BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Big Tony to tackle 'menace' children

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
00:22 / 01.09.06
OK, I admit, I'm a little confused and alarmed by Tony Blair's latest attempt to distract us from bigger more important things like Iraq or economic disparity internationally or at home. Indeed, I think this could be a smokescreen for a lot more important and scary stuff.

To explain, the following is from a related BBC News article, called "Blair to tackle 'menace' children" - (and as I type this, you can also currently go to the "BBC News home page" and view their TV and Audio story as well, to hear Blair talking):

"Tomorrow's potential troublemakers can be identified even before they are born, Tony Blair has suggested.

Mr Blair said it was possible to spot the families whose circumstances made it likely their children would grow up to be a "menace to society".

He said teenage mums and problem families could be forced to take help to head off difficulties.

He said the government had to intervene much earlier to prevent problems developing when children were older.

There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he said ... "
[my bold]

Now, I admit, my own warped idios kosmos tells me to be very worried about our western Big Brother culture and it's seemingly rampant growth at the expense of our civil liberties. I'm talking CCTV, ASBO's, the "War on Terror", ID Cards, DNA profiling, etc.

So, from my perspective, if I consider Blair's vision of a "Nanny State" taking shape as policy, I can't help thinking of a 'Cathy Come Home' mixed with Kafka's 'The Trial', 'Brazil'', and (of course) 'Nineteen Eighty Four'.

However, there's a couple of things that I also can't help thinking when I see Tony saying all this.

1) Big Tony is on his way out, he knows it, and he wants New Labour (Brown) to lose the next election to prove that Labour only ever won because of Big Tony - I have no evidence for this, of course, but I seem to remember that before the Tories got kicked out, they went all moral preachy and "Nanny State", and it backfired on them when the many scandals broke out. Tony seems to have studied Margaret Thatcher's career very closely and learnt from her and what happened after she left and John Major took over. Know what I mean?

2) Whatever happened to that drunken, teenage, yob, Euan Blair?... Oh yeah, Euan Blair got into Yale on a scholarship, didn't he? After apparently working as a runner on 'V for Vendetta' and then going over to the US to do an internship for a couple of Republicans... Hmmm... I reckon we should keep an eye on that this young man, eh? I see warning signs...

So, what do you think? Worrying? Is such psychological profiling at a very young age even legitimate? (Ganesh, help?) Or is this just the latest load of alarming, hot and stale air escaping from an old Blair bag? (Tony, not me; I never loved Tony)

And don't we already have the Social Services (however good or bad) for this type of thing? What is Tony blagging on about now?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
01:45 / 01.09.06
Okay. I'm not a mental health professional, but I'm prepared to say that Mr Tony has actually gone pants-on-head insane now.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
01:51 / 01.09.06
Big time.

Stoat, did you watch the clip on the BBC website? It's freekin freeky, if you ask me. I'm trying to get a transript, but not having much luck at the mo'.

Seriously, everyone, watch it (if you haven't already). By the end of it, I was shivering.
 
 
nighthawk
09:25 / 01.09.06
I'm not sure this is such a suprise? It seems to be the logical extension of other New Labour policies, e.g. ASBOs, incarcerating the parents of truants, etc. It takes the same form anyway, ignoring the causes of social deprivation and demonising disenfranchised individuals.

I mean does anyone think that working class parents would have to be 'forced' to accept help if it came in the form of better housing and schools, increased child benefit, less working hours? Of course not. But what's actually being offered is 'advice'! To quote a poster from another board:

I wonder what form the advice will take?

"I advise you to get a secure well paid job, move into a nice big house where everyone has their own bedroom, in a nice leafy green area with plenty of room to play outdoors and a wealth of extra-curricular leisure opportunities, make sure the father has a good enough job to support the mother and the kid so she can stay at home (make sure he's not working nights, mind, that's bad for families), get the kids into a high-achieving school, pay for them to attend every fucking club/team/brownies session they want to (make sure you drive them there and back), spend 3 hours every night doing homework with them, and feed them nourishing organic meals home cooked from scratch three times a day."
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:54 / 01.09.06
Isn't this Communism, as practiced in the USSR in the last century, the state telling everyone how to live their life?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
09:57 / 01.09.06
It's another completely meaningless labour idea - it gets on the front page today, middle england claps it's hands, the rest of us wonder how defective our government is, and then it gets forgotten and nothing happens. Blair's just playing to his audience - I mean, actually dealing with child poverty would obviously be a much better way to deal with crime, but that looks bad to the daily mail reading labour supporters - spending money is bad, talking shite is cheap and therefore good!
 
 
nighthawk
10:17 / 01.09.06
Is it meaningless though? Similar policies are already in place, there's no prima facie reason why something along these lines should not follow.
 
