbigniew Brzezinski Zionism
Follow wall of controversy on WordPress.com
A published version of my travelogue "Arusha to Zanzibar" is now available in paperback.
Click the link below if you'd like a copy of the book, which I'm selling on a non-profit basis at cost price.
wall of controversy · the other side of the story


The Austrian Science Fund (FWF) approved my project proposal entitled "3D Solution of the Boltzmann Equation on Supercomputers". This project will fund my scientific work for three more years, with prospective start in mid 2017. Here is a brief summary of what this project is about.
Since the FWF encourages researchers to Open Science, especially since the money is ultimately provided by tax payers, I publish the relevant project proposal here. The initial project proposal was submitted in March 2015. Despite fairly good reviews, the committee did not approve the project. In October 2015, I submitted a revised project proposal (overview of changes), which the committee approved based on the positive reviews received in May 2016.
The project agenda is centered around the numerical solution of the semi-classical Boltzmann transport equation for semiconductors, which describes the motion of electrons and holes. In contrast to conventional approaches such as the drift-diffusion model, a solution of the Boltzmann transport equation not only provides information about the density of electrons or holes at a particular location in the device, but also their distribution with respect to momentum. This allows for more accurate simulations of semiconductor devices, ultimately increasing reliability and performance. Typical application areas include the automotive sector, where power devices are essential for starting your car engine.
Because the distribution of electrons and holes with respect to momentum is computed at each point in the semiconductor device, the computations require a lot of computational resources. For a fully three-dimensional device simulation (e.g. a FinFET) with 100 grid points for each of the three spatial coordinates, one has to compute the distribution with respect to momentum for each of the 1 million grid points. If one approximates the three-dimensional momentum space with the same 1 million grid points as the spatial domain, one would need several thousand Terabytes of memory to run one simulation. With the spherical harmonics expansion approach, we can bring these requirements down to about a Terabyte only, which is available on supercomputers today. However, in order to use such supercomputers, parallel algorithms need to be developed to use the computational resources efficiently. Such algorithms have not been developed or studied for the spherical harmonics expansion method yet. This research project will fill this gap. At the end of the project, we expect to run the most accurate simulations conducted so far on hundreds of nodes of a supercomputer such as the Vienna Scientific Cluster, making use of modern parallel hardware such as Intel's Xeon Phi line or graphics processing units. The results will be available to the general public not only in the form of research papers, but also in the free open source simulator ViennaSHE. Contributions will also flow back to ViennaCL and PETSc, on which the future developments in ViennaSHE will be based.
This blog post is for calendar week 13 of my weekly blogging series for 2016.
This entry was posted in Device Simulation, GPGPU/MIC Computing, Scientific Computing, Software Development on May 26, 2016 by Karl Rupp.


text:
By Amira Solomon Opinions October 3, 2018
Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford: a black and white issue?
Photo Courtesy of Elle
This week, the country was gripped for the second time in three decades by allegations of sexual misconduct by a nominee for the highest court in the land. In 1991, the attention centered on Anita Hill, a 35-year-old black woman who had been an attorney-advisor and assistant to Judge Clarence Thomas. Hill's accusations of sexual harassment provoked the reopening of Thomas's confirmation hearings as well as a testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans decried Hill as an operative intent on destroying Thomas's chances to join the Supreme Court; Thomas himself called it a "high-tech lynching." Despite the charges made against him, Thomas was appointed in the Senate by a vote of 52-48.
Twenty-seven years later, we are in a mirror-image situation. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a 51-year-old white psychologist, testified on Sept. 27 about the sexual assault she faced at the hands of Judge Brett Kavanaugh when they were both in high school. But there are some key differences between Hill and Ford — differences that could alter the outcome for Kavanaugh. For one, Ford may be benefitting from the era of #MeToo, where sexual assault survivors are not silenced. Second, Dr. Ford is white. Hill is black. The distinction shouldn't matter, but in a political climate that is chronically fraught with racial tension, it may prove decisive.
The #MeToo movement, which began in 2017, sparked an outpouring of stories and support from survivors and raised awareness globally about sexual harassment in the workplace. Many more people, particularly women, were compelled to speak out, knowing their experiences wouldn't be disregarded as slander. Dismissal was exactly the problem that Hill faced in 1991. Thomas had seemed credible and upstanding in his earlier confirmation hearings, and so many members of the Senate dismissed Hill's claims immediately. For example, Senator Arlen Specter, a member of the Judiciary Committee, asked her, "How reliable is your testimony in October 1991 on events that occurred eight, ten years ago?" Senator Alan Simpson questioned why she hadn't come forward earlier. Ultimately, doubts about the integrity of Hill's testimony protected Thomas's nomination.