 
Ganesh
10:40 / 01.09.06
Okay. I'm not a mental health professional, but I'm prepared to say that Mr Tony has actually gone pants-on-head insane now.

He certainly appears to have developed predictive ski11z well beyond the capacity of us mere psychological tools with our psychological tools...
 
 
All Acting Regiment
14:37 / 01.09.06
Agree with everyone so far. Wasn't he saying, about three weeks ago, that we should dismantle the nanny state and it shouldn't tell us what food to eat/other health issues?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
14:46 / 01.09.06
nighthawk, I don't think anyone's surprised by Big Bliar's latest brain-fart. Indeed, the only thing that surprises me is that he's said all this now and in the way he said it -- I despise the man, but I thought he was mores astute than this, which makes me wonder whether his true intention is to bring New Labour down with him, as well as pave the way for a Big Nanny State to become even more acceptable.

However, when you say...

Is it meaningless though? Similar policies are already in place, there's no prima facie reason why something along these lines should not follow.

...I find this very interesting, scary, and I'm inclined to agree. For though I'm not a legal expert, I can't help feeling that every day in the UK we are getting ever closer to a social and political climate which is becoming easier and easier to describe as a Police State. Indeed, although in the UK we enjoy certain freedoms compared to more brutal totalitarian states, I'd argue our that our civil liberties are being eroded and exploited, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes easy to implement a regime such as those which many of us are more personally acquainted with through fiction.

That typed, to implement such a Police State relies heavily on convincing the prols that it is for our own good, especially the prols who work for the police, armed forces, civil service, etc. For this to work, a climate of fear, powerlessness, and common acceptance of the validity of "thought crime" is needed... In my humble opinion, it won't be long until we'll all be told what clothes are safe to wear and any sign of political descent will be met with fear and censure . Whatever you do, don't take any bonbons onto a plane; the potential for misinterpretation could ruin your holiday.

Indeed, unfortunately, we're not far off from Police State and some would argue it's already here. For if I were to say that I'd like to kick ten kinds of shit out of Tony Blair, stick him on an aeroplane and fly it into Camp David, the likelihood is I could be arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. I might even get shot by accident in the process.

Oh...Excuse me, there's someone banging on my door...
 
 
Alex's Grandma
16:23 / 01.09.06
Tony does seem to have jumped the shark with this one, it's true.

To what extent though, is Tony simply trying to shit in the kettle, as it were, before it's Gordon's turn to make the tea?
 
 
nighthawk
16:26 / 01.09.06
nighthawk, I don't think anyone's surprised by Big Bliar's latest brain-fart. Indeed, the only thing that surprises me is that he's said all this now and in the way he said it -- I despise the man, but I thought he was mores astute than this, which makes me wonder whether his true intention is to bring New Labour down with him, as well as pave the way for a Big Nanny State to become even more acceptable.

Perhaps 'surprised' wasn't the right word, but I think its a mistake to try to explain initiatives like this purely by reference to Tony Blair and his personal ambition/pathology/etc, rather than seeing them as an extension of currents that have been present in New Labour policy for quite some time. Obviously the way he revealed it in the interview was intended to grab headlines etc but, formally at least, there's really nothing new here.

In a sense I think Mathlete is bang on when ze says that it gets on the front page today, middle england claps it's hands, the rest of us wonder how defective our government is, and then it gets forgotten and nothing happens.

Although this sort of policy has been part of New Labour's social project for quite some time, it doesn't directly affect the more affluent and vocal sections of the population, so after some initial outrage it will probably be implemented and largely forgotten. Barring some major change in the political climate, I can't see Britain becoming a police state in any totalitarian sense, and I don't think middle england will really react against this kind of policy until it affects them directly - perhaps if they have to shell out for I.D. cards.

But there's a lot to learn here for people on the left, particularly about new labour's social democratic project and the ways the party is dealing with those who have been left out. And for certain sections of the population, these policies are far from 'meaningless' or a smokescreen - they are very real.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
16:58 / 01.09.06
Also, if Tony's so keen on identifying 'problem families,' what about that (*unsubstantiated rumour that it's not OK to talk about, not even on the interweb*) to do with one of his offspring, and their views on life?

He doesn't like his children being dragged into the media spotlight, but it's apparently all right if, as a parent, you live on a council estate, and are therefore, QED, scum.

If it's 'tough being a parent' for him, how's anyone who's routinely on the receiving end of Tony and Gordon's 'family policies' ie, 'the poor' expected to feel? Aside from 'very angry'?

I don't say this lightly - contempt seems the default position when it comes to Tony and his thoughts, but with this initiative, he is really spoiling us. He is beneath it, now.

And I'm just wasting my breath.

Tony will go on to score twenty grand a go on the US college lecture tour circuit, he'll never have to worry about a thing again, and all the damage he's inflicted on UK society will trouble him ... not at all.

But what a fool, eh readers? What an absolute cockhorse. What a disaster he's been, now the end's approaching ... I really do wish there is a heaven, and a hell, as Tony firmly believes, if only because of the thought of the look on his face when his options are laid out in front of him, by Saint Pete.

'WANKERS!' he'll say.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:52 / 01.09.06
Well, if you're referring to the rumours that his daughter has allegedly tried to overdose on painkillers then this might be giving him the impetus to do something, in a 'may no-one else go through what our family has' thing.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
19:45 / 01.09.06
Well, yes. It's difficult to legislate for this kind of thing, though - according the tone of the latest bill, the Blair's parent skills seem compromised, in the sense that you can chalk up your kind having an ASBO to youthful high spirits, in a way that it's much harder to do if your teenage child, who has every advantage in life, etc, is so unnerved by hir options that a suicide attempt seems the best way forward.

As with commanding troops, 'choice' in the public services and so on, never mind 'family values,' Tony Blair, our PM, simply doesn't seem to have any idea what he's doing. At all.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:34 / 01.09.06
Isn't this Communism, as practiced in the USSR in the last century, the state telling everyone how to live their life?

I think it's actually closer to Nazism, controlling children from the mother's womb onwards, attempting to eliminate problems. This sounds rather reminiscent of family policy in Germany at that time Mr Blair told BBC News his government had made "massive progress" in tackling social exclusion but there was a group of people with multiple problems... There had to be intervention "pre-birth even", he said.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
00:10 / 02.09.06
You're right, nighthawk; Mandelson, Blair, Brown, Campbell, and many others have been responsible for New Labour and its approach to society and social welfare. None of it is really new news, of course. But I can't help concentrate on Big Tony because it was his latest twattle that raised my ire and so therefore made me start this thread.

Big Tony has also clearly been instrumental in New Labour's direction and relative success. For example, as far as I'm aware he is responsible for the symbolic, but nevertheless significant rewriting of Clause IV, and as the main figurehead and leader of the New Labour movement and government, he has arguably been the main driving force or backer of many of its policies. Of course, (e.g) Brown is no angel, but to me he appears to have been the numbers man in the operation, the grumbling background technician who balances all the books, and who's really waiting for his term to get hold of the microphone and stand in the limelight. I don't trust him, either.

Your point about the middle classes is also a good one. No doubt the news will move on to a new issue and in time many people of all demographics will forget all about Tony's latest sermon. But class is not the only significant factor when looking at civil liberties and social reform, and, if things keep going the way they seem to be going, the (e.g) white, Christian, middle class will probably find they'll soon be affected in other ways anyway, not just financially.

This supposed climate of "terror" and "anti-social behaviour" has enabled various potentially dodgy pieces of legislation to trickle through relatively easily, and has made those who implement it (e.g. the police) even more stressed, jumpy and paranoid. e.g. wiki entries on Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

Of course, at the moment, "terrorism" and "anti-social behaviour" are seemingly more easily applied to specific sections of our community; and yes, the threat faced from their own government and fellow citizens is more imminent and serious than that which many of the majority have to face. However, it is important to remember that such policies and legislation are usually universal: in the right conditions, eventually everyone can be affected, whatever their age, gender, race, sexuality, class, religion, etc; and whether they try to live with it, ignore it, or not.