In the wake of #MeToo, we might expect to see a difference in how Dr. Ford is treated. To some extent, there has been. Dr. Ford has still faced suspicion, particularly from Republicans. Some dismiss it as a case of mistaken identity, while others think she is a pawn of the Democrats intent on squashing a nomination right before a decisive midterm election. However, there are politicians on both sides of the aisle who seem more perceptive. For example, Democratic Senator Cory Booker said to Dr. Ford, "You are speaking truth that this country needs to understand — how we deal with survivors who come forward right now is unacceptable." The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who are all male, chose to cede their questioning time to Rachel Mitchell, a female prosecutor specializing in sex crimes. Their decision may have been for optics more than anything else—it wouldn't look great for eleven men to be interrogating a woman about her sexual assault, especially with looming midterm elections and female voters expected to turn out in large numbers. However, Mitchell's recruitment shows a certain sensitivity to changes in the national attitude about sexual assault survivors. It suggests that #MeToo can be effective in making politicians respond and self-reflect, a luxury that Anita Hill didn't have.
The #MeToo movement has also placed Hill's testimony in a new light. Resulting from the parallels between her and Dr. Ford, many people have come out in support, lamenting the fact that her claims were dismissed in the past. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during Thomas's confirmation hearings and has been criticized for being too lenient with Thomas when investigating Hill's allegations, said of Hill in 2017, "I owe her an apology." Hindsight, especially in the context of #MeToo, has turned the tides of public opinion. The recent rise in empathy towards Hill may have also made it easier for Dr. Ford to testify; she knows she is not heading into uncharted territory with her accusation.
#MeToo may not be the only reason why Dr. Ford's claim has gained more traction than Hill's did; racial dynamics may also have come into play. Black women have historically felt more pressure to remain quiet in the face of a sexual assault, according to Nicole Buchanan, a psychology professor at Michigan State University. In a 2018 article in The Nation, Buchanan said victims begin to think "this is going to reinforce these stereotypes about my brother, my dad, my lover and I don't want to do that so maybe I should just stay silent." For this reason, Hill's accusations may have seemed unusual or unprovoked, since there was little precedent for a black woman speaking out against a black man. On the other hand, when a white woman makes an allegation against a white man, she does not have to worry as much about perpetuating negative stereotypes, so she might feel more freedom to speak out.
Dr. Ford may also be benefitting from an elitism bias. She is a professor and a Stanford researcher, and she attended a private college-prep high school in Maryland. Hill, on the other hand, is the youngest of thirteen children in a family of farmers from Oklahoma. Her grandfather was born into slavery. Although she is highly educated herself — she attended Yale Law School — her allegations stem from her time as Thomas's "assistant," a job title with a negative connotation. In a culture that values women like Dr. Ford (white, middle-aged, and from a rich family) over women like Hill (black, young, and from a poor family), it is possible that the public's tendency to believe Dr. Ford and not Hill is linked with surface-level perceptions of how believable these women are.
#MeToo and racial dynamics may have bolstered the perceived legitimacy of Dr. Ford's claims compared to Hill's, but there is no guarantee that the outcome of the nominations will be different. Senate Republicans are intent on pushing Kavanaugh through before the midterm elections in fear that they will lose seats, and many have expressed reluctance to withhold the nomination because of a "he said, she said" situation. There is still a possibility, of course, that Dr. Ford's version of events isn't the whole story. One thing is clear, though: Dr. Ford's and Hill's accusations are not black and white issues. There are too many dynamics at play.
Previous articleStudents and administration are responsible for Wellesley's social life
Next articleShocking TellTale Games closure speaks to larger industry issues

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


WO: Who is Margaret Kalo?
MK: I am a Namibian female with a passion for Public Relations, Marketing and Sociology. I am a former journalist and Public Relations Officer (PRO) with more than 12 years of experience and have an eye for detail.
During my free time, I do interview coaching for new graduates to boost their confidence in preparation for job interviews. I love good food and enjoy travelling. I am a wife and a mother of two.
WO: How did you end up in marketing?
MK: My curiosity in media and communications started already in primary school. Being a village girl, I used to imitate nbc anchors, who used to read the news. I knew exactly that communication would be my career path.
I then studied Public Relations at the University of Namibia (UNAM) and worked as a journalist and producer for One Africa Television before I joined the Public Relations domain.
WO: What are some of the growing trends in the marketing industry?