Intolerance, fear, and bigotry are a very real threat from all quarters and I think we're all feeling it in varying degrees through the distorted lens of the media. And before we know it, we'll be giving away even more our civil liberties because many of us think we are going to be safer and better off for doing it. i.e. "ID cards with DNA profiles only really affect XXXXXX, they're the ones who everyone's really watching out for. This won't affect me. And besides, if you're not doing anything wrong what have you got to hide, eh?"

But in a surveillance culture fuelled and guided by the seemingly new, telepathic Tony Blair, multinational corporations, and the media, many if not all of us could easily be deemed "suspect" in some way or another, including Tony's own middle class, Christian, white children (as Alex's Great Aunt, Nadezhda Krupskaya, and Our Lady have also already suggested).

So yes, I agree that this is nothing new, it's more than just a smokescreen; behind it all lies some very scary shit for all of our present and future. However, I also believe that there are major changes occurring in political climate, there have been for while, and I can see Britain potentially becoming a police state similar to the stark totalitarian sense. The legislation seems to be neatly falling into place anyway.
 
 
nighthawk
09:04 / 02.09.06
Yes, all good points. I'm perhaps being a little reductive here, mainly because I'm suspicious of 'personality' politics. Anyway, just to expand a little.

I'd question the usefulness of invoking spectres like Nazism/'Communism' here as well. These were historically specific movements and, so far as I know, didn't come about as an after-effect of unpleasant legislation. If someone can come up with a good explanation of how, given current socio-economic conditions, it would be in the government's interest to instigate a totalitarian police state, then I'm all ears. Personally I can't see this happening unless the people around whom power is currently centred feel more directly threatened, which won't happen unless there's a massive change in the political climate. Perhaps I'm being very naive here though. I agree that this current raft of legislation lays a foundation which could end up supporting something monstrous, but I think there are much more pressing reasons for critiquing and opposing it.

This is also why I think the language of 'civil liberties' is a little too abstract here. It seems to brush over the fact that a great deal of this legislation is targeted at very specific sections of the population (in fact the very sections that new labour's social democratic/reformist project was supposed to help). You might be right when you say that it could end up affecting a broader range of people, but right now there is a pattern of introducing legislation that directly affects the disenfranchised/working class, and it constantly adopts the same basic form (forced 'help' backed up by potential punishments).

People on the left need to try to understand this movement in labour policy, which seems to be abandoning social democracy and moving closer to centre right strategies (see also PFIs etc.) And perhaps I'm wrong here, but I don;t think pathologising Tony Blair or drawing very loose analogies with mid-C20th states helps us to do this.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:11 / 02.09.06
I brought it up only because of ID Cards and bringing together information on people in one place, ASBOs that can specifically ban people from certain geographical locations or behaviours are the two that spring immediately to mind, now Blair is talking about managing people, the choicechoicechoice of the pre 11/09/01 days have given way to taking away freedom in order to save freedom. Of course, he loves faith schools which doesn't really go smoothly with communism and I don't agree that it can be classified as fascism, but I don't think it can be classified as Conservatism can it?
 
 
nighthawk
10:55 / 02.09.06
now Blair is talking about managing people, the choicechoicechoice of the pre 11/09/01 days have given way to taking away freedom in order to save freedom.

I'm not sure that's true. The logic behind bringing the private sector into health and education is precisely that of 'choicechoicechoice'. This is part of the rhetoric that is used to back up school reform, and the reason why e.g. patients will now be offered a choice of hospital for some operations.

And I'm wondering if, rather than seeing the legislation we're discussing here as some break in previous policy (post-911, post-sane Blair, etc.), we ought to see it as its flipside, as intimately tied up with the rest of New Labour policy over the past decade.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:23 / 02.09.06
They're currently discussing this on Any Questions on Radio 4- which means Any Answers should have some quality unhinged rantings. Although Peter Hitchens is on too, so there'll probably be some of that already.
 
 
nighthawk
11:56 / 02.09.06
[threadrot]

Who is Peter Hitchens? Judging by this programme he's a complete fool. 'Why are we only allowed to complain about fat people and smokers, not the lesbians who want IVF.'?!