MK: I would say mobile and social media marketing are currently on top of the agenda. In today's age, most of the people around the globe are using growing opportunities to market their products and services through online and social media channels, such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
WO: Do you think all Public Relations or Marketing graduates should be registered as specialists like any other fields such as Health Officers?
MK: Definitely yes, and in fact there is PRISA Namibia. However, PRISA Namibia is very South Africa centered. Therefore, Namibia should establish its own independent body for professionals, so that current and upcoming Public Relations, Marketing and Corporate Communication Officers can actually benefit from the money they spend for registration and affiliation.
WO: What does it take to be a Public Relations specialist?
MK: Public relations specialists must have exceptional writing, speaking and interpersonal skills.
They need to be forthcoming, accommodating and persuasive at the same time. Excellent problem solving, organisational, and time management skills are also imperative. PROs also need to be prepared to work overtime if the need arises. You should be self-confident and it does not harm to be courageous.
What is required from you as a PRO is to create and maintain a favourable public image for your organisation. You are responsible for your organisation's PR and media strategy; you will write tons of media releases, plan and execute campaigns and outreach programs, and raise funds for your organisation.
You also help top executives in drafting speeches, arranging interviews, and maintaining other forms of public and media liaison.
Public relations specialists are responsible for favourable communication with the public, including consumers, investors and reporters.
At all times, PROs have to keep the public informed about their organisation's activities. In many instances in Namibia, PROs also handle internal communications, such as staff newsletters, and they may even assist financial managers to produce the organisation's Annual Report.
WO: What is the state of the marketing field in Namibia?
MK: Namibia has not yet mastered the integrated marketing tools such as social media marketing. I say this because one will find organisations that do not have existing social media platforms or tools.
Although at this point in time, businesses are becoming aware of the importance of marketing, the marketing environment is still at a developmental stage.
However, this may also be due to the generally small economy of the country and the current economic crunch in particular.
WO: Do you think marketing practitioners or PROs get the recognition they deserve?
MK: I would say no. There's a lot of work that goes behind the scenes when putting together marketing or PR activities, however, at the end of the day it's only the end result that is seen. Secondly, marketing budgets in Namibia are very limited, which is an indication that marketing and PR practitioners including their departments, do not receive the recognition they deserve.
In other countries, this is definitely different. There is still a prevailing and clearly wrong belief among Namibian organisations and institutions that PR is not really very important.
WO: Have you ever had to handle a social media crisis? What did you do?
MK: No, fortunately I have not yet encountered this problem.
WO: What is the most challenging aspect of your job?
MK: Difficult clients as well as slow flow of information. Sometimes you need to meet a deadline, but the information you require to complete the task at hand is not yet available to you.
WO: Do you see media practitioners as partners or threat?
MK: The media are our eyes and ears, and I respect them very much. They are our partners who keep the public informed at all times. PROs and media practitioners need each other. However, we also know of each other's different roles.
Media practitioners know that PROs use creative storytelling in order to gain public exposure and achieve their organisation's goals, while PROs know that media practitioners may confront you with inconvenient questions in order to get a complete or even breaking story.
PROs and journalists use the same abilities and tools, only slightly differently. At the end, however, we are two sides of the same coin called information and need to respect each other.
WO: Do you have a specific strategy to handle the media?
MK: Yes, first and foremost by continually keeping in touch with them, sending them solicited content and praising their achievement as individuals or as a collective team. Alienating media is not in any organisation's interest.
Disagreements or grievances have to be addressed openly and resolved proactively. Trust and mutual respect are key to any PROs success in dealing with media.
WO: How do you handle pressure?
MK: First and foremost, time management is key in times of high stress/pressure. I love to keep my to-do lists in a way that I can tick off what's done and keep track of my schedules.
As much as I may be under pressure, I would like to think that having an understanding that some things can't be completed in a day, allows me to strike a balance between healthy and unhealthy pressure. You have to learn to prioritise. It's OK to not do everything at once, but that doesn't mean you should stop pushing yourself to do the best in what you do, at all times.
I train my mind to remain positive and see the good in every situation. Not only does this helps relieve stress and from feeling unfulfilled, but it also gives me the confidence I need to perform my duties.
WO: What is your favorite sport and team?
MK: My favourite sport is football ... watching it on TV, of course. Even though Namibia did not qualify for this year's World Cup, the Brave Warriors remain the team of my choice; they deserve a big push and support. Peter Shalulile, Sadney Urikhob, Petrus Shitembi and Chris Katjiukua unseat me whenever I watch them play.