[/threadrot]
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:02 / 02.09.06
(apologies for threadrot) Peter Hitchens is, to use the technical term, a wanker. He's the brother of Christopher Hitchens, which is where it gets complicated. Peter used to be the more right-wing of the two, now there's not much in it. Not because Peter's moved to the left at all, but because the formerly-Marxist Christopher has, since the WTC attacks, shifted alarmingly to the right.

I'm quite surprised that he didn't bring in his support of the death penalty into the discussion- I don't think I've ever heard him talk on any subject without crowbarring it in at some point. I imagine, for example, were he to review Snakes On A Plane, he'd probably say something along the lines of how if the criminal involved had been executed when he was a kid and no doubt involved in anti-social behaviour, there'd be no problem. (apologies for threadrot)
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:26 / 02.09.06
nighthawk, I'm not sure if "choicechoicechoice" (a myth) is really being offered by the private sector's involvement in the public sector; it all seems more profit orientated to me and costly to our national coffers (at the very least). A bit like Prescott's friendship with Philip Anschutz. Capitalism only offers choice in the marketplace e.g. "Pepsi or Coke?". When applied to education, the NHS, and other public sectors this does not mean guarantee comprehensive health care which is "free at the point of delivery".

Also, when it comes to age, gender, race, class, religion, etc in respect of "terror" and "anti-social behaviour": let's not forget what happened to peace activist Mr Walter Wolfgang at the Labour party conference only last year, when he was arrested for heckling under the Terrorism Act. Although, it appears Mr Wolfgang has since been taken a place on Labour's National Executive Committee, so there's hope for Labour yet...maybe...

As for the reason why a government such as Tony's might want to implement a Police State, there's a very simple one "control". As the divide between (e.g) religious and political faiths increases, some such politicians might even think they're doing it for the safety of Britain. After all, a Police State doesn't have to look all rations and grey clothes. A gun can be painted with Technicolor but it's still a gun, no matter who it's pointed at.

I also think Our Lady has a point about the parallels with Communist USSR. However, I'm more inclined to look at British politics today as something similar to McCarthyism. I wonder if I've been "blacklisted" yet? Who is the enemy, eh?
 
 
nighthawk
12:37 / 02.09.06
I'll try to come back and post properly later, but just quicky.

nighthawk, I'm not sure if "choicechoicechoice" (a myth) is really being offered by the private sector's involvement in the public sector;

No neither am I, but it is being touted as a benefit. I don't see how this is any different from the earlier 'choicechoicechoice' rhetoric Our Lady identified.

Could you outline what you mean by a police state? I presume you mean something like Stalnist Russia/Nazi Germany/Maoist China? To what extent do you think similar conditions could be enforced in Britain, with its free market economy etc? And do you think this government has enough power to instigate them? I just want to understand what exactly you think is possible here.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:48 / 02.09.06
Well, I'm not going to define Police State, as I think it's pretty self-defined really.

All this reminds me of the common mistake of interpreting "Nineteen Eighty Four" as being solely about the USSR, when as an analogy it reaches far wider and is actually about totalitarian politics, the likes of which we are beginning to suffer from today. For as I suggested, a Police State doesn't have to look quite the way other totalitarian societies have done / already do. Northern Ireland, for example, was very much a Police State for many.

Indeed, I think the McCarthyism analogy is a good one, in this respect. After all, many people in the US at the time would have described their country as a Police State, and many people alive in Britain today could argue likewise.

"Wait a cockamainy minute! Sharia Law? Islamic Banking? Sounds like these guys are evil commies..."
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:16 / 02.09.06
These were historically specific movements and, so far as I know, didn't come about as an after-effect of unpleasant legislation

Actually it rather depends how you look at it but I think it's perfectly correct to label a policy that parallels facist or communist policy of the 1930s as a fascist or communist policy. I know people think it always has to be an emotive thing but actually in this thread it isn't, this is recognisable as the type of thing that led to Nazi eugenics (though I'm not saying it will, just that the basis of those policies was the same).
 
 
nighthawk
13:33 / 02.09.06
Well I asked for an outline rather than a definition, but nevermind.

I don't mean to be antagonistic here. Its just that I come across this sort of argument a lot in liberal circles and I'm never convinced by it. 'This legislation attacks civil liberties; its a step towards a police state; so we ought to oppose it.'

It just seems so incredibly abstract and vague, groping around for the best classification of government policy (is it fascist? is it communist?) and all the while failing to put the differnt pieces of legislation in context. I suppose we've now moved beyond the 'anti-social behaviour' stuff, which is what I'm most concerned about. This legislation is not directed against the middle classes and its not really an affront on everyone's civil liberties. It targets the disenfranchised and working class.

Social democrats used to follow a reformist strategy, hoping to bring about some sort of redistribution of wealth and general improvement in the living conditions of the working class. This latest policy announcement seems to be a perversion of that. Amusing as it may be, Blair's not suggesting he can peer into a newborn babies head and predict their future behaviour. He's saying that a child born to a single mother living in poor working class accomodation is much more likely to end up disenfranchised and fucked up than a kid from a stable middle class background. Only instead of using this language, he's now saying that these kids are more likely to end up as anti-social thugs, and need to be stopped. And that the way to do this is by giving advice to parents, perhaps even mandatory 'parenting' lessons, backed up with the threat of punishment.

Its almost as though the social democratic project has done all it can, and everyone still left out needs to be legislated against rather than supported.

The reason I'm a bit hostile to tying all this to broader ideas about civil liberties and police states is that I think it hijacks and covers up what is essentially a class-based issue with broader liberal concerns. My problem with this legislation isn't that it threatens my civil liberties, although that might be asecondary concern. Its the 'advice+punishment' attitude adopted in place of more reconisably reformist policies. I mean I'm not even that enthused about social democracy in the first place, but reformist strategies are popular among liberals, and as well as critiquing this legislation I also want to know how people understand this movement in New Labour policy.

I'm typing this in a rush, so apologies if its all a bit slapdash. Am I making any sense though? My ideas here are far from well-formed.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
14:11 / 02.09.06
nighthawk, for the record, I don't think you're being antagonistic, and that isn't my intent either.

It just seems so incredibly abstract and vague, groping around for the best classification of government policy (is it fascist? is it communist?) and all the while failing to put the different pieces of legislation in context.

I think the better term is totalitarian, it seems to help avoid all the particular colours and patterns associated with different partisan binary politics. I also think the examples I've linked to (e.g. Mr Walter Wolfgang) offer context to show how such policies can be easily abused and used to affect people one might not normally consider at threat from them.

This legislation is not directed against the middle classes and its not really an affront on everyone's civil liberties. It targets the disenfranchised and working class.

nighthawk, this policy would be universal; it would be written as all other polices are written, as vaguely as possible, without specific reference to particular demographics such as class, religion, income. This new psychic social welfare policy may be applied more to working class, single parents on smack, but it could easily be applied to a mixed race, Protestant, middle class, single parent of three, who's lost hir partner to cancer and who now cannot afford the private health care bills, someone who is fiercely anti-vivisection and produces a pamphlet in hir free time, and is therefore loosely connected to more extreme wings of the animal rights protest movement. Ze might get depressed and start having a glass of wine or two at night, or start on a course of anti-depressants, but lose their own job anyway and have to lean on state benefits....

I know, this is an extreme example, but in time, how long is it before this person (and others) becomes "unfit" in the eyes of Big Bliar and the policy makers?

The thing is all these policies and Acts of Parliament add up and together they'll bind us all to a way of living none of us really want. This is a far wider issue than just class, etc. All these polices are linking together in the background, forming a net that will get harder and harder to escape from, whoever you are.

Indeed, let's hope there's not a big war brewing somewhere on the horizon, eh? In wartime, all kinds of fucked up shit happens and people get away with it because of the "greater good". Oh, hang on a minute...
 
 
nighthawk
14:43 / 02.09.06
Actually it rather depends how you look at it but I think it's perfectly correct to label a policy that parallels facist or communist policy of the 1930s as a fascist or communist policy.

By that logic, any pro-environmental legislation that paralleled 1930s Nazi policy would be facist? Surley more context is needed, otherwise the description becomes a bit irrelevant.

paranoidwriter, I agree with alost everything you've said, but its a question of emphasis. Yes, laws has been used against individuals like Walter Wolfgang, although, as you rightly point out, cases like this tend to be more isolated at the moment; and its very interesting to study how a lot of anti-social behaviour legislation has been shaped by the activities of animal rights campaigners. And of course, you're right when you say these laws apply to everyone.

But again I think this obfuscates the issue a little. Although its true that law is in theory universal, this doesn;t really seem true in terms of concrete effects. Sure I'm worried about how these laws might be 'abused' against individuals like Mr. Wolfgang, but I'm first and foremost worried about the laws themselves, their effect on the working class, and what they reflect in New Labour policy. The potential for 'abuse' is secondary.

So I agree that taken as a whole this legislation could potentially be the foundation for an exteremely powerful state, although I'm a little more sceptical about this coming about in the near future. And that does worry me, and influences my opposition to the ID card bill etc. But as I've said, this anti-social behaviour stuff seems to be tied to a gradual shift in New Labour policy which, as someone on the left of the political spectrum, I find worrying in itself. And I also think it is best critiqued and challenged in those terms, and that it might hopefully encourage discussion about where and when the reformist project of the labour party went so horribly wrong.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
15:26 / 02.09.06
Its the 'advice+punishment' attitude adopted in place of more reconisably reformist policies

So the question becomes why go ahead with this inneffective piece of legislation when other legislation which actually works could be implemented?

Assumption 1: THERE EVAL COMMINAZIS & THERE GOING TO MAKE A POLISE STATE... hack the system... V for Vendetta (the film)... Fishcakes.
Objection: If we assume that the political class of this country wants only power as an end in itself, then is a Police State really the best way to go about this? If Britain were to go from a relatively progressive nation to even a police state comparable with Northern Ireland during the troubles then the discontent, even from Daily Mail readers, would force the government to either go into full-on 1984 mode and risk a coup or scale back their repressive measures to hold on to what little power they can.

Assumption 2: They're establishing a 'Nanny State'
Objection: Who benefits? Obviously the people being targeted by this legislation don't. Do the Middle Classes? It's their taxes which will pay for the nannying and without tangible results they'll swing towards any political party who offers to reverse this trend, most likely the Conservatives.

Assumption 3: Blair believes that tackling social problems that cause anti-social behaviour would alienate his 'Daily Mail reading' voters.
Objection: In my opinion this overestimates how ideologically entrenched the right-wing segment of the middle class is and underestimates their own self-interest. Essentially, if it works to reduce the threat the middle classes feel from anti-social behaviour and costs them less in taxes than the alternative they'll support it. Whether it will cost more to create better schools, put more people into work etc. than to force people into parenting classes isn't something I can really say, but I would estimate both would involve high initial costs followed by either a much longer period in which the people the programmes help start 'paying out' by costing less from crime and paying more in taxes or no effect at all.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:11 / 02.09.06
OK, allow me use anecdotal evidence:

A friend of mine is mixed race and felt it safer for him to shave his beard last week. Why? He's not a terrorist, he's not even religious, although he's certainly political. He's a self-made, scientifically minded man, who works damn hard to earn good money doing a job that actually benefits people and arguably brings joy to many.

He can, therefore, be considered a black, middle-class, atheist So why did he shave his beard? Because apparently, to some stupid people he looks Arabic; and he doesn't want the hassle of being stopped by police, shouted at in the street (etc) because of imagined and completely unsubstantiated "thought crimes".

Indeed, this could be argued to be similar to kids having their hoodies confiscated because somehow it makes them appear as though they aren't having violent thoughts, or parents threatened with having their kids taken off them before they're even born.

Therefore, Phex, I take issue with your (albeit well intended) ridiculing of mine and others' position with text such as:

"THERE EVAL COMMINAZIS & THERE GOING TO MAKE A POLISE STATE... hack the system... V for Vendetta (the film)... Fishcakes."

It's like calling me a conspiracy nut because I have serious doubts about how three purposefully constructed three buildings can collapse so precisely at free-fall speed after two of them have been hit by aeroplanes.(i.e. 9/11) - a discussion for another thread, perhaps?


Objection: If we assume that the political class of this country wants only power as an end in itself, then is a Police State really the best way to go about this? If Britain were to go from a relatively progressive nation to even a police state comparable with Northern Ireland during the troubles then the discontent, even from Daily Mail readers, would force the government to either go into full-on 1984 mode and risk a coup or scale back their repressive measures to hold on to what little power they can.


Phex, from my own personal studies of history and politics (which may be biased, of course), the only rule about people in power that makes any sense to me is that people in power want to remain in power for as long as they can and get as much power as they can while they're at at. Anything that threatens their grip and control will be dealt with however they can get away with it, especialy during wartime...

At first, in any Police State, it's those at the bottom or on the front line who really feel the pinch. Those at the top think it will never affect them. Fools.


Assumption 2: They're establishing a 'Nanny State'
Objection: Who benefits? Obviously the people being targeted by this legislation don't. Do the Middle Classes? It's their taxes which will pay for the nannying and without tangible results they'll swing towards any political party who offers to reverse this trend, most likely the Conservatives.


We all pay taxes. And many of us (whatever demographic we belong to) try to pay the least we can, so we can spoil ourselves instead and let half-baked, band-aid measures deal with problems we don't want to face. e.g. unemployment, education, crime, health, poverty, religious differences, etc. But some of us don't mind paying more if we can see the real causes of these problems are being dealt with sympathetically and effectively; even some middle class people too.

However, especially if the events such as 9/11, 7/7, and situations such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq continue, we will see more and more deaths here and abroad, and in time some of us will probably be happy to walk around naked to prove we're good citizens.

Not me though.
 
 
nighthawk
18:42 / 02.09.06
A friend of mine is mixed race and felt it safer for him to shave his beard last week. Why? He's not a terrorist, he's not even religious, although he's certainly political. He's a self-made, scientifically minded man, who works damn hard to earn good money doing a job that actually benefits people and arguably brings joy to many.

He can, therefore, be considered a black, middle-class, atheist So why did he shave his beard? Because apparently, to some stupid people he looks Arabic; and he doesn't want the hassle of being stopped by police, shouted at in the street (etc) because of imagined and completely unsubstantiated "thought crimes".

Indeed, this could be argued to be similar to kids having their hoodies confiscated because somehow it makes them appear as though they aren't having violent thoughts, or parents threatened with having their kids taken off them before they're even born.


See, I think this sums up our differences. My main worry about this legislation, and the thinking behind it, isn't that good, respectable, 'innocent' middle class citizens have to go through the indignity of changing their personal appearance to avoid harassment. Of course I think its appalling and idiotic that your friend should have to do that, but what really concerns me is the attitude towards the disenfranchised encapsulated in this legislation. It doesn't matter whether these individuals are good respectable decent citizens or not - and it certainly doesn't matter if there's some potential for 'abuse' of the law, because it affects them directly anyway.

I mean in a sense the people this legislation is aimed at often won't be 'good citizens'. The social problems that Tony Blair talks about in that interview are very real, and have very real results, some of which are covered by what is now called 'anti-social behaviour'. As I said above, he's perfectly right to suggest that the child of a working class single mother is more likely to end up fucked up than your average middle class kid. It doesn't take a psychologist or a psychic to work that out. The question is how you deal with this, and as I've said, policies like this are indicative of a steady move to the right on the part of New Labour.




Phex, I tend to lean toward the third of your options. I want to go away and have a think about this, but it seems to me that for labour to adopt the policies I want here would be tantamount to an admission that the third way was failing those it was supposed to benefit, and that other initiatives such as PFIs and faith schools would be similarly tarnished (rightly in my opinion, but that's beside the point).
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:57 / 02.09.06
I'm confused. I thought I was showing how this type of legislation does affect people of all demographics, not just the working class, middle class, religeous, none religeous, white, black, etc. I thought I was trying to get you to open your umbrella a bit wider.

I need to have a break and re-read this thread.
 
 
nighthawk
19:18 / 02.09.06
Fair enough.

I thought that was what you were doing too though. This might be a bullshit generalisation, but it feels like liberals often critique this kind of legislation with examples of good honest citizens, right on activists, etc, who suffer because it is abused. I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the 'it affects everyone! and it can be abused and used against nice people!' approach, because by and large this type of legislation actually directly affects very specific groups, who may or may not be good citizens. And it does so without any need for 'abuse' of the law.

More abstract civil liberties/imminent police state approaches seem to me to smudge this and ignore my primary concerns. I realise that you're trying to show me how it might affect a broader range of people, but I don't think I've ever denied that, I just think its at best a secondary concern with reference to this legislation.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